"Our right to property begins with our
bodily selves."

Marc,oh,I love you as a fellow American. This article is so great,so compact yet speaks volumes. Fantastic!

The only conflict I would have with you is that people do have a right to food,housing and the other necessities of life. By that I don't mean in general paid for by other people.

Some people are not capable of obtaining the necessities and they are the ones who need charitable help.

I don't include things like cell phones,child care and college degrees in the necessities of life.

Your article does bring forth the question of what part do laws and government policies play in some of the extreme economic difficulties people face today.

Posted by Helen:
"The only conflict I would have with you is that people do have a right to food,housing and the other necessities of life. By that I don't mean in general paid for by other people.

Some people are not capable of obtaining the necessities and they are the ones who need charitable help."

I am sure your motives are honorable, so I don't wish to seem too critical. But, most of the "rights" you suggest are provided for in our society. Much is told by the problem of obesity among the poor. However, we cannot be responsible for poor choices by many people. It is somehow assumed that they one had middle class values and descended, in truth, they have been part of a "welfare class" for so long they are almost feral. I have no problem with providing the "rights" you mention to the incapable, but I think they are benefice, not rights.

As many surveys have shown, a large number of the "homeless" would have been institutionalized a few years ago. Much of the homeless problem was created by the "least restrictive alternative" theory of mental health. This freed many people who would have been institutionalized. Perhaps that is as it should be.

The problem is not new. When I was a kid there were 4-5 men in my town who lived, squatted, in shacks built on other people's property. They were tolerated and not pursued by social workers. One I particularly recall dressed as a rag-a-muffin English Squire. He also stood under a railroad arch and "hooted" for the echo. He lived on the border of our property. I would visit him from time to time (who would allow a 9 year old to do that today). I am sure he was the object of some private charity from others. He spoke with a slight cockney accent, so I assume he chose to live where he did. I do wonder what would have happened to them in more urban environments. Another lived in a tumble down shack which I think he had simply adopted. He had a collection of cannonballs. (one got around when the only rule was to be home before dark) I suppose the ability to construct shacks indicated some skills acquired in earlier years. Since some of the materials must have been acquired free, it also suggests some charity.

""Government does not redefine rights as history runs its course"" ?? ?
........................................
Women's right to vote...redefined by government

Slave owners right to own slaves...redefined by government

Black folks right to vote, own property, marry outside their race, attend segregated colleges, be served at white only restaurants, sit in the front of the bus, and much more all redefined by government.

Gay folks right to marry who they want, redefined by many states governments

Be well all, and thank you again, for letting me coment here..Sammy

Sammy,

Except for the slavery issue, I think you adopt a rather broad view of human rights. For instance, the right to vote is not a "human right" it is a right for subjects of a democratic government.