> Yes. When a good or service is always available to anyone who can pay the price, all one needs to do is find the money and one can get it.
This sounds nice but breaks down because shelter is a human need, it is not a new iPhone.
I am aware that the solution to housing crises is build build build, and that the more profit is in developing housing the more there is being built, but pretending a place to live is like any other common good is cold and wrong.
> pretending a place to live is like any other common good is cold and wrong.
Does it help if you pretend that it's not? Do you get more investments into housing, and in the end, more houses, if you consider housing different from other markets?
I am not pretending anything, I am merely pointing out that shelter, like food an water, is a basic human right (although judging by HNs donwvotes, they'd be fine with starving and dehydrating people as long as someone is making a massive profit).
I think many here disagree with you about it being a human right, because unlike the earlier human rights, it's not "leave people be" at its core, it's "you have to do X for people". If anything, it's a human entitlement, but that doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.
And then there's the next part: how good and how much? What's the housing that everyone supposedly has a right to? 100sqft? 500? 1000? And of what quality, and where? Do they get to choose the location?
> If anything, it's a human entitlement, but that doesn't have the same ring to it, I suppose.
This is nonsense you just made up. Positive and negative rights are both rights, as is common understood in English but especially as defined within political science and philosophy. [1]
This sounds nice but breaks down because shelter is a human need, it is not a new iPhone.
I am aware that the solution to housing crises is build build build, and that the more profit is in developing housing the more there is being built, but pretending a place to live is like any other common good is cold and wrong.