Do you consider poverty a human rights issue?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

[muliebrity]

Some individuals assume that issues, such as poverty and human rights violations, can be solved separately from one another. However, what many fail to realize is that poverty and the denial of human rights are problems that are interdependent issues. In other words, where there is poverty, there are human rights violations and vice-versa.

Poverty is more than just individuals lacking in quality employment and material goods; it also incorporates social and physical goods. Social and physical goods are characterized by a right to cultural identity, right to equality, freedom to live with respect and dignity, freedom from violence and degrading treatment, freedom of political opinion, education, personal security and many other basic human rights.

According to Amnesty USA, Gross economic and social inequality is an enduring reality in countries of all political ideologies, and all levels of development. In the midst of plenty, many are still unable to access even minimum levels of food, water, education, healthcare and housing. This is not only the result of a lack of resources, but also unwillingness, negligence and discrimination by governments and others. Many groups are specifically targeted because of who they are; those on the margins of society are often overlooked altogether.

[jennifer_bloom]

I view poverty as a charity issue and not as a civil rights issue because society will never be able to completely eliminate it and income should be built around merit and skill and benefit to society and not on pathos or pity - on the other hand helping people is good but should not be done in equal rivalry to those who are intelligent and independent and hard working and do not need help

[SuperManiac]

For the government to try solve poverty is among the most tempting ways to violate human rights as I see it because the state can only do such things by forcing people to do things against their will.

If I use an analogy, take people who are sex-deprived, like these incel types. Some might have very unfortunate reasons for why they are in this state, like mental/physical disabilities, grave misfortune, etc. I'm sure some have reasons worthy of sympathy as poor and unfortunate souls, some might not as people who just lack effort and accountability.

Yet if we tried to use the government to solve this issue, the only way I see to do it is to force certain people to have sex with other people against their will. It would be "legally-sanctioned rape". And anything that requires forcefully imposing costs on one group of individuals to benefit the other is no "human right" as I see it.

Admittedly this is an extreme analogy and it's not meant to suggest that it's directly equivalent to government-imposed attempts to relieve poverty. But I don't see underlying principle as so different. I'm not opposed to all such attempts in the context of poverty, but I would at least oppose using terms like "human rights" in these contexts.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

It's not just "extreme" it's incomplete; you can pay someone to have sex with them. But the problem with your analogy is that the wealth people accumulate isn't dependent entirely on their own merits, it's due in part to the collective so it wouldn't be a violation of their rights for the collective to take some of that income back.

[SuperManiac]

There are those incel types even in places with legalized prostitution. Perhaps some might even lack the financial means. :-D I find the mixed attitudes towards those to be so different from critiques of panhandlers, for example, where many believe they choose to beg when homeless shelters and jobs are available for them.

>> [...] is that the wealth people accumulate isn't dependent entirely on their own merits [...]

Merit is too difficult to define to me in an all-inclusive way, and there's some sense of bias from the eye of the beholder. It's like is a Renaissance painting truly worth tens of millions of dollars when a modern composition of similar skill only commands thousands? The value is based on whatever people assign to it. It can't be measured in a perfectly objective way divorced of such bias.

In a similar sense, if a millionaire passes his wealth onto his children, there's a bias there but he's voluntarily transferring his property to them. In his eyes, they have that value to him.

What we can somewhat measure is whether force was involved in the transition. If someone was forced to transfer their goods/services at the threat of force (ex: imprisonment or death if resisted), that's a totally different type of transaction from a voluntary one between both parties.

[SuperManiac]

[...] I find the mixed attitudes towards those to [NOT] be so different from critiques of panhandlers [...]

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

What we can safely say is that without a collective we couldn't have the standard of living we do now. Yes there is a threat of force on behalf of the government when it comes to taxation vs a voluntary transaction but in a voluntary transaction the other party isn't responsible for protecting you from violence; the government is so we grant the state powers that we don't grant to individuals rendering the threat of force argument moot.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

It's like asking what gives the government the right to put a price cap on how much you can sell your invention? Because the government enforces your patent on it and without that anyone could rip it off.

[SuperManiac]

Collectives can exist independent of the state. The difference as I see it between public and private is basically legally-sanctioned. The state's ultimate power comes from being able to use force. Microsoft can and does dominate the desktop operating system market, but they can't force people to buy Windows at gunpoint. And someone in the private sector can voluntarily offer charity to the poor, but they're not forced to do it at gunpoint.

But I can't see how any sort of system that, even at a conceptual level (excluding the flaws of execution) involves forcefully imposing costs on one group of people at the benefit of the other, whether that's slavery or welfare, can be considered to exist in order to enforce "human rights".

[SuperManiac]

[...] The difference as I see it between public and private is basically legally-sanctioned [FORCE, sorry] [...]

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Without the power of the state the collectives couldn't form the infrastructure that our society relies on. Where your analogy falls apart is where we grant the government powers that we wouldn't grant to individuals because it's necessary for our society to function. No, Microsoft can't force me to buy a computer at gunpoint but if I steal a computer from them they can't abduct me and hold me against my will for it but the government can imprison me for stealing. Similarly, the private sector can't forcefully make people give money to the poor but the government can for the well being of society.

[SuperManiac]

>> It's like asking what gives the government the right to put a price cap on how much you can sell your invention? Because the government enforces your patent on it and without that anyone could rip it off.

Intellectual property is definitely a complex subject since it's so easy to steal. But fundamentally the purpose of a patent is to prevent a form of theft or, more generalized, a violation of your property. What distinguishes at the generalized principle from other types of property protection?

Is it right for the government to put a price cap on how much you charge customers (which could be employers depending on the case) for your job? Cause they offer similar types of protection of your property.

At what point does it become abusive for the sole legally-sanctioned body to use force to dictate terms and conditions? And also, perhaps, at what point would we cease to reach a near-unanimous agreement as to where the boundaries should be drawn? This second question might also be of importance, since if a good number of people, especially very resourceful ones, perceive the government to be abusive, then they possess means to corrupt the entire system and exploit every single possible loophole or even begin outright breaking laws or packing up and leaving to a place they find more agreeable.

[SuperManiac]

To me, it's basically, "We will only protect you from theft only if you abide by these terms and conditions", and I would very quickly start to find that abusive when the group setting these terms are the sole entity capable of providing such protection from theft, and already paid to do so by all taxpayers for that protection.

The government ultimately protects our property there's a fairly clear line to me that's crossed when we have policies that very blatantly boil down to, "We will only protect you from murder/rape/theft/vandalism/slavery IF you do these things." Of course, it can get very nuanced and debatable in some cases, but not so much in others as I see it.

[SuperManiac]

Admittedly I'm a bit guilty of generalizing and oversimplifying lots of these issues. But fundamentally I see it as a question of forceful vs. voluntary exchanges, and the ultimate question (for which I lack a perfect answer) being the degree of force necessary to build and sustain society.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Well I think it would be abusive to refuse to protect someone from theft but it would also be abusive to refuse to protect people from poverty.

[SuperManiac]

The difficulty I think that distinguishes the two is that at least conceptually, the former type of protection is afforded to everyone. The latter type could be argued as a form of "legally-sanctioned theft", as it requires depriving someone of their property in order to benefit another.

Well, I suppose we could somewhat work our way towards an appeal to this potentially benefitting all citizens since even a millionaire could go from riches to rags if he gambles away all his/her wealth on business ventures that fail or just spend everything like a madman. I am not necessarily opposed to such arguments.

Where I'm still reluctant to call this a "human right" is because it still requires someone producing food to feed another, e. g. Take a simplified scenario involving a group of hungry soldiers arriving in a small village. If avoiding hunger is a "human right", then it might suggest to me that they are justified in threatening the people in the village and forcing them to provide food.

The ultimate point of a "human right" as I see it is protection from force, not necessarily from hunger, or poverty, or cold, or heat, or dehydration, or anything of this sort.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

The protection from poverty and safety would be afforded to everyone and both have to be payed for by tax dollars.

[SuperManiac]

I'm not opposed to government efforts to relieve poverty necessarily. It's mostly the language of "human rights". I don't like to muddy them by assuming people have a right to things that require other people to provide (positive rights, and specifically a certain type of subset). Otherwise, I think it gets murky with respect to what can and can't be declared a right.

For example, a warlord could claim it is his "right" to take women and slaves in a conquered land in exchange for protecting them. And he probably certainly get away with that due to his might.

But what can make that a violation of "human rights" if we see it as such? And I see it as about force. At least it gets very muddy as I see it when we try to extend the notion of "human rights" to things that others must provide for us.

In general, I think it distracts from the underlying ethics. To declare something a right as I see it is a declaration of the justification of force to protect it. If it's something like liberty, then no one else has to provide our own liberty, they merely have to avoid taking it away. If it's something like wealth or food, then someone else has to be forced to provide it. And I'm not necessarily opposed to doing that, but I'm a bit worried that calling such things a "human right" will take away all reluctance to utilize force in these contexts.

[SuperManiac]

If I go back to the analogy of hungry soldiers arriving in the village, then perhaps, for survival, they find the lack of hospitality requires force for them to survive. I can agree with "necessary evils" in some contexts, including poverty. But to call something like food a "human right" could make the metaphorical soldiers not even reluctant about drawing their weapons to demand food. At that point it is their "human right", and thus they might feel completely free to use might. I would at least like to preserve the notion that this is some form of wrong-doing, even if it is absolutely necessary.

[Anonymous]

Nope, not whatsoever. Injustice is a human rights issue and thus poverty stemming from injustice is a human rights issue but poverty in and of itself is not.

It has been a saying for a long time that "whoever does not work, let him not eat." While I'm aware there are plenty of people in poverty who find it difficult to get a job, that does not change that many who are in "poverty" (most especially in civilized countries) are in the situation they're in due to their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. They are not owed a living, they have a responsibility to make one for themselves.

I know this is an unpopular opinion and many will consider me heartless for it but I genuinely believe that anyone can get a job and make a living for themselves if they work hard enough at it. And, since I don't believe that anyone is owed a certain amount of pay or a certain quality in the jobs they get, if they get a job they don't like, they need to suck it up and keep working hard despite any personal feelings regarding it.

[CoffeeWC]

I don't think so. It''s an issue with reality. There is no realistic way to get rid of poverty. The only way to get rid of poverty would be to create a utopia, which is impossible to create.

[mattdzz]

I think rights are a social construct, i. e. whatever society collectively decides are a right, are a right. In this way I am of a different mind from those of John Locke, and other enlightenment thinkers, who believe we have "natural rights." Perhaps it would be ideal to have dignity as a human being, but this isn't something society must provide, as I'm somewhat of a social darwinist at heart.
Also, the term poverty is so often conflated with abject poverty, i. e. without the basic necessities for survival, as opposed to only possessing one flat screen TV. Ceteris Paribus, people have a right to have the things that they can fairly appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Yes. No one deserves to live in poverty. I believe everyone deserves the to have necessities in life, and to live a financially comfortable life. Some people live in dire poverty because of reasons beyond their control. Everyone's circumstances are different, but I don't believe anyone wants to live that way. And not everyone has the capability of changing their life around. Life is not always what you make it. Not everyone can make it better

I don't give to charities. Not because I'm selfish or greedy, but because those at the very top of the charities are. I don't trust any charity. But I do my best to help those within my own community... people who are less fortunate than me.

[trollonamission]

I wouldn't exactly call it a human rights issue. Poverty is a social status, but people living in poverty still legally have the same rights as everyone else -- at least, in the United States.

It's certainly a grave issue of concern, but no rights are being violated as a directly due to poverty.

It's just an issue. That's all it is.

[VikingBlood86]

No. Especially in the western world. Poverty is your prize for a plethora of bad choices. I don't feel bad for you, I won't be guilted into giving up what i worked for to you. I don't care. Call me a cold hearted asshole of you like, I'm fine with it.

I should point out that all of the times I used 'you' in the explanation were not directed at you. I used it in the proverbial sense.

[andreasderjuengere]

The "Human Rights" are a fictional invention of a certain group of authors, having specific interests in mind.
They are (in my eyes ): usually confused with human VALUES; and:
The only human - natural - right is the right to try to survive.
Which of course does not mean that everyone should do what he/she wants: that would be capitalism.

[Celtero]

Glad someone else thinks like this...

Human rights are but a construct. Anyone can take away our freedoms if they have the power to and there isn't always something to stop them from doing so.

[HOAAH]

I think that poverty can be slightly a "school" problem or in other words, we should teach kids numerous times (like ages 12-22) about how to handle money (financial education). I know that if kids were responsible and mature about money decisions, then they can grow up to be mature adults. Why not teach kids in elementary about it as well? Seriously, what can it hurt? if not more than help.

[nerms123]

Well it can be other issues like public health. For example homeless people have recently caused disease epidemics in cities. So it’s not necessarily a human rights issue but health care is a right in some countries and those issues can overlap so it’s hard to say yes or no. I think it would be great if everyone had a right to not be poor but I don’t know if it’s actually possible on a large scale.

[oddwaffle]

Yes and no. It's not really be definition but it does greatly help basic human rights.

I view basic human rights as something you would really fail to develop as a human being without. Clean water, adequate food, shelter, medicine, and communication.

Poverty reduces those basic necessities.

[RegularTK421]

No I do not. The problem with poverty is that most of the time it is self induced by the person who is poor. Alcoholism, drug addiction, laziness, etc are personal problems, and the state/taxpayers have no responsibility to finance or reward these unproductive behaviors.

[tartaarsaus]

It is a human rights issue when the government deprives poor people from basic necessities (for which they have the right), such as education, a place to stay, nutrition.

Say the government knows there are poor people, and they actively kill off public education/financing those in dire need and kill off food stamps (or alternatives), then I would definitely say they are violating basic rights of their citizens.

[Celtero]

No. There's already many resources for people to get out of poverty if they wanted to try, but they just want to keep on doing the same old things that keep em there. Resources are better spent elsewhere.

[blk_paradox]

Yes but no it's an issue but it's not necessarily human right more along the lines of financial issues and opportunities. All across the country there are ghost towns cause the former money making jobs are gone and they never get replaced. Then people move to larger areas and don't have skill sets and jobs don't want to train them...

[ZeatZed]

It very much is a human rights issue... it’s derived in part from the wealth inequality within our country as well as the lack of effort put into solving this issue.

[Izumiblu]

No, to vague of a term with varying definitions and no identified action of cause.

[DWornock]

Of course not. The poor will alway be with us. It is impossible to eliminate. And, even if you could, in a dozen generations, their numbers would increase until the system breaks down and tens of millions would starve.

[LazloHollyfeld]

Nope. It stems from a lack of focus and attention. Only a human rights issue if extenuating circumstances apply, like gross retardation.

[Ellie-V]

For the most part yes, as I believe we shouldn’t live in a system where you are required to pay heaps of money for safe, clean housing.

[VIVANT]

Great question!

I’m off to sleep just wanted to give props - I love this question. I’ll write more tomorrow. 😌

Good night 🌟

And YES. I do.

[name_is_eric]

Not at all. Someone always has to lose; not everyone can be a winner. Poor people make this an issue, poor people are the issue.

If people in poverty would perish, this would not be an issue. Food for thought.

[sunchips]

Ok, Hitler.

[GreatnessBack]

Here's my thing, it is a problem, but there is no solution.
Every solution has had one major problem, people.
I can't even begin to list the issues.

[Gronflax]

No, human rights are an optional pact that countries volunteer to uphold.

Poverty is a species problem

[genericname85]

some of it sure is. like the poverty in afrika and parts of asia that is caused by exploitation by the western countries.

[esotericstory]

No, you can give people as much rights as you want, poverty can still exist. Historically some people did vows of poverty to live their life like that until death.

[loveslongnails]

Wow... "poverty is a choice", said someone to this question. Good Lord, human stupidity IS indeed infinite. Einstein was soooo right.

[codycccccccccc]

No but like 99% of the other things wrong on earth I have a plan 100% guaranteed to fix or greatly reduced it

[luv2licku4evr]

No I consider it to be an an issue dealing only and exclusively with tigers , lions. And small mutated aardvark. Fudge man didn't you read that nonsense before posting it? Seriously bro...

[YHL6965]

No, poverty is too broad. However, things like access to food, water or healthcare are in my opinion.

[Liam_Hayden]

Only if the poverty is the result of coercion or systemic oppression.

[OfDeath]

It pretty much is because we are forced to live by a system of money

[pyro9714207920]

Yes our taxes should cover things like feeding housing medical and educational needs before anything else

[Anonymous]

Why would that be a human rights issue , ur life is what u make it

[denisk94]

Poverty its not the issue.
The issue should be the standard of poverty.

[roflgun]

I consider it a CHOICE.

[GreatnessBack]

Is that a Kanye joke?

[roflgun]

No, just unfiltered truth delivered straight to your doorstep!

[Soteris]

No. Its a social issue.

[MarciOwens]

No, but I'd love to see it eliminated.

[Agape93]

No. It’s a lack of money issue.

[Massageman]

No, it's not a human rights issue.

[NerdInDenial]

It's a complex issue and it cannot be fixed.

[Chadnelson1973]

Yes it is a human rights issue

[blondfrog]

No question about it, yes it is.

[burningbull58]

It causes revenue distribition unfairly

[AndrewHeavey]

No people are born this way

[ecfresh]

Nope

[clonesclone]

I don't believe in human rights.

[Holy_Ghost_Fire]

Yes. It is a big issue facing mankind.

[Anonymous]

get rid of money and no one will be poor

[1828avaava1828]

I don't know hmm

[Waffles731]

Definitely

[mermaidia_lol]

Nope.

[BronzedAdonis]

No..

[Anonymous]

Yes in some ways