A Natural Right to Housing (part 5 and final)

I started this series of posts defining "rights" into three categories: natural, social, and economic. I chose to focus on natural rights in particular. Then, I stepped back to look at what three of the big thinkers from western civilization, namely Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, had to say about natural rights. This final post will summarize my own thoughts on the natural right to housing (or shelter), which admittedly have evolved over time as I have considered the issue.

The first and most basic premise that seems to underlie all discussions of natural rights is the right to self-preservation so long as others' right to self-preservation is not harmed. This seems logical and reasonable to me. Suicide is viewed negatively in many societies not just because of its effect on those that remain behind, but because it is the most blatant form of violation of this premise. Of the items needed for self-preservation, none are more basic than food and shelter (probably clothing too but that's a different argument).

Saying that a right to food and shelter is fundamental to self-preservation is not the same as saying that any one has a right to "take" it from someone else or that any one should be "given" these things. Instead, it is saying that every one has a right to provide these things for themselves. This is inalienable, it cannot be done away with by majority rule, by law, or even by one's own consent.

Which brings me to a tough question regarding property - what happens if we have either titled all land to private ownership, restricted the use of public (common) land in such a way that it cannot be used to provide food and shelter, or restricted the use of private property such that it cannot provide subsistence shelter (e.g. building codes or zoning)? In such a setting, common in today's world, then we have alienated the natural right of humans to provide their own shelter and food. This then is where a right to housing becomes critical to today's society and must take on mitigating policies.

What kind of mitigating policies can offset the alienation of such a right? It is difficult to do because implied in this right to shelter is autonomy, self-reliance, and choice. Most attempts to create mitigating policies will be a compromise of these features at best.

One example of a mitigating policy is fair share housing. Under this type of policy, every community must provide a portion of housing that is set aside for those that otherwise cannot afford housing. Why is this fair? Because the community's restrictions are in large part what prevents humans from sheltering themselves. It seems to me that the less common land that is available or the more restrictive the use of private property, the more broad the policy should then be.

A second, and more controversial, public policy response is squatting or homesteading. In this case, private property that is not being "used" can be used by, or even titled to, an active resident. This is similar to some of the writers noted above referencing that it is "labor as applied to things" that create property and so if it is not being used then it is not really property at all. I have more difficulty with this type of policy given that simply not using property is not the same as saying it is not useful to the owner.

Am I in favor of a right for all people, regardless of their behavior, to be housed? As far as the housing part of that question, yes (i.e. human is human and carries with it a right to be sheltered). But, that does not also make all behavior acceptable (i.e. drunk is drunk and does not also carry with it a right to be housed). It seems to me these are two separate questions - what is the right to housing and what is acceptable behavior? There are many other examples that come up as well (e.g. mental illness, substance abuse, victims of crimes, etc.) and I would conclude in a similar way.

Should we simply create more shelter beds? No, I am not suggesting a right to congregate living. In fact, in a state of nature, it is exactly not congregated living. Rather, the right to housing must reflect humanity's desire for autonomy (hey, I am a Midwesterner, we are nothing if not libertarians at heart). Perhaps shelter beds are appropriate for some temporary and emergency settings, but not as a matter of long standing policy.

Other forms of supply (e.g. tax credits for housing, government insured mortgages, etc.) or demand (e.g. Section 8 vouchers) subsidies are also possible. These all hold the potential for ensuring the right to housing but each must be evaluated on its merits (i.e. efficiency, effectiveness at addressing the local housing issue that is causing some to be unsheltered, etc.).

In summary, yes, a natural right to housing exists. We have committed the most egregious of sins by both alienating this right and not offering sufficient mitigating policies to offset the violation. Continuing to violate this natural right harms our community and must be addressed as a question of economics and justice.