Our rights exist in every individual and come at no one else's expense

Ok well lets start out with the word inalienable, and what it means to have inalienable rights. You say that "Inalienable means cannot be transferred nor surrendered except by the person who possesses them." The problem with that is inalienable rights can't even be surrendered by the person who posses them. I don't even have to argue that one, just look up the word inalienable in the dictionary. Or you can just read below where I kindly copied it for you: Inalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor Thats from Merriam Webster. Your gonna say that has nothing to do with your point, and maybe it doesn't, but I think we should start out with true things and then work from there. Now comes the question as to whether or not housing is right. If you say that housing isnt a right, I think it brings all sorts of other things into question which we havent considered. I want to give you an example. Lets say there is a racist who happens to own apartment buildings somewhere. I am a black man who wants to live in those apartments buildings, and the landlord doesn't want to house me because I am black. Apparently, you would have no problem with the landlord saying no, you cant live here, or at least according to your definition of liberty. "If my desire for something imposed a legal obligation on other people, they would have no choice in their lives, and would have no liberty and no right to their property." The black man has a desire for the apartment. The Landlord doesnt want to give it to him because he is black. In the real world there is a legal obligation imposed on the Landlord to house the tenant. But of course that leaves him with no choice, and the Landlord now has no liberty and no property. So much for that definition of liberty. And even if you try to argue that obviously the landlord doesn't deserve to have the right to not house a black tennant, who is supposed to decide that? And if thats the case, who is supposed to decide which people have rights and which people don't? But now on to the real issue of housing. Your saying that if housing was a right, and I saw a homeless person, I would have some legal obligation to put him up in my house. A forced quartering of homeless people, so to speak. I think thats taking this issue and just coming up with some random far-fetched system that would never happen in the real world. You say: "I have the right to earn my food, clothes, and house myself, and no one can forcibly stop me or take those things from me." Thats great. And you have obviously done that, as you have purchased a computer, and have some sort of internet access, obviously have had some good education, and have housed yourself so you'd have a place to put that computer. But what about the people who can't do that? What happens to them? What happens to the 2,660 children who are born into poverty everyday (http://heartsandminds.org...)? Do we say to them "Oh tough luck on being born into poverty. Have fun trying to find food clothes and a house."? I'd like to think that we live in a society where we believe that no one should be hungry and no one should have no clothes and no one should be homeless. Thats what a right to housing is all about. Its a social right. It s a right that we hope can be provided to everyone. We hope all these rights can eventually be provided to everyone. That hope is why people go down and volunteer at a shelter, or go out through the many great organizations that feed the homeless, or donate their old clothing to the goodwill or the salvation army. We hope as a society that these problems can be fixed. So what would be wrong with providing housing for everyone? What is your problem with caring for the underprivileged in our society? I know that you have the right to earn your money to buy food clothes and housing, but some people for various reasons cant do that. You have done well for yourself, but some people haven't. Are we supposed to just leave them out there alone by themselves? God I hope not. I have an aunt who has bipolar disorder type 1. Because of that, her ability to hold down a steady job has been greatly affected, to the point where she's had about 12 jobs in 4 or so years. Right now she is on disability pay from the government, which helps her pay for food clothes and housing. I find that really comforting. I know my parents send her money every month, and so do my grandparents, and I have started too. But its nice to know that people who don't have family can at least rely on something to help them out. The government helps provide for her housing, cause in the end shouldn't she have housing even if she is disabled? If your answer to that question is yes, then you believe there is some kind of right to housing.