Let's not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, it's been common throughout history that they've been dismantled by the people.

You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workers' rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.

Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.

[–] Gerula@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Corect, but if the state is or isn't serving those within, is a decision to be taken by the same individuals. Up to now those who are considering this are a small subset of the citizens which agrregate in underground forums and not actively trying to change the society and have a positive impact.

Housing is necessary for life but it was never a right in that society. Also necessary for life are water, clothing, food, medical assistance, etc. None of them are rights of the people within that society. It may not correct but it is what it is.