Yes, It is in Spain:

Article 47 of Spanish Constitution:

All Spaniards are entitled to enjoy decent and adequate housing. The public authorities shall promote the necessary conditions and shall establish appropriate standards in order to make this right effective, regulating land use in accordance with the general interest in order to prevent speculation.

No, it's not.

It does not mean you have the right to live in a flat en La Castellana for whatever you want pay. It means the State has to implement policies to help people access housing.

Also, article 33 give citizens the right to private property. You cannot come squat in my house because article 33 should prevent it, even when article 47 exists.

Yep, good point.

Let's avoid considering outliers to maintain a balanced discussion.

While I don't believe anyone has the right to live in Castellana or the Royal Palace, it also wouldn't be fair to require someone to move to the desert to find a home.

Having a right to housing is not the same as having the right to "living where you want".

If they actually had that right then a Spaniard would have the right to live in the king's and politicians' houses which is obviously not a right.

Having a free shelter is fundamental to a person's freedom, arguing otherwise is immoral.

And who has to build that shelter, and what about their freedom?

No one has to build that shelter, no one should be coerced to that.

So nobody is forced to build shelter, but if someone does build one for themselves, it can be taken?

Just trying to understand how this right to shelter works.

It's crucial to understand that if we let a person that build a shelter keep it for eternity then that person can build many shelters such that there will be no land left for other people to build their shelters on.

Indeed.

This is why in a society free from theft, one must build or make something for exchange to get things you want.

I don't see why buying two plots and building two houses entitles someone else to one of them.

I don't agree with the notion of buying a plot. No one should ever have to pay for an empty plot of land.

OK, so you dont buy the plot and just build two houses on them. How does that change your logic.

How do you deal with a situation where some people don't have any land anymore to put their houses there?

They make something they can trade, or go somewhere where there is land.

How they can make something they can trade, if they have no land on which they can make it? Where can they go, if private property exists in most of the world?

You make things that don't need land, like 99% of humans on the planet. AKA get a job.

There's no free land, but there is cheap land, especially in deserts. Simply owning land might not be as nice as you imagine

> And who has to build that shelter

Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter

https://www.habitat.org/carter-work-project

> what about their freedom?

I think they made good use of it.

We in the USA are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We could solve homelessness and hunger tomorrow.

I'm not saying that people should lose their property to squatters, that's not the solution. I'm saying that we could build ~300,000 new homes and give them to people for free and it would barely register on the national budget.

Yes, if you assume people won't destroy the free houses, I totally agree.

I think it is remarkable that people argue for theft from others instead of donating their time, effort, or money to building those houses.

The underlying hypocrisy is that most people argue that others should pay, but won't act individually on their own beliefs

Then everyone will go sleep in the street, in order to get a free house.

No, they won’t.

Would you sleep in a tent for a year to get a million dollars? I already have a house and would still do it.

Hell, I would do it for 10% of that. No job and drinking and camping for a year sounds like an epic vacation.

Before you doubt me, I was certifiably homeless in San Francisco for 3 months it was a blast. Slept on couches everyday, worked cash jobs, and partied every night.

You can't have a freedom that's conditional on somebody else's forced labour.

It's not conditional of somebody else's forced labor, why do you think that?

Everyone is entitled to free shelter, but nobody is required to build them? Where do you think the free shelter is going to come from? Because, looking around, I don't see very many free shelters, so they're going to have to come from somewhere.

And if your answer is to take all the existing houses and give them, one to each family that needs a place to stay, that's great in the short term. In the long term, though, who's going to build a new one when it will just be taken from them? And if nobody builds new ones, where are new ones going to come from, as the population continues to grow?

At worst everyone should have an access to piece of land where they can build a shelter for themselves, or live in a yurt or an RV if they don't want to build the typical housing.

I actually lived in a country where everyone had a right for free shelter. It was called the USSR.

The quality and quantity of said shelter was beyond abysmal. Several families sharing a single apartment, a family per room, was the norm.

If anyone attempted to squatter anywhere, they would very quickly find themselves free sheltered in Gulag. If they were to argue for their rights against oppression and exploitation, like you do, they would be very quickly free sheltered in a mad house and injected with generous doses of haloperidol.

Yeah, on the other hand you had Anarchist Catalonia or currently Zapatistas. In USA you had MK Ultra, where government experimented on people through for example drugging them and you have homelessness too. Moreover people who fought for liberation were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

What is ironic is that I’ve people living like that in the US too. I once lived in a building with a lot of immigrants from different parts of the world. I once got a glance in a living room walking down the hall: two bunks in the living room dozens of people inside. Another apartment was a studio apartment shared by two guys whose main source of income seemed to be charging lime scooters in the apartment. They’d be hauling scooters in and out all day.

So maybe things wouldn’t be that different at all for the poorest of this country but they’d not have the boot of monthly rent pinned on their neck.

Good news - the US is interested in Part B, jail for squatting (including outdoors in a public place) but not Part A, because communism is terrible.

Why it's not immoral? can you elaborate?

So if you buy a fixer upper, one that would be unfit for renting to people. You can't spend your weekends and holidays working on it for a few months to get it into better condition without being called immoral? Sorry that my lack of funds and desire to better myself offends you, but that's a crazy take.

Because our society believes in property rights. Individuals can have any reason they want to own property and do with it what it pleases them.

Property rights are human rights.

Squatters doesn't make purposefully leaving houses vavent any less immoral.

Get rid of the pathetic scarcity mindset.

Just build more houses and then nobody will care.