Exploring the right of domicile

The issue of housing scarcity has resulted in a situation in which people born or raised in SF — as well as many immigrants to SF — are excluded from living here. This exclusion has brought to my attention a potential and overlooked basic human right: that of domicile.

If the right of domicile is intrinsic, then in cases where prices or conditions exclude others from living in a city, current residents of that city cannot simply answer: “move somewhere else”. If the right of domicile is enforced, residents must generate conditions that allow for people inside to stay and for others outside to come in.

But how do we know if this right exists, or if it is just an unwarranted demand?

We can understand a potential intrinsic right via its standing vs. other accepted rights.

It was once socially and morally acceptable to harm others with racism, homophobia, and religious persecution. Slavery and feudalism were once acceptable for a great many people. Understanding the effect of these practices on people, and even that those affected are people at all, leads to a moral epiphany.

It is currently socially and morally acceptable to take up living and working space while not enabling the creation of new space, as if that is not denying others space. Understanding how space consumption without space creation deeply harms others may lead to a moral epiphany. This insight can also lead one to see that there is an obligation for the community to in some way provide those born or raised there, and those immigrating there, the conditions for a decent life, including an affordable home in which to live.

We can understand a potential intrinsic right by observing the social conditions when that right is denied or curtailed.

In the case of the right to a fair trial, we see that its denial results in unwarranted jail terms and great financial losses to individuals and families. The curtailing of the potential right of domicile creates measurable and grave losses to individuals across SF and cities that foster housing scarcity. It also leads to losses to society as certain classes of employees, artisans, and others either commute long distances to provide key services to the residents, or are blocked from social participation entirely.

We can understand a potential intrinsic right by examining the increase of human potential when its application is expanded.

When slaves are emancipated, immense economic, social, and cultural value is released. The value of emancipation is far more than the cost and burden of incorporating former slaves into the economy and society. After feudalism or communism, when property rights are granted and the rule of law is imposed, the economic value of industry expands immensely. Similarly, after the right of domicile is granted, the additional economic, social, and cultural value contributed by new residents and their descendants will increase the human potential of the city immensely.

Intrinsic rights are instinctual to human beings

When discussing rights, many refer to their “God-given” nature. For those who are religious, and for those who are not, this may refer to a deep, instinctual feeling that a right is something we are entitled to. Often, though, rights can be held by one class of people but not understood to be universal. In the case of lords in feudal times, many rights belonged to them and not to others.

Enlightenment Philosophers helped us understand the fundamental nature of certain rights, and illustrated the flaws of denying them to the people.

How are conflicts between rights resolved?

It can be said that the right to property conflicts with the right of domicile. In this case, a homeless person due to a mental condition, or a person excluded from housing due to excessive prices, incurs costs to society by staying in place, imposing on the property rights of current home owners.

However, fulfilling the right of domicile does not have to deny that same right to current homeowners and tenants in units they can afford. The obligation of residents to sustain the right of domicile for all can performed in a similar manner as the right to a fair trial: taxes imposed that support institutions and processes to maintain affordable housing.

What kind of right is this?

The right to live in a place with dignity is related to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While people must be responsible for the outcomes of their own actions, the environment in which they act does not need to contain unwarranted obstacles that impede the expression of their human potential.

Responsibilities of domiciles

The right to stay in place also brings with it practical responsibilities: in order to live and work in a community, citizens must contribute in meaningful ways to maintain that community.