Can a Right be Wrong?

Everyone wants to be right. I haven't met many people who pride themselves upon their ability to be perpetually wrong about everything (apologies to Socrates, whom I never met).  Human nature revels in its ability to find correctness and truth in matters that are important. Being "right" in this context implies a verb, adjective, or adverb... actively seeking a verifiably correct solution to a question, dilemma, or curiosity.

But there is another kind of right. This one is a noun and we, as Americans, hold these rights dear to our hearts because they distinguish us from other people who might not have the same ones as we do. This type of right is defined as, "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral (dictionary.com)." This version of the word opens a whole new conversation as to what people are entitled to have under the auspices of being an American. We just celebrated our national Independence Day and it inspired me to think about some of the rights we cling to and hold as paramount. The rights that transcend political partisanship and religious or philosophical discussion. I'm referring to the basic rights of any person in any state in any country in any continent.

On a basic level, I argue we have the right to food, shelter, and safety. There are more things we could quibble about, but I'm keeping this at a generic level and not delving into specific politics or other systemic structures. I believe all people, everywhere, are entitled to these three things and there is nothing that should ban or cause them to forfeit these rights. Hopefully, these do not seem too sensational or illogical and we can agree these (in some form) rights to be universal.

But how do we apply these rights to the homeless? I don't think there would be too much opposition when discussing food or safety. These aren't absurd concepts snatched from the cosmos. Food and personal safety are instrumental to imminent and long-term survival. If a person is unable to eat or is subject to uninhibited physical violence, then death is an outcome that is inevitable. Where the discussion gets mired down and involved, is when the idea that housing, as a basic right, is proposed. It makes sense in our heads, but does that mean it translates to reality?

Does every person on this planet have a right to housing? Are all Americans entitled to have place to shelter them from the elements? Does every person in Montana automatically deserve a place to live? Should each individual in Kalispell be included in this conversation? How would it even work and what measures would have to be taken?

The question revolves around the principle that people deserve housing because it is earned or because it is innate. And if housing is only a result of merit, then what qualifies and what disqualifies a person? Who gets to make that decision?  A lack of housing becomes a punishment. However, if food was ever withheld from a person for punitive reasons, then there would be an outcry of injustice. Now imagine if it was a family of 5 who was denied food. If housing is a right, then who is held accountable for the large number of unhoused people in this country?

If not, then what is an acceptable alternative?