I do support freedom from meddling and harassment. I absolutely don't think that mentally ill people should be rounded up and forcibly institutionalized.
At the same time, when you say "this has nothing to do with what people deserve or capitalism; it has to do with the choices that people make and the consequences that stem from them", you forget that 1. no one chooses to be mentally ill or addicted to substances (not to even speak of intellectual or physical disabilities); 2. people don't make choices in a vacuum and don't bear the consequences of these choices in a vacuum.
As an example, a person who has affluent parents and can rely on their support is not in the same situation as the child of a low-income single mother. Various bad choices have much more painful consequences for people who are poor. E.g. an affluent woman who uses hard drugs is extremely unlikely to become a street prostitute in order to finance her habit.
You say: "The UN is welcome to its lofty opinions but no one has a right to housing, clothing, and all the rest at the expense of third parties. Those are things that fall to the individual to obtain." This is your opinion, not an objective rule. And it is not true that individuals simply "obtain" all these things thanks to hard work - people can e.g. inherit houses or apartments. You also forget about the so-called "working poor" and about people who are unable to work.
As to things obtained "at the expense of third parties", you forget that many people are actually exploiting others - and not merely in order to satisfy their most basic needs, but in order to be rich or to become even richer.
I do support freedom from meddling and harassment. I absolutely don't think that mentally ill people should be rounded up and forcibly institutionalized.
At the same time, when you say "this has nothing to do with what people deserve or capitalism; it has to do with the choices that people make and the consequences that stem from them", you forget that 1. no one chooses to be mentally ill or addicted to substances (not to even speak of intellectual or physical disabilities); 2. people don't make choices in a vacuum and don't bear the consequences of these choices in a vacuum.
As an example, a person who has affluent parents and can rely on their support is not in the same situation as the child of a low-income single mother. Various bad choices have much more painful consequences for people who are poor. E.g. an affluent woman who uses hard drugs is extremely unlikely to become a street prostitute in order to finance her habit.
You say: "The UN is welcome to its lofty opinions but no one has a right to housing, clothing, and all the rest at the expense of third parties. Those are things that fall to the individual to obtain." This is your opinion, not an objective rule. And it is not true that individuals simply "obtain" all these things thanks to hard work - people can e.g. inherit houses or apartments. You also forget about the so-called "working poor" and about people who are unable to work.
As to things obtained "at the expense of third parties", you forget that many people are actually exploiting others - and not merely in order to satisfy their most basic needs, but in order to be rich or to become even richer.