2008] The Minimum Core of Economic and Social Rights 127 example, justifies this ri ght on the basis of the im portance of the right to shelter, which flows from a right to be protected from exposure to the elements, which in turn finds its basis in one’s ability to survive. 72 Jeremy Waldron, on the other hand, emphasizes the justification of freedom, which underlies the right to acce ss a place for activities li ke sleeping, excreting, and washing, when they are prohibited in public places and by the organization of private property.73 I use these examples to demonstrate not only the chain of justificatory reasoning that accompan ies rights arguments, but also t he possibility of conflicting justifi cations. Yet the re semblance between justificatory reasoning a nd the Essence Approach is a strained one, because the implication of a “min imum” core can narrow th e range of foundations, rather than enlarge them. And it is prec isely this minimalism that upsets the foundational support, so that the base poin t of the right is also its narrowest. This puts into question the ability of the core to accommodate contrasting normative foundations. In the followi ng Section, I compare two rival “essences” within the suggested normat ive hierarchy of economic and social rights, which mirror the steps taken by defenders of the right to have access to housing. The first sets out t he minimum requirements for survival, relying on the “basic needs” of rights-holders as a sufficiently determinable standard for the minimum core. The second elaborat es the minimum requirements for human flourishing, drawing from philosophical accounts of f oundational values for ascertaining the super-valued core of rights . As we will see, such accounts lead in very different directions, thwarting efforts at giving a certain, determinate meaning to th e normative core. Although only two theories are suggested here, it follows that the “cor e” of the right, de fined according to other political theories—f rom liberalism to communi tarianism to market socialism74—proliferates in content and scope. 72. BILCHITZ, supra note 9, at 187. Bilchitz has written extensively about the advantages of adopting the minimum core for South Africa’s Constitution. 73. Jeremy Waldron, Homelessness and the Issue of Freedom , 39 UCLA L. R EV. 295 (1991). However, note that Waldron was not writing about the minimum core specifically. 74. Aside from the two focused upon here, one can m ention the different em phasis and content (and som etime hostility) reserved for a m inimum degree of social and econom ic protection and/or entitlement in di fferent theories of redistribution, for exam ple, liberal egalitarianism in J OHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971); and Frank I. Michelm an, In Pursuit of Con stitutional Welfare Rights: One View of Ra wls’ Theory of Ju stice, 121 U. PA. L. REV. 962 (1973). On a social citizenship conception held before and during the New De al, see C ASS R. SUNSTEIN, A SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS: FDR’S UNFINISHED REVOLUTION AND WHY WE NEED IT MORE THAN EVER 62 (2004) [hereinafter SUNSTEIN, A SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS]; and William E. Forbath, Caste, Class, and Equal Citizenship, 98 MICH. L. REV. 1 (1999) (describing a focus o n decent work, liveliho od, and m aterial security). On market socialism, see, R OBERTO MANGABEIRA UNGER, FALSE NECESSITY: ANTI-NECESSITARIAN SOCIAL THEORY IN THE SERVICE OF RADICAL DEMOCRACY (rev. sub. ed. 2004). On civic republicanism , see Frank I. Michelm an, The Supreme Court 1985 Term —Foreword: Traces of Self-Government, 100 HARV. L. REV. 4, 20, 41 (1986) (describing an orientation towards civic virtue and the general good, the assurance of the m aterial basis n ecessary for an i ndependent citizenry, and at least the avoidance of extreme disparities in w ealth, education, and power); Jon D. Michaels, Note, To Promote The General Welfare: The Republican Imperative To Enhance Citizenship Welfare Rights, 111 Yale L.J. 1457 (2002) (invoking civic republicanism as the appropriate theo retical foundation for U.S. welfare rights); and William H. Sim on, Social-Republican Property, 38 UCLA L. REV. 1335 (1990) (com bining market socialism with republicanism ). On comm unitarianism, see Michele Estrin Gilm an, Poverty and Communitarianism: Toward a Community-Based Welfare System, 66 U. PITT. L. REV. 721, 735-36, 80001 (2005) (adapting the comm unitarian theories of Mi chael Walzer, Michael S andel, and Am itai Etzioni).