Which of these is a right?

Which of these things do you think is a right, as opposed to a "good"?

The U.S. Constitution-an interesting read.

Entertainment I would have checked, but its too broad. If it refers to censorship, thats a debate.

there are no rights except those men make up, and men can make up whatever the hell rights they want to make up, and they do.

I see that six people so far don't understand the constitution.

With the freedom to own guns I can get the rest of the things on that list :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfAGun

With the freedom to own guns I can get the rest of the things on that list :D

---

Especially since the second amendment is there to protect the first!

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

Ignorance is bliss...
2nd amendment anybody?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

---

The right to own guns is a basic right enshrined in our Constitution. No one is denying that someone has the right to food, water, and shelter. However, the right to own guns HAS been denied throughout history.

No one has a right to HAVE guns, much like they don't have the right to HAVE a house. They have a right to BUY, OWN, and/or KEEP guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

---

If I want food, water, and shelter I will go out and get it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I think it's pretty amusing that right now more people think guns are a basic right than food, water, and shelter.

---

http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeo.../facepalm4.jpg

spoken like a true sheeple...

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not constitutionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous. The founding fathers were pretty clear that people should be given the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and no one can worry about pursuing happiness when they are starving or freezing to death.

Food, water, shelter, guns, access to basic health care, and freedom: These are constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not constitutionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous. The founding fathers were pretty clear that people should be given the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and no one can worry about pursuing happiness when they are starving or freezing to death.

Food, water, shelter, guns, access to basic health care, and freedom: These are constitutionally guaranteed rights.

---

Without arguing the specifics of each thing you listed;

Nowhere does the Constitution provide for the government, or anyone else, providing ANYTHING for anyone. The Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to DO or OWN certain things without those things being taken away or freedoms by the government. You have a very perverse view of that very basic principal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Without arguing the specifics of each thing you listed;

Nowhere does the Constitution provide for the government, or anyone else, providing ANYTHING for anyone. The Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to DO or OWN certain things without those things being taken away or freedoms by the government. You have a very perverse view of that very basic principal.

---

+1

Honestly Supergirl, the Constitution does not GUARANTEE those things for anyone. The Constitution guarantees the right to EARN those items, but it does not guarantee the items themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not constitutionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous.

---

I think that in an 18th-century context most people would disagree that state-provided food, water, and shelter were intended to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

Social welfare is a late-19th/early-20th century concept.

Few actually believe in the Constitution these days. In its context, it was founded upon classically liberal ideals, within the Enlightment constructed upon a Western, Christian, and English ethical and moral framework. It is a product of its time.

200+ years removed from that context, it makes increasingly less sense without an interpretive method that places it within its context, draws out its ideas, and places them in a 21st-century context.

However, 200+ years removed, with most of the social and cultural pillars undergirding it removed, and with so many disparate ideologies having sprung from the 18th century Enlightenment days, the Constitution, apart from its most basic concepts on human liberty, is just a political Rorschach test. Whatever you happen to believe in can be a "constitutional right."

There is a reason Thomas Jefferson believed the document to have a shelf life.

Anyway, today in America the two dominant views on the Constitution both take contemporary ideologies, whether Right or Left, and superimpose them on the text. This does violence to its meaning.

Increasingly, it seems to me that is just about all anyone does with any historical document. Nobody studies history, they just use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

\Increasingly, it seems to me that is just about all anyone does with any historical document. Nobody studies history, they just use it.

---

I don't think there's many historians elected to Congress...

rights is a bullshit made up word. Like Santa Claus

Quote:

---

But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not constitutionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous.

---

I don't remember the Constitution guarantying Welfare for everybody.

I guess I don't need to work to buy groceries, Constitution guarantees me food.

I guess I don't need to work to make a house payment, Constitution guarantees me shelter.

I know the Gov't IS buying people houses and food so they can sit on their asses and do nothing their entire lives, but that doesn't mean it's in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I didn't actually say I DISAGREE with the right to own guns. I don't. But the idea that food, water, and shelter are not constitutionally guaranteed is pretty ridiculous. The founding fathers were pretty clear that people should be given the right to "the pursuit of happiness" and no one can worry about pursuing happiness when they are starving or freezing to death.

Food, water, shelter, guns, access to basic health care, and freedom: These are constitutionally guaranteed rights.

---

If you are saying that people have the right to own food, water, shelter, guns, and pursue basic health care, then I agree. However, food, water, and shelter (or guns and anything else) aren't guaranteed, there is nowhere in the constitution that it says that the government should provide those things.

If you take 'food, shelter, and water' away from this poll and make it life, I would vote for it. But to say we have the right to food could mean that it cannot be taken from us, no matter how nourished we are. That we shouldn't have to pay for it, that is should be provided for us. That is not the case, and why I didn't vote for it.

Without these basic necessities met, our life becomes about them. We need to help people to get them, but I don't think we should fold up the entire industry surrounding food. Water, on the other hand, is a right. It is reflected in our society's use of it, its abundance, and its application of free services.

Freedom seems to cut across lines because of the society we live in. I think education is a right. Safety is a right directly and indirectly linked with education. So is opportunity and security, two things I think are good to have.

I think youre confusing what "right" means in the American government sense.

When a government uses the word "right", it refers to something they protect and/or provide.

On those grounds, food and water do not apply. Government does not provide and/or protect either.

Education is not a right. Its treated like one now, but it is not a right. One could argue that because education is treated as a right in today's version of America, we have a dumbed-down society full of underachievers and reality show fuckheads.

Food, shelter...again, not rights protected by the government. Im starting to get the feeling here that I am completely outnumbered by people who think life guarantees them anything remotely nearing the scope of this thread.

I, as a tax paying citizen, do not owe my fellow citizens shit like healthcare, food, shelter or water. Nor you to me.

Because some of you would do these things for others by way of public taxation and treasury does not mean we all want to. That is my fucking right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

I think youre confusing what "right" means in the American government sense.

When a government uses the word "right", it refers to something they protect and/or provide.

On those grounds, food and water do not apply. Government does not provide and/or protect either.

Education is not a right. Its treated like one now, but it is not a right. One could argue that because education is treated as a right in today's version of America, we have a dumbed-down society full of underachievers and reality show fuckheads.

Food, shelter...again, not rights protected by the government. Im starting to get the feeling here that I am completely outnumbered by people who think life guarantees them anything remotely nearing the scope of this thread.

I, as a tax paying citizen, do not owe my fellow citizens shit like healthcare, food, shelter or water. Nor you to me.

Because some of you would do these things for others by way of public taxation and treasury does not mean we all want to. That is my fucking right.

---

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I think that in an 18th-century context most people would disagree that state-provided food, water, and shelter were intended to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

Social welfare is a late-19th/early-20th century concept.

Few actually believe in the Constitution these days. In its context, it was founded upon classically liberal ideals, within the Enlightment constructed upon a Western, Christian, and English ethical and moral framework. It is a product of its time.

200+ years removed from that context, it makes increasingly less sense without an interpretive method that places it within its context, draws out its ideas, and places them in a 21st-century context.

However, 200+ years removed, with most of the social and cultural pillars undergirding it removed, and with so many disparate ideologies having sprung from the 18th century Enlightenment days, the Constitution, apart from its most basic concepts on human liberty, is just a political Rorschach test. Whatever you happen to believe in can be a "constitutional right."

There is a reason Thomas Jefferson believed the document to have a shelf life.

Anyway, today in America the two dominant views on the Constitution both take contemporary ideologies, whether Right or Left, and superimpose them on the text. This does violence to its meaning.

Increasingly, it seems to me that is just about all anyone does with any historical document. Nobody studies history, they just use it.

---

:tu

Was it not ironic that the US defeated Germany in war, in no small part due to a citizenry shaped by Prussian ideals?

all of 'em

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

I think youre confusing what "right" means in the American government sense.

---

Quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain, unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

---

We have a higher authority in our laws than the government--we have the creator. Our creator made us need nourishment, rest, and shelter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

When a government uses the word "right", it refers to something they protect and/or provide.

On those grounds, food and water do not apply. Government does not provide and/or protect either.

---

They do in the form of food stamps with certain incomes. They provide drinking water at most national parks and libraries. Those are all government-run institutions.

Quote:

---

Education is not a right. Its treated like one now, but it is not a right. One could argue that because education is treated as a right in today's version of America, we have a dumbed-down society full of underachievers and reality show fuckheads.

---

This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater or blaming existence for death and disease. Knowledge breeds understanding, confidence, and trust. To deny a child those things is to create not just a willfully stupid society, but an ignorant one without the ability to grasp the material and tools past down from generation to generation.

Quote:

---

Food, shelter...again, not rights protected by the government. Im starting to get the feeling here that I am completely outnumbered by people who think life guarantees them anything remotely nearing the scope of this thread.

I, as a tax paying citizen, do not owe my fellow citizens shit like healthcare, food, shelter or water. Nor you to me.

---

Why? What is more fundamental than that? It is a need provided by the creator or we cease to function.

Quote:

---

Because some of you would do these things for others by way of public taxation and treasury does not mean we all want to. That is my fucking right.

---

Too bad. Amend the laws because taxpayer money is used everyday to feed and cloth and shelter people who cannot do it themselves. Most private organizations do not rely on donations alone; they get taxpayer money.

Guns, freedom and love

brb, installing refrigerated mail box

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfAGun

brb, installing refrigerated mail box

---

LOL... I assume you have a right to cold beer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrin

They do in the form of food stamps with certain incomes. They provide drinking water at most national parks and libraries. Those are all government-run institutions.

---

In the specific case of food stamps, it's a service provided by the state under certain qualifications. If it would be a right, then nobody would need to meet a required criteria in order to obtain them.
As far as complimentary drinking water, well, it's just that, a complimentary service. That they offer it doesn't imply it's your right to have it. They could stop offering said service at any given time and the only right you would have is to go somewhere else to get it.

Since our government has ensured love is not a good to be sold, then it must be a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrin

We have a higher authority in our laws than the government--we have the creator. Our creator made us need nourishment, rest, and shelter.

...

Too bad. Amend the laws because taxpayer money is used everyday to feed and cloth and shelter people who cannot do it themselves. Most private organizations do not rely on donations alone; they get taxpayer money.

---

You and I fundamentally differ on the role of government in society. As in, wholesale disagreement in totality. I dont believe it is the right of citizens to be provided for by other citizens by force of law.

Unequivocally, thats my belief.

Now, if you want to argue what is good and what is right, thats another argument entirely. But the question is, what is a right by Constitution in this country.

By that definition, food and shelter certainly do not apply. Education is debatable.

Quote:

---

They do in the form of food stamps with certain incomes. They provide drinking water at most national parks and libraries. Those are all government-run institutions.

---

The fact food stamps are only available to a certain % of the population shows its not apart of the constitution rights the people who don't need foodstamps end up paying for their own food and the people on foodstamps food

I wonder what American pioneers of the West would think about present day Americans LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfAGun

I wonder what American pioneers of the West would think about present day Americans LOL

---

they'd let the brits win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfAGun

I wonder what American pioneers of the West would think about present day Americans LOL

---

They'd be calling these liberals all kinds of their equivalent words of pussy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

They'd be calling these liberals all kinds of their equivalent words of pussy!

---

So it is in the cartoonish version of American history. You might be surprised at what they'd have to say about a military groupie such as yourself.

Programs such as welfare, public education and funded libraries are there because they are grounded in the reasoning that the state will function smoother without wealth spikes and crashes, with better education, etc etc.

This does not imply there's a "right" to such things, merely that the majority agreed to set aside X amount of money to fund these things for the public.

I think the responses to this poll are very interesting.

Personally, the only thing I *WANT* out of a government is protection for me and my fellow citizens - protection from starvation, homelessness, illness, and violence as much as possible. WHich is not to say the government should always protect these rights in all circumstances - it has to balance the needs of the rest of the country and the other citizens, and America was founded on very John Stuart Mill utilitarian principles.

But if the government does not exist to protect us, in some capacity (to what degree is always a question for debate and discussion) then in my mind it might as well not exist. That is not libertarianism, that is anarchy. The absence of any government whatsoever. And I have said since I was in high school that I would be an anarchist if I trusted human beings more to look out for each other. But I don't, and I would argue this is just being realistic. Without government we would destroy each other. Hell, we try to find ways to destroy each other within the rules of government, or without being caught.

Uhm... America wasn't founded on John Stuart Mill utilitarian principles, considering he wasn't born yet. It was founded mostly by theories from Locke, some from Voltaire, and a little bit from Hobbes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Programs such as welfare, public education and funded libraries are there because they are grounded in the reasoning that the state will function smoother without wealth spikes and crashes, with better education, etc etc.

---

Right, the state and economy will function "better" with "education" of a certain kind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Uhm... America wasn't founded on John Stuart Mill utilitarian principles, considering he wasn't born yet. It was founded mostly by theories from Locke, some from Voltaire, and a little bit from Hobbes.

---

:lol

Oh well, it was a republic, until our forebears let it get away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

But if the government does not exist to protect us, in some capacity (to what degree is always a question for debate and discussion) then in my mind it might as well not exist. That is not libertarianism, that is anarchy. The absence of any government whatsoever. And I have said since I was in high school that I would be an anarchist if I trusted human beings more to look out for each other. But I don't, and I would argue this is just being realistic. Without government we would destroy each other. Hell, we try to find ways to destroy each other within the rules of government, or without being caught.

---

Uhmm anarchy is very different than what you're describing. Are you talking about the general idea of anarchy, or the actual political term anarchy? You know, there have been one or two anarchies in history... Spain the most famous.

Government is there to PROTECT your rights. The legislative branch writes laws that protect your rights, the executive ensures those laws are carried out, and the judicial branch ensures your rights have been maintained.

Feeling the 'need' of government to protect people from killing/attacking/hurting each other is silly. As you point out, with or without government, people will destroy/hurt each other anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Quote:

---

Spain 1936
After General Francisco Franco declared war on the Spanish government in 1936 (Spanish civil war) the government lost control over much of Spain. Resistance to the rebels was often organized through the confederation of anarcho-syndicalist trade unions, the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) and the Iberian Anarchist Federation, the Federación Anarquista Ibérica (FAI). The Spanish Revolution occurred almost immediately after the failed coup of Franco, leading to the formation of worker's collectives all over Republican Spain. This has been hailed as the best example of a functioning anarchist system. Anarchists were instrumental in keeping the country running and holding back the Francoists, until they were attacked by the Republican government and their Communist allies. The government was subsequently defeated by Franco, leading to 40 years of Francoist dictatorship in Spain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Right, the state and economy will function "better" with "education" of a certain kind...

---

Hey, I'm just explaining the thought process behind it; not claiming validity or lack thereof.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe feudalism is what predates the establishment of an organized state, not anarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Hey, I'm just explaining the thought process behind it; not claiming validity or lack thereof.

---

I know, but we take at face value a certain version of how those things originated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe feudalism is what predates the establishment of an organized state, not anarchy.

---

Right. How radical a notion that all were of equal standing before the law and had fundamental rights which were inviolable. But, hey, thems just made up rights.

Quote:

---

But if the government does not exist to protect us, in some capacity (to what degree is always a question for debate and discussion) then in my mind it might as well not exist.

---

the Gov't wants us all to think of it as a Provider and Protector, because people just can't take care of themselves, they NEED the Gov't to tell them what to do, what to think, what to like, what to not like...

Rights = "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Responsibilities = I work and pay for my needs if I can; I also work for and pay for the common good. My actions do not impinge on other's liberties.

Does the right to life include a right to basic health care? I think the modern-day interpretation is moving toward this.

I must have missed the part of the original question that limited it to a discussion of the United States and/or our Constitution.

Without taking that into consideration, I considered all but guns, love, and entertainment as basic human rights based on the thought that none of them should be specifically denied to anyone. In this country or out of it. I would have also selected love and entertainment if they weren't such broad and complicated categories.

Guns... bit of a stickier wicket for me than the others. I certainly support the right to own/bear arms for certain purposes, but would have a hard time calling it a basic human right on the same level as those things necessary to sustain physical existence.

uh, Bill of Rights....Constitution, maybe.

Our system already puts restrictions on how one can go about acquiring food and shelter.

As long as that is the case, the system should offer alternative means for getting food and shelter.

(IMO)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

I must have missed the part of the original question that limited it to a discussion of the United States and/or our Constitution.

---

Good point. Further proof that I am surrounded by short-armed people with very deep pockets.

This rant has nothing to do with you anymore, CF, just a general rant.

I find it fascinating that a large contingent of people feel food and shelter is a right protected/provided by the government.

If that isnt the most misguided, misinterpreted American truism, I dont know what is.

The government should not (and would not) deny your ability to provide shelter and food for yourself/family/business/community. But that is not the same as an inalienable right that the government guarantees and protects with law while a citizen of this country.

Whats the next misguided, societal right we're going to guarantee ourselves by force of law? Internet? Television? A vehicle? A job?

Sure, lets guarantee every American shall have a job by force of law. I mean, everyone needs a job, right? How are you going to get to your government mandated, Constitutionally protected job? Do we have to provide people with the ability to get to and from work now, too? Lets pay for those guarantees by taxing those without the need for such guarantees.

It is the same thing. This isnt even about Healthcare anymore, this is about people thinking its their God-given, Constitutionally protected right to food, shelter and any other necessity to life. Just because you physically cannot exist without food (obviously) or shelter (debatable) does not mean the government, and by extension your countrymen, should provide it for you.

Honestly, do some of you think actually think most human beings are good people? Newsflash: They arent. All these programs and guarantees are going to get abused beyond imagainable belief. Especially if you started writing new amendments to the Constitution providing shelter and food to every American.

Sure, the vast majority of us would continue to work and do things normally. I'd put the number arbitrarily at.....30% of the country will just quit life in general. They'll live off your work. They'll have 20 fucking kids raised to think living in government provided shelter with government provided food is A-OK, its a right, right?

I dont know how much or how little some of you earn per year, but unless youre a millionaire philanthropist or earn $24k a year, I dont see how you could even consider something like food and shelter as a right to be provided by the government (ie Joe Taxpayer).

Un-fucking-believable.

Sorry for typos...gotta go.

so i guess homeless drunkard bums are being wronged by society?


just getting opinions. this isn't a viewpoint or whatever.

My generation has no concept of limited government.

I think they took the term "Big-Brother" too seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

so i guess homeless drunkard bums are being wronged by society?

---

In many cases, yes.

I don't think there are too many people who are "homeless drunkard bums" because they woke up one morning and thought it would be fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

In many cases, yes.

I don't think there are too many people who are "homeless drunkard bums" because they woke up one morning and thought it would be fun.

---

Sooooo, are you agreeing that their current station in life is society's fault in some way?

And if so, that the public trust should provide for this individual to the extent laid out previously in this thread (food, shelter, healthcare, etc)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

I must have missed the part of the original question that limited it to a discussion of the United States and/or our Constitution.

Without taking that into consideration, I considered all but guns, love, and entertainment as basic human rights based on the thought that none of them should be specifically denied to anyone. In this country or out of it. I would have also selected love and entertainment if they weren't such broad and complicated categories.

Guns... bit of a stickier wicket for me than the others. I certainly support the right to own/bear arms for certain purposes, but would have a hard time calling it a basic human right on the same level as those things necessary to sustain physical existence.

---

:toast

Guns must be a right or a tyrannical government can never be overthrown. Look at all the dictatorships in the world. Their people are helpless and can never rise up without foreign intervention doing it for them. The right to guns is the right to self defense. In a gun dominated world, you can't defend yourself with a knife or your fists. People abuse the right to hurt the innocent, but so too are abuses with any right used to hurt others. This does not lessen their importance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Sooooo, are you agreeing that their current station in life is society's fault in some way?

And if so, that the public trust should provide for this individual to the extent laid out previously in this thread (food, shelter, healthcare, etc)?

---

I believe that all humans should have equal access to food, water, shelter, and all the others I identified as basic human rights. I believe that is not currently the case, both in our country and throughout the world. I think that lack of access is in many cases the root cause of hunger, joblessness, houselessness, and more. I believe that various social welfare programs are necessary to balance out the disparity in levels of access to those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

I believe that all humans should have equal access to food, water, shelter, and all the others I identified as basic human rights. I believe that is not currently the case, both in our country and throughout the world. I think that lack of access is in many cases the root cause of hunger, joblessness, houselessness, and more. I believe that various social welfare programs are necessary to balance out the disparity in levels of access to those things.

---

This argument is actually clarifying my positons and I thank you for stating more well-argued and cool-headed that view which I share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

Guns must be a right or a tyrannical government can never be overthrown. Look at all the dictatorships in the world. Their people are helpless and can never rise up without foreign intervention doing it for them. The right to guns is the right to self defense. In a gun dominated world, you can't defend yourself with a knife or your fists. People abuse the right to hurt the innocent, but so too are abuses with any right used to hurt others. This does not lessen their importance.

---

http://www.brickfinancial.com/images/ghandi3.bmp

It's expedient, not a god-given right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I see that six people so far don't understand the constitution.

---

I see one person that doesn't understand the writings of Founders. Lets refer to the Declaration of Independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

---

When you can live without food and water, you get back to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

so i guess homeless drunkard bums are being wronged by society?


just getting opinions. this isn't a viewpoint or whatever.

---

About 90% of the homeless are the mentally ill. Leaving paranoid schizophrenics on the streets is wronging society on a multitude of levels.

Under that standard the warlords in Darfur are completely justified in starving people and Kim Jong-Il is just peachy in having a populace that is undernourished and facing starvation daily.

I see someone doesn't understand shelter. Clothes, trapping body heat, blankets, roofs to keep away rain, walls to keep away cold. These things save lives every day. Prolonged naked exposure to the elements causes death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fuzzylumpkins

about 90% of the homeless are the mentally ill. Leaving paranoid schizophrenics on the streets is wronging society on a multitude of levels.

Under that standard the warlords in darfur are completely justified in starving people and kim jong-il is just peachy in having a populace that is undernourished and facing starvation daily.

---

+1

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/02/us...tml?sec=health
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publi...elessness/#why
http://www.endhomelessness.org/secti...usareas/health

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

I believe that all humans should have equal access to food, water, shelter, and all the others I identified as basic human rights. I believe that is not currently the case, both in our country and throughout the world. I think that lack of access is in many cases the root cause of hunger, joblessness, houselessness, and more. I believe that various social welfare programs are necessary to balance out the disparity in levels of access to those things.

---

Well, you and I are dismetrically opposed to one another on this issue. Helping the poor, the jobless and the sick is a noble cause, to be sure.

Where we differ completely is government's role in the administration of said help by way of taxes on the majority for the few.

The Constitution promises the opporunity to success, not the success itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrin

http://www.brickfinancial.com/images/ghandi3.bmp

It's expedient, not a god-given right.

---

With all due respect, he dealt with a much more reasonable government than some. Do you think the Soviets, North Korea, or even China would have hesitated to have him and his followers just disappeared or exiled forever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Well, you and I are dismetrically opposed to one another on this issue. Helping the poor, the jobless and the sick is a noble cause, to be sure.

Where we differ completely is government's role in the administration of said help by way of taxes on the majority for the few.

The Constitution promises the opporunity to success, not the success itself.

---

100% agree.

I would find it hard to believe that anyone on this post are against helping the poor, sick and needy. However, the issue comes about, that me going and helping the poor, sick and needy is a choice, not something that should be forced upon me by a government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

I believe that all humans should have equal access to food, water, shelter, and all the others I identified as basic human rights. I believe that is not currently the case, both in our country and throughout the world. I think that lack of access is in many cases the root cause of hunger, joblessness, houselessness, and more. I believe that various social welfare programs are necessary to balance out the disparity in levels of access to those things.

---

Then move to Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

The Constitution promises the opporunity to success, not the success itself.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility

Provide for the common defense

Promote the general welfare. (Not provide!)

Secure the blessing of liberty...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then move to Europe.

---

Or Africa. They have equal access to food. Namely, no access.

I'm fine with a small social welfare net to catch people, for a limited amount of time. Crashes and spikes aren't great economically for a country... especially the crashes. So I'm fine with small amounts of welfare, food stamps, etc etc for limited amounts of time, in order to buoy up someone dealing with an emergency. In the same sense, I support legalities like filing for bankruptcy, as it helps to encourage business creation.

However, after a certain amount of time, then I'm willing to kick them to the curb, as it were. It's harsh but realistic, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I see one person that doesn't understand the writings of Founders. Lets refer to the Declaration of Independence.



When you can live without food and water, you get back to me.

---

This would be a prime example of what I was referring to earlier, i.e. imposing a 20th/21st-century worldview on an 18th-century document written by someone with an 18th-century worldview.

The confusion on this topic seems to boil down to this:

Everyone has a right to food( water/shelter etc.) in the sense that you are allowed to have food (heck, even access to food) without the govt. sending you to jail or killing you.

But you don't have the right to have someone else provide you with that food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

The confusion on this topic seems to boil down to this:

Everyone has a right to food( water/shelter etc.) in the sense that you are allowed to have food without the govt. sending you to jail or killing you.

But you don't have the right to have someone else provide you with that food.

---

Or, more accurately, you can't demand food from others for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I'm fine with a small social welfare net to catch people, for a limited amount of time. Crashes and spikes aren't great economically for a country... especially the crashes. So I'm fine with small amounts of welfare, food stamps, etc etc for limited amounts of time, in order to buoy up someone dealing with an emergency. In the same sense, I support legalities like filing for bankruptcy, as it helps to encourage business creation.

However, after a certain amount of time, then I'm willing to kick them to the curb, as it were. It's harsh but realistic, in my opinion.

---

Same here. I am all for tons of safety nets for people. Checks and balances need to be in place so they don't live off them though. I have stated several times that I believe the only times this nation should run a deficit is during times of war recession. Other times, the debt should be paid down. Deficit spending during hard times will include food stamps, financial assistance, etc. I'm fine with that. I'm just so pissed that our politicians fail to pay down the debt when we can. We have too many people who are lifers on the social programs. Unless they have a disability, they need to be kick off the government teat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

Well, you and I are dismetrically opposed to one another on this issue. Helping the poor, the jobless and the sick is a noble cause, to be sure.

Where we differ completely is government's role in the administration of said help by way of taxes on the majority for the few.

The Constitution promises the opporunity to success, not the success itself.

---

That last sentence is the problem, though. You're nuts if you think that everyone in this country has the same opportunity to succeed as you or I do. That is far, far from the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Then move to Europe.

---

No thanks. I'd rather try to fix the broken country I love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

That last sentence is the problem, though. You're nuts if you think that everyone in this country has the same opportunity to succeed as you or I do. That is far, far from the case.

---

So how would you fix that? Would you redistribute wealth or dye everyones skin orange so you can't tell race?

What are the things that are stopping people from having opportunity to succeed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

What are the things that are stopping people from having opportunity to succeed?

---

Institutionalized racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, genderism, heterosexism, classism, etc.

This country is really good at sneaky little things like publicly making social welfare programs available, but not educating the people who need them as to how to get them. Or keeping vast segments of the population ignorant by funding social welfare programs, like TANF, that cut out when young mothers attempt to go to school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

Institutionalized racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, genderism, heterosexism, classism, etc.

This country is really good at sneaky little things like publicly making social welfare programs available, but not educating the people who need them as to how to get them. Or keeping vast segments of the population ignorant by funding social welfare programs, like TANF, that cut out when young mothers attempt to go to school.

---

So wait, its the nations fault that people aren't smart enough to go to a library, hop on a computer with free internet, and type in some search along the lines of "How to get welfare in the US"?

Do we need to print a bunch of pamphlets, and hand them out door to door so people know?

And for your list of prejudices, do you want the government to start controlling the way people think? I'm not saying being prejudiced is right or good, but its an individual choice, or are those bad too? I can see where freewill would get in the way of others ability to succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

So wait, its the nations fault that people aren't smart enough to go to a library, hop on a computer with free internet, and type in some search along the lines of "How to get welfare in the US"?

---

It's not a matter of being smart enough. It's a matter of specifically and intentionally making that information difficult to attain.

Have you ever read the information that comes with welfare pamphlets and forms? Have you ever had a conversation with one of the workers in charge of conveying that information or providing that help? I have. It's dense to an intimidating degree, especially if you haven't been provided with the tools to cut through the wordiness and figure out what's going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

And for your list of prejudices, do you want the government to start controlling the way people think? I'm not saying being prejudiced is right or good, but its an individual choice, or are those bad too? I can see where freewill would get in the way of others ability to succeed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

Institutionalized racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, genderism, heterosexism, classism, etc.

---

I didn't list individual prejudices. I listed systemic inequalities that operate at an institutional level. Inequalities that exist in this country and which we all have to navigate, regardless our personal beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

It's not a matter of being smart enough. It's a matter of specifically and intentionally making that information difficult to attain.

Have you ever read the information that comes with welfare pamphlets and forms? Have you ever had a conversation with one of the workers in charge of conveying that information or providing that help? I have. It's dense to an intimidating degree, especially if you haven't been provided with the tools to cut through the wordiness and figure out what's going on.

---

I haven't needed welfare, but my parents have had to file for unemployment before... They went and did it. I have little pity for people that want something and then don't pursue it because its too hard to understand, the material is available, if its important to you, then do it. Maybe their unwillingness to put forth the effort is what made them need the welfare in the first place.

As for your "systemic inequalities" how many of those are created by the US government? In fact, I believe all of those are legislated against, what more do you want, beyond them just going away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

I haven't needed welfare, but my parents have had to file for unemployment before... They went and did it. I have little pity for people that want something and then don't pursue it because its too hard to understand, the material is available, if its important to you, then do it. Maybe their unwillingness to put forth the effort is what made them need the welfare in the first place.

As for your "systemic inequalities" how many of those are created by the US government? In fact, I believe all of those are legislated against, what more do you want, beyond them just going away?

---

If you really think that everything is hunky dory and that everyone is treated equally in this country, I don't know that there's much I can say on a message board to change your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

If you really think that everything is hunky dory and that everyone is treated equally in this country, I don't know that there's much I can say on a message board to change your mind.

---

I'm saying that the government treats people equally, maybe not 100% of the time, because people aren't perfect, but the vast majority of the time.

Individuals can treat each other unequally all they want, as long as they aren't breaking the law when they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

I'm saying that the government treats people equally

---

And I disagree.

the list of choices left off telephone, electricity, HD TV, Internet.

Every phone bill has "universal service" tax to subsidize rural telephony, and the stimulus plan seems to be saying rural broadband will have similar treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

That last sentence is the problem, though. You're nuts if you think that everyone in this country has the same opportunity to succeed as you or I do. That is far, far from the case.

---

ahem

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...%20Capitol.jpg

:wakeup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

ahem

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...%20Capitol.jpg

:wakeup

---

The implication being that because Obama is elected, racism has ceased to exist in this country? Come on. Do you really think Obama would have been elected if he wasn't wealthy? Or light skinned? Or Christian? Yes, his election is a groundbreaking moment in this country, but the idea that there are not still institutionalized prejudices in this country is laughable.

You can be fired, denied housing or services, no reason needed, if your employer thinks you're not feminine enough, too feminine, not masculine enough, or too masculine, in most places in this country .

You can be fired, denied housing or services, no reason needed, if you are found out to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual in many states in this country.

Women’s average salary is only 72-88% of men’s salary, even when variables such as education, age, position level and job tenure are considered.

And finally, have you ever tried to be a brown-skinned person in a fancy store or an expensive neighborhood? You think the police don't still follow you around thinking you're casing the joint?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

The implication being that because Obama is elected, racism has ceased to exist in this country? Come on. Do you really think Obama would have been elected if he wasn't wealthy? Or light skinned? Or Christian? Yes, his election is a groundbreaking moment in this country, but the idea that there are not still institutionalized prejudices in this country is laughable.

You can be fired, denied housing or services, no reason needed, if your employer thinks you're not feminine enough, too feminine, not masculine enough, or too masculine, in most places in this country .

You can be fired, denied housing or services, no reason needed, if you are found out to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual in many states in this country.

Women’s average salary is only 72-88% of men’s salary, even when variables such as education, age, position level and job tenure are considered.

And finally, have you ever tried to be a brown-skinned person in a fancy store or an expensive neighborhood? You think the police don't still follow you around thinking you're casing the joint?

---

thanks for proving a point i wasn't even trying to prove. where in the hell did i bring up race? you are a damn loon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

thanks for proving a point i wasn't even trying to prove. where in the hell did i bring up race? you are a damn loon.

---

Because posting Obama's photo in response to CuckingFunt saying
"That last sentence is the problem, though. You're nuts if you think that everyone in this country has the same opportunity to succeed as you or I do. That is far, far from the case."

...was not meant to imply that what racism is no longer an issue because we have Obama for president? What WERE you trying to say then? Sorry I gave you too much credit - credit for, um, having a point? Or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

ahem

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...%20Capitol.jpg

:wakeup

---

And My greatest fears are realized. Yes, Barack Obama ushered in the era of no racism and institutional equality. We have no more work to do. Idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

The implication being that because Obama is elected, racism has ceased to exist in this country? Come on. Do you really think Obama would have been elected if he wasn't wealthy? Or light skinned? Or Christian? Yes, his election is a groundbreaking moment in this country, but the idea that there are not still institutionalized prejudices in this country is laughable.

You can be fired, denied housing or services, no reason needed, if your employer thinks you're not feminine enough, too feminine, not masculine enough, or too masculine, in most places in this country .

You can be fired, denied housing or services, no reason needed, if you are found out to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual in many states in this country.

Women’s average salary is only 72-88% of men’s salary, even when variables such as education, age, position level and job tenure are considered.

And finally, have you ever tried to be a brown-skinned person in a fancy store or an expensive neighborhood? You think the police don't still follow you around thinking you're casing the joint?

---

How about just getting an education? How about we look at the crime rates among the minorities in this country and how they correlate to opportunity? How about we try and put aside the fairy tales and the fringe, criminal arguments and talk about how to fix the damage racism did to our institutions?

The schools that need the most money are the ones with the least. How do we infuse capital into these schools?

We say the n-word, use drugs, and treat women like crap in music and movies. How do we combat the social problem of glorifying the wrong lifestyles that reinforce the same stereotypes from 150 years ago of black America?

How do we overcome businesses making no accomodations for same-sex partners?

How do we provide access and opportunity to everyone is the fundamental question we must ask. Then we realize the problems that exist.

If all we're doing is fighting the evil, racist remarks and deeds, our laws will take them to task. We have actual work to do to end racism in this country. To give racists nowhere to go but to the fray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Same here. I am all for tons of safety nets for people. Checks and balances need to be in place so they don't live off them though. I have stated several times that I believe the only times this nation should run a deficit is during times of war recession. Other times, the debt should be paid down. Deficit spending during hard times will include food stamps, financial assistance, etc. I'm fine with that. I'm just so pissed that our politicians fail to pay down the debt when we can. We have too many people who are lifers on the social programs. Unless they have a disability, they need to be kick off the government teat.

---

:tu

I'm down with that WC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

That last sentence is the problem, though. You're nuts if you think that everyone in this country has the same opportunity to succeed as you or I do. That is far, far from the case.

---

Yeah, but there's no way to 'equalize' things without eliminating a great deal of liberty, I feel. Do you have a method?

There's no magic wand for all these -isms. The only thing that can be done is try to change the perception of the population, and hope for the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

There's no magic wand for all these -isms. The only thing that can be done is try to change the perception of the population, and hope for the best.

---

No, no, no. The answer is to tax the moderately successful/wealthy and give to the poor for their entire lives.

Its Rich Man's Guilt all over again. We must absolve our sins against the homeless, sick and disadvantaged.

Nevermind those who were in those same positions who made something of themselves.

Namely, my immigrant father in law, my immigrant grandmother, my father after his first divorce. No, no, no...it wasnt fair, they deserve to have shelter and food as a guaranteed, Constitutional right.

That'll fix everything. Generations of losers will continue to produce loser mentality people with similar anti-motivational lifestyles. Why is it low income people are always a lil big around the middle? I dont think food is their problem...

Ridiculous.