Reply With Quote
uh, Bill of Rights....Cons ution, maybe.
Food
Water
Shelter
Health care
Guns
Safety
Freedom
Information/News
Love
Entertainment
I must have missed the part of the original question that limited it to a discussion of the United States and/or our Cons ution.
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....Cons ution, 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)
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, Cons utionally 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, Cons utionally 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 Cons ution 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 ing 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- ing-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.
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)?
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.
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.
It's expedient, not a god-given right.
Last edited by Darrin; 07-23-2009 at 04:00 AM.
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.
About 90% of the homeless are the mentally ill. Leaving paranoid schizophrenics on the streets is wronging society on a mul ude 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.
Last edited by Darrin; 07-23-2009 at 04:47 AM.
Last edited by Darrin; 07-23-2009 at 04:09 AM.
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 Cons ution promises the opporunity to success, not the success itself.
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?
It's expedient, not a god-given right.
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.
Then move to Europe.
Agreed.Establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility
Provide for the common defense
Promote the general welfare. (Not provide!)
Secure the blessing of liberty...
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 es 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
