Do people have a right to the basic necessities of life?

[Nederland]

People around here say health care is a right. What about the other necessities of life? Food? Clothing? Shelter? Should society guarantee that people receive these things even if they can't afford them?

[slackmaster]

1. Yes, but not everyone is entitled to have someone else pay for them

:hi:

Should society guarantee that people receive these things even if they can't afford them?

I think safety nets can be good, as long as they are reserved for the truly destitute and don't encourage people to give up on supporting themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Yeah we have to careful or there will be another outbreak of welfare cadillac queens

Rightwing Thought is infectious. I blame 40 years of concerted media brainwashing myself.

[bikingaz]

29. how much are you willing to pay for me to stay home & do nothing?

What is your limit?

[Warren Stupidity]

32. I think my marginal rate is like 35-36% and I am ok with that.

In fact I would be most happy to divert hundreds of billions poured annually into the MIC cesspool toward decent welfare benefits for all in need.

[timeforpeace]

86. The real question is whether there is a right to have others pay for these things.

[me b zola]

92. It is in our own best interest. n/t

[treestar]

62. I don't actually have a problem with that.

If people didn't work because they had the basics, they would still provide jobs for others by purchase of the basics and would just not get more than that. Seeing other people have more than that can be just as motivating.

[Arugula Latte]

2. Of course.

There should be a basic safety net. You should not have to live on the street, starve to death, or die if you can't afford health care, especially if you live in "the richest country on Earth."

Plenty of other countries seem to understand this.

If you say "This country can't afford it" I can show you tens of billions of dollars currently being flushed down the toilet bombing brown people and enriching fat cat defense contractors that we can put to better use.

Oh, and the premise of your poll is bullshit. You're implying that everyone who wants to work will automatically have food, clothes, housing, and health care. If you have two brain cells to rub together you know that's completely false.

[Nederland]

3. If I were guaranteed food, clothing, shelter and health care...

...why would I work?

[Arugula Latte]

5. I'm talking about subsistance standards.

If that's okay with you, then, hey, knock yourself out. If you want a little more and are able bodied, then I'm sure you'd go to work.

Plenty of other countries do this. Why are you so obtuse?

[Nederland]

11. I know

What do you consider "subsistence standards"? You say that everyone is entitled to health care. Does that include 2 million dollar liver transplants? Are people entitled to those? Is the right to a liver transplant included in your definition of "subsistence"?

[sabrina 1]

59. So, who should get the 2 million dollar liver plant?

Cheney maybe? He could afford it. Can't deny that guy worked hard all of his life and compared to some mother who had the nerve not to be able to afford to keep herself alive, society is far better served by keeping him alive ~

Do I really need this :sarcasm:

So, you put a price on other people's lives. How come other countries don't have these kind of discussions, they just take care of their citizens when they are sick?

No wonder we can't get a decent health care bill in this country. The left is just as bad as the right when it comes to being judgemental about who should live and who should die.

[Greyhound]

83. He is no representative of any left, just another homeless republik that

took the easy way out.

[laughingliberal]

93. Probably not. That's hard enough to come by for people who work and pay their premiums nt

[bbinacan]

7. I voted no and you

make an excellent point.

[The_Commonist]

8. To get better food, clothing and health care?

I think the idea that if one gets the basic necessities, then one doesn't have an incentive to work is silly. The vast majority of people would still work to have a better life.

[Nederland]

10. Yes, the vast majority would work

But what about the tiny minority that choose not to?

[wuushew]

12. people who drop out of the consumerist society probably have a lower carbon footprint

is laziness worse than overconsumption? Mother Earth would probably say no.

[Arugula Latte]

13. Who cares?

They would use a small fraction of our tax money. Why aren't you up in arms about corporations getting tax money they're not entitled to? It's just something about the poor and the unhealthy that makes you think they should die in the street, eh?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. How about the 500-600B we officially waste every year on military bullshit?

Welfare, even in its hey days, never came close to even 10% of the vast annual military boondoggle.

[Arugula Latte]

23. Exactly.

I said something similar in the thread that spawned this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6974238&mesg_id=6975977

[Nederland]

40. I would say cut the military budget

I think it's a total waste too.

[C_Lawyer09]

107. How about the 600m

That legally does not need to be accounted for in the budget

[The_Commonist]

22. What about that tiny minority?

I'm not too worried about them.

[laughingliberal]

95. Doesn't bother me. It is a tiny minority and not nearly as expensive

as the amounts we spend on corporate welfare (and that was true even before TARP).

[michreject]

9. To pay taxes

Why else?

[gleaner]

15. Why would you not work?

One of the oldest shibboleths the right wing has used to oppose any type of government help to those who need it, is that if people live an existence that is at best below the poverty level and at worst barely a subsistence which hardly keeps them alive, that they will be as idle as the rich are already.

That is wrong. Most people who need help are either working at jobs which pay them so little they cannot afford to live or take care of their families much less have health care, or the unemployed or people with illnesses which prevent them from working. My husband worked for 30 at SSA in the SSI or needs based program. He never saw many people who thought the SSI would provide them the kind of life we want for ourselves. There are always people who abuse help programs whether they are through charities, churches or the government but they are very few and the majority of those who have to do without should not be punished because of them. That is like saying that some men are rapists so all men should be put in prison along side them because of the potential they have to abuse.

I have MS and I worked for 10 years of my working career as an adult with it because I wanted to have the life that my job and its benefits would enable me to have. Then I got too sick with the MS to do any work at all, even with the accommodations I had been provided. I retired on my Social Security disability which I had paid for through my taxes and I began collecting a matching pension from my job in the federal sector. It wasn't easy working sick, and it may have made me get sick faster, but I did it for myself. People are not idiots and people in need are not venial just because they have to ask for help. There are lots of reasons people need help which they have no control over, and they should not be held in contempt by anyone for reaching out when they need help.

Maybe the people who think that those who require the assistance of government safety nets should explain why they assume that all who make use of them are somehow shady and taking advantage. Do you think this thought process has a rational basis or is it merely based on anecdotal urban legends and snobbery? Anyone could find themselves in a position where they need help. Anyone. Even you. I never thought I would get MS, but then life throws us curves all the time. No one gets through life without some kind of adversity, yet right now those are the people whom those with conservative "values" are beating senseless with empty rhetoric and neglect.

[Nederland]

18. Because it seems normal?

I lived in the inner city for a little while in the early 90's. I saw lots of people that were perfectly capable of working but chose not to. Almost universally, they were people who grew up with parents who didn't work. When you grow up that way, not working seems completely normal, and you are used to a poor standard of living.

[gleaner]

34. I don't think

this reply makes your case. You had one experience, but it is not a universal experience. I live in a city that had two huge riots, and one of the things the poor who were rioting wanted was jobs. This was in the mid sixties and the early 90s and the want for employment and a decent live had not changed for the majority of people who participated.

Also growing up with parents who pursue a particular course does not necessarily mean you will want what they want or repeat their lives. We are not widgets and we are not interchangeable like widgets. We make individual choices. My father came from a dirt poor family. He had to quit school in the eighth grade to support them. That was right before the Great Depression. When FDR created a jobs program he applied for it as fast as he could. It fed us and kept us alive and enabled him to bring the rest of his family here so that they could also find work and have better lives.

I absolutely reject your assertion that "inner city" children find not working or achieving anything for themselves to be completely normal and that people "get used to" a poor standard of living, which to me implies that they prefer to make due with less. A basic human instinct is to want more. Carried to excess we call it greed. It is usually found among the rich. This reminds me of many of the more right wing companies who cut the funds they spent on customer service based on their assumption that if people got nothing but poor service and substandard merchandise they would not notice and soon be satisfied with whatever they got. It didn't work out quite the way they planned. I don't think your argument is either factual or meritorious. If you want to debate your point with me, I would like to have something better than this.

[Nederland]

37. It is a universal experience

The statistics are quite clear. Children growing up in households that receive welfare are three times more likely to go on welfare themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. And miraculously, after abolishing welfare, our inner city poverty problem was solved!

Oh never mind.

[gleaner]

43. OK, you are now citing statistics ....

First of all though, let us nail down which of your statistics you want to go with. In your title you use the word "universal." I went to an online dictionary and found this definition for the word "universal."

1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide:
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration:
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations:
4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad.
6. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses.
7. Logic Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Use of a proposition.

I don't think 4, 5, or 6 would apply to this situation but the others do. So what you tell me at first is that everyone in the whole wide world who lives in poverty and accepts government aid does it because they want to and have seen others doing it. Is that what you are saying? Seems a bit broad to me. Maybe to you too, because in the body of your text you have dropped down to saying that children growing up in households on welfare are only "three" times more likely to go on welfare themselves. A precipitous drop, I'd say.

Where did your "statistics" come from? Link me to the source. Did they come from some accredited research, or is this figure something you have heard in passing and are just passing on to help us all out? I like to know where my information comes from. I've never been very big on oral testimony by itself.

Secondly, you make it sound like this docile acceptance of the need to be on welfare comes from simple exposure without any reference at all to the facts of life when you are too poor to get a decent education which would allow you to compete for a job. That is if some of the jobs that used to be available had not been moved offshore by companies who somehow don't see the US as being worth making an investment in. I mean if you can earn a few extra bucks that way, why not? After all what's really important here? People or money?

If one accepts your "facts" in a vacuum one would have to say that receiving welfare and being exposed to those who do, is like having a dominant gene which passes a disease from generation to generation without those affected having any say at all. Your family is on welfare? Oh no! You will inevitably sink down into the netherworld and stay there. That is wrong. Sure, if you take away someone's hope they usually don't have the inner resources to draw on to do the hard work it would take them to pull themselves out of poverty as it exists under our present system. You have to be superhuman to do that anymore and not everyone is. It doesn't mean that you dismiss them or have scorn for them. Maybe if they had a bit more help and a lot less contempt directed at them they would do better. Who knows? I don't think we have ever tried it.

I don't mind helping people who are less well off than I am. I don't mind paying more taxes to do it. All I would ask is that the rich who have so much money that they have never had to work a day in their lives, and probably haven't pony up and give back some of the money they have been sucking out of this country, draining its blood and vitality. They could actually pay taxes too. They could afford to pay a lot of taxes, but they pay virtually nothing. That is obscene.

Taxes, I know. It is what I used to do for a living, and tax law is skewed so far in favor of the rich that they rarely have to pay a cent if they have a good enough accountant. So while I don't mind paying taxes to help the poor, I resent like Hell having to support the rich when they have enough to support themselves. That is the really obscene welfare here. Not the amounts that we pay to help the poor which are minimal, but the huge gouts of money which we do not collect which amounts to our own national subsidy to the rich.

[Nederland]

46. Really?

You are asking for sources? Really? I didn't think that the idea that people born rich tend to become rich adults and people born poor tend to become poor adults was really a controversial idea. You can speculate on the cause, but the fact that it happens is not really in dispute, is it? Do I really need to provide a link to a study showing this to be true, or will you just accept it?

[gleaner]

72. Yes, I would like to see your sources .....

I like to assess information in the following ways:

1. Where does it come from?

2. Who was instrumental in providing it?

3. Do they have an agenda?

4. Does anyone benefit from the information they have provided?

5. If so, who has benefited and why?

After I assess the information I can decide whether or not I think it is true. It is very easy for anyone to say anything, but proving it is sometimes another matter. I like to see the proof. Former job element I guess, and my own natural skepticism. I don't know you, I have never read anything you posted before, so why would I just simply accept your information without any form of proof? A lot of it has been contradictory, even within the same post. I really want to see at least one study, possibly more if you have them to refer to. Information based on only one source rarely proves an assertion which has been tossed back and forth for years by people who dislike the idea of public assistance and seem to have no use for the people who need it. Why did you think that a discussion/debate here would be different than a discussion in some other place? People discuss to arrive at truth, sometimes more than one truth. To do that the information given needs to be provable and accurate. No offense, but I won't accept what you say, simply because you say it.

The rich and poor are different. The rich tend to inherit money rather than earn it with a few notable exceptions and they are well cushioned against the vicissitudes of life unless they manage to lose it. Read the papers or magazines like "People" and you nail that one. But no one seems to present the fact that being handed the keys to the kingdom at birth is anything other than wonderful luck, no matter how the recipient lives or what they do with their money.

You can become poor in a lot of different ways. You can be born poor, you can lose your job, you can get sick, you can be a victim of a crime which injures you physically or emotionally to the point where you cannot function, you can have a relative who is so ill that it drains your resources completely as you try to save them, you can have an horrific accident, you can live in a country where the government enacts policies which cause your home and other assets to lose value until you are scrabbling just to get by, and so on. There are many more reasons, I can list them if you want, but you don't seem to be interested in the causes of poverty, and many other people feel that poor people have no intrinsic worth.

What you are saying in the post I am responding to now, is not what you originally said. As you started this thread off you were limiting your comments to people on public assistance and making generalizations about them in a way that seemed to lack compassion or understanding. That was your topic. That is what I have been writing about. I believe that one thread covers one topic. If you want to talk about the rich and how inheriting money makes them better than the rest of us you would need another thread. So why don't we get back to this one which deals with people on public assistance. Information please.

[Nederland]

73. Fair Enough

Research by Mark Rank of Washington University (Rank, 1996) extended the consideration of long-term effects to an intergenerational framework. Policy makers and researchers alike have long questioned whether welfare receipt in childhood predisposes welfare receipt in adulthood. Rank sought to determine whether welfare dependency or poverty is the mechanism that underlies patterns of intergenerational welfare receipt.5

Rank found that 75 percent of people on welfare did not report growing up in households that received welfare (though under-reporting of parental welfare receipt is quite likely). However, he also found that children who did grow up in families that received welfare were at least three times more likely to receive welfare when they become adults than children not raised in welfare families.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5479&page=14

Here is a bio of Mark Rank, author of the study:

http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/FACULTY/FULLTIME/Pages/MarkRank.aspx


As I mentioned before, this is not really a outlandish claim, and I am surprised you challenged it. That children of welfare recipients are more likely to receive welfare themselves is not a contested idea. What is contested is why. Some would say there is a direct causal link, others would say that welfare recipients are poor, and poor people tend to have poor children for a variety of reasons including lack of education, opportunity, positive role models, etc.

[gleaner]

77. Excellent!

I checked out the links and read about Mark Rank and the Washington University in St Louis. It was very interesting and I agreed with a lot of what Rank says. In fact he was saying some of the things I said to you. The problem was you did not present a specific causality or lack of it for the link between children growing up in households which receive welfare and poverty or any other outside factors in your first posts. You presented the observation in a vacuum. You also did not mention that "Rank found that 75 percent of people on welfare did not report growing up in households that received welfare." until now. Your posts made a blanket assertion which could have been stated by anyone for any reason including reasons which were derogatory to people who live in poverty. It sounded as if they chose to live in poverty because they enjoyed it. Your own research shows that is not the case and that there are many different and more complicated factors. That is what I needed to see.

You were very assiduous in finding the data, and I thank you very much for doing so. I also appreciate that you now acknowledge that there are a variety of reasons which cause people to live in poverty. That is what I wanted to see. Posts don't show nuances. Whatever we mean we have to say because there is no tone of voice and many of us don't know each other. We could be anyone, really and sometimes that makes it hard for us to know what the OP means unless they give us enough details.

Welfare, food stamps and other forms of public assistance have become stigmatized by people all across the political spectrum, though mostly by those who hold an extremely conservative ideology. Conservatives also have a tendency to misrepresent facts to achieve their desired results whatever they may be. They are deceptive, aggressive, potentially dangerous and they want to destroy everything I personally believe in. So when I see an assertion that they have bandied about a lot which has the potential to hurt others and make their lives worse, I do challenge the assertion to see if they can prove it. It is one of the functions of a political forum. We push and pull and try somehow to get to the truth of things within the rules of this board. Sometimes that lends a lot of heat to the discussions, but sometimes it sheds light on things that never would have come out without the back and forth.

Thanks for having an actual discussion with me on this subject and for using your research to back up what you were saying. I followed some of the links from the website and got the titles of some of Rank's other books. They seem like books I would like to read, so I think I'm going to follow up and get some of them. Thanks for the info and what seems like what will be good reading. Don't be surprised by being challenged, though. It is much more interesting when we challenge each other and I think it makes for a better dialogue and helps arrive at the truth of things.

[bread_and_roses]

90. So you blame those trapped in our inner cities for not working?

have you ever read any history at all? you are not aware that at one time there at least some jobs for people in inner cities? that NYC had a robust manufacturing sector where people worked? that as manufacturing jobs fled the country and more and more people/jobs moved to the nearly all-white suburbs the jobs became scarce and then absent? that racism, "globalism/free trade," white flight, urban sprawl all played into this, and those left at the bottom were just left to rot for, oh - about three generations now (meaning that those young when this all started are g'parents now, albeit often very young g'parents). That there was a time when there was a lot of anger and activism around this ('60s) but our draconian drug policies and the resultant stupification*and/or incarceration* of significant sectors of our minority populations as well as the violent suppression of Black activism *took care of that*? And you can blithely attribute "not working" to choice?

What do you think - that "those people" in our inner-cities are somehow different than other humans, of whom an almost universal desire to "do something" productive seems characteristic?

We abandoned the working class and the poor about thirty years ago - I'm no historian, but Reagan's election is a pretty good marker. By the way, the rural poor are no better off, and exhibit many of the same patterns as seen in the urban poor, but they're Whiter and they are more hidden, so come under less scrutiny.

*missing phrase added on edit

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Most the the original EU does just that and manages to

maintain productive workforces, high standards of living, and superior quality of life metrics compared to our dismal system of Randian Idiocy. Why is that?

[Nederland]

24. Europe never had institutional slavery

At least that's what my Swedish friends tell me. They say that a system of guaranteed income can never work in a societies that had slavery.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Well that is a stretch.

Of course Europe had institutional slavery, however it was abolished long before the colonization of the new world, at least in Western Europe, and at least in the strict sense of Chattel Slavery. Various other forms of involuntary servitude of course persisted.

However this is a fascinating theory that you and your Swedish Friend share. Basically, if I understand you and Swedish Fish, we can't have a decent social welfare system in this country because of our negro problem. Or am I missing something?

Do you have any evidence to support your bizarre and rather racist claim, or should we just take it on Swedish Faith?

[Nederland]

38. Seemed like a stretch to me too

Honestly, I have no idea. I think there are significant cultural differences that do come into play though.

[NickB79]

53. Though not out-and-out slavery, the feudal system of the Middle Ages came very close to it

To the point that lords could sell peasants residing on their lands and under their protection to neighboring kingdoms, and have them killed if they didn't produce enough from their fields every year to pay their taxes. The degree of freedom given to the peasants was only fractionally more than that given to most African slaves in the US through the 1800's.

[mamaleah]

54. We aren't talking giving you flet mignon and organic veggies or clothing from Prada.

So if you wanted more that what you needed to survive on, I think you would still work.

[closeupready]

65. Who cares. People's right to food, clothing, shelter and health care trump that.

n/t

[wuushew]

68. +1

:dem:

[Greyhound]

82. Apparently you wouldn't and we do judge others by ourselves.

That you believe you would be satisfied doing nothing as long as your basic needs were met is much more a comment about yourself than any imagined universal human nature.

[me b zola]

96. Some people wouldn't. Most people would.

I would love to live in a place where people weren't so busy just surviving that they could explore and utilize their talents and passions.

[Louisiana1976]

36. Right--if you have a minimum-wage job you won't have enough for food,

clothing, shelter and medical care.

[stray cat]

4. Will you pay for those in the inner city and poor rural areas out of your paycheck?

will you pay if they decide not to work or want to use the money for other items

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Taxes. What a concept. nt.

[The Magistrate]

49. The Proper Source, Sir, Is To Pay Out Of The Increase Of Capital and Rents

The amount of money extracted from our economic life in accumulation at the tip of the social pyramid dwarfs anything which could be or is extracted from the pay-checks of working people.

[blindpig]

57. And if there were no pyramid?

just sayin'

[The Magistrate]

58. But There Is One, Sir

Why engage in pretense things are not as they are?

[blindpig]

69. Indeed, you are correct.

The point being that this pyramid is the real problem. We should be attacking the existence of this pyramid rather than trying to deal with it's effects willy nilly. It's like trying to put out a fire with a squirt gun.

[dysfunctional press]

76. yes, i will.

don't give them money- give them the items, or vouchers.

[NashVegas]

6. People Have a Right To Access, IMO

That is, we should have every right to free clean air, free clean water, and free access to arable land to grow our own food and fibers for clothing and shelter.

[Arugula Latte]

14. Looks like your little poll isn't working out as you envisioned.

Lol.

[Nederland]

25. On the contrary

It demonstrates just how unrealistic the members of DU are, which is precisely what I wished to demonstrate.

[SOS]

75. As unrealistic as that loony leftist Richard Nixon

who, starting in 1968, pushed for a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans.

By 1972, the right-wing extremists in his own party killed Nixon's GMI proposal.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. K&R just because of the total failure of the OP's objectives here.

[Speck Tater]

26. Does every kitten have the right to a home? Does every bunny have the right to fresh lettuce?

There are some harsh realities that make it difficult to simply proclaim that everyone has the right to the basic necessities. Overpopulation can put more pressure on an ecosystem than that ecosystem can withstand. If there are more rabbits than the ecosystem can feed then to talk about the rabbit's "right" to food is just silly. If there are more people than the earth's ecosystem can feed and house then it's equally silly to talk about "rights" when those rights are beyond the capability of the earth to supply.

Have we reached that degree of overshoot? I don't know, but we might be close to the limit. As it stands, millions of people are starving world wide. It makes no difference to say "they have a right to food" if we cannot find a way to provide that food to them.

So I would say that ideally, we should take care of each other if possible. But if it's not possible, then saying we should do something that is not possible is just meaningless jaw flapping.

[Zywiec]

28. +1

[Greyhound]

85. Your entire premise rests on the fallacy of scarcity and therefore is false.

I agree that there are far too many people on this rock, but so far there is still enough for all to have their basic needs met with ample left over.

[blues90]

27. There are so many ways to look at this issue.

I will say first if 10% of the money I paid into my health ins went to cover those who had no care so what.

In the 80's when Reagan closed all the mental care institutions and these people were tossed into the street they did not choose this and perhaps they have no one able to afford the care , they should not be left to die.

We put people in prison for drug use , this costs money so it would be better to rehab them so they have another chance, every one makes bad choices but prison is not the place to place them.

I doubt most people choose not to work. Long ago yes there were hobo's who rode the rails as a way of life and some drunks in cities but never the amount on homeless there are today so something is wrong with society and for one reason or a combination of a few they find themselves either jobless or not qualified , I feel a lot of this has to do with the way jobs now require more experience and they never had a shot at a better education due to the cost and as we know many jobs they did were out sourced and shipped away.

I don't feel anyone should be allowed to starve or live in the streets .

Yes perhaps birth control or better parent skills play a big roll in the outcome. Yet even people of success are not great role models.

If you have all you need or more than you need do you feel good to see people suffer or would you feel better to offer help , that is my question. There is a vast amount of reasons ANYONE might find themselves homeless. Ask yourself what you would want .

On top of this for decades on the back of every tax booklet one got was a pie chart , the largest section was war spending yet no one ever complained and if we would have just perhaps we would not be here now and everyone would have what they need. We allowed this yet many complain about a small percentage of this going to help people in need?

[rucky]

30. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Is something to shoot for.

[Xicano]

33. My take on why I say YES.

Because reality isn't where one can just find an open piece of land and just build a house there and start working the land one way or another to make a living.

So as long as reality is the way it is now especially with 90% of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the top few percent. Then yes people have a right to the basic necessities of life.

Or another way I see it is: A nation's natural resources belong to the nation and therefore everyone has a right to a share of that wealth.

And yet another way I see it is: A "civilized" society cares for each other. The opposite of that is "the law of the jungle" and what evil person in history did it cost billions of dollars and millions of lives defeating who prescribed to that doctrine?


Peace,
Xicano

[bobbolink]

35. If we are to be deprived of the basic necessities of life, then not only allow people to "check out"

but provide the painless means to do so.

Clearly, if we aren't worth being kept alive, then we aren't wanted, and should be allowed to leave this mess.

Face up to what YOUR values are.

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. +10

[bobbolink]

78. Thank you. Everytime I hear a libertarian bloviate on not having gov't "help" for the likes of me,

I want to get right in HIS (because they are mostly male) face and say this loudly and clearly.

Not that they would care.... I don't see an overabundance of compassion with the libertarian types, but I'm itchin' to say it....

:hi:

[AlienGirl]

88. THIS. Allow the occasional lazy person to be supported, or allow humane deaths.

If we are to value the right to property over life, then the thing that really needs to be done, worldwide, in rich and starving countries alike, is the creation of supportive assisted suicide programs for everyone who wants it. People could agree to get "put down" with a massive OD of anesthesia, safe in a comfortable bed, no pain, just a quiet flickering out of the light. No chance of botching it and ending up worse off, because a physician would help to make sure you are really dead.

People in starving countries would get the chance to avoid a long and painful death of hunger and the population would go down. In rich countries, where most of the world's resources are consumed, even a moderate reduction in population and consumption would free up more resources. There could even be a survivor's benefit paid to the families of suicide volunteers, say $1000 per person who chooses to get out of the way and make room for others.

It could even be run by a completely private comapny, which could sell the cadavers (or minerals refined from the cadavers, or whatever) to make a profit.

Tucker

[LooseWilly]

39. Everyone should absolutely have to work for everything. Throw the old off medicare.

End social security.

Ohh yeah, and those who don't qualify for unemployment, and can demonstrate "good faith efforts" to find gainful employment, should be given waivers to raise the funds to pay for housing, benefits, etc. by means of mugging old ladies, home invasions, car jackings, pimping and hooking, and even good old fashioned bank robbery. Conversely, intelligence officials who are tied to any drug trafficking should be executed summarily, and the balance of their pay for the year should be given to someone from the unemployment lists, as well as any life insurance benefits they might have outstanding.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Fuck yeah! I am sick and tired of Welfare Cadillac Geezers!

Oh wait, I am pretty much a geezer myself.

[JVS]

44. Only if massive corporations get a piece of the action. Otherwise it's impractical.

[anonymous171]

45. Don't forget employment. Everyone has a right to a job. nt

[Nederland]

47. Really?

If you own a business, do I have a right to go in and demand that you give me a job? Really?

[wuushew]

48. Google 2nd Bill of Rights

FDR = fool?

[Nederland]

60. Google the 1st Bill of Rights

Which says that people should not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

You don't have a right to somebody else's property without their consent. I'm sorry, but that means that unless they want to give you a job, they don't have to.

[SOS]

74. The 5th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with employment

It's about due process and applies only to those charged with a crime, except the final section which guarantees just compensation in eminent domain.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The 5th Amendment is irrelevant to private persons and their employment arrangements.

[anonymous171]

63. Did I say that?

Ideally the government would take an active role in employing the unemployable/underemployed. Everyone has a right to a job and a means to employment. That means free vocational training at the very least.

[C_Lawyer09]

108. How does free vocational training help?

I can get trained all day, but at the end of the day will still need an employer to give me a job.

[Sebastian Doyle]

51. This is a public service announcement....

......with guitars!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC_OM_rrTGo

[pitohui]

52. of course, it's impossible for everyone to work

it is just nonsense, first of all, there are not worthwhile jobs for everyone, we have automation and we will have more in the future -- we are going to have to accept that not everyone can work, either that, or we will have to accept some kind of mass murder (which is to me unacceptable) -- sure we're getting rid of plenty of testosterone fueled males by shipping them out to foreign countries but it isn't really working all that well because we still have too many bodies and too few j-o-b JOBS

once even little children and the very old either had to work or beg, now we accept that the children, the old, the disabled, etc. should not be expected to work (it would be impossible for them to earn enough to service by working anyway, esp. in the cases of small children and the frail old)

we're still angry and bitter when a supposedly able-bodied guy can't find work and i guess the guy is supposed to either stick a gun in our face or die, personally i would rather the guy not be asked to stick a gun in my face to survive but our society has decided that we won't help single young/middle-aged males -- the demographic most likely to become aggressive and criminal if they have nothing useful to do -- i don't see the sense of it

we just don't accept the reality of a world where there are millions more people than jobs which i think is just plain stupid

i guess we could have "make work" jobs but our society is unwilling to fund even needed "make work" jobs like improving roads, bridges, levees, etc. -- we don't want to give jobs to anyone, then we turn around and yell at them for not having jobs

screwy

the tiny minority who "choose" not to work are doing a favor to the overwhelming majority that desperate wants and needs a job and, too often, can't find one -- altho i doubt any real "choice" is often involved, i think that's just a pride/ego saver -- the person from the ghetto background who "chooses" not to work because no one he knows works and can give him a recommend, and he speaks in non-standard english (if he speaks english at all) so no stranger will hire him -- hmmm, was there ever any choice here? 80% of jobs are found through personal referral. EIGHTY FUCKING PERCENT. they had this stat on yahoo/jobs just yesterday or the day before...choice is a joke, it's abt contacts and having the right parents, professors, and so on

[Waiting For Everyman]

55. Yes, and we absolutely have an OBLIGATION to

see that all have those basic essentials of life as far as possible - first near us and widening out to the world. No one should die of starvation or exposure.

In the US given the foundations of our charter, it is up to government to provide or create ways for people to make it until that is accomplished for all. It's what gov't is supposed to be doing - providing for the common good and interests, along with defense (and I mean defense).

My point is that it is not only a right, but we are also obligated.

The public does not exist to be a food source for the few sharks at the top. That's how it is today, and it is just as morally wrong as war and violence. It is economic war, which is just as life-threatening as overt war.

[Toucano]

56. Classic Social Contract.

We are born free. We give up that freedom to avoid the "nasty, brutish, and short" life we would have without political authority.

In exchange for submitting to the political authority, the people have "civil rights" which the political body (in our case, the people) determines.

We get to decide what civil rights we have.

[Nederland]

64. Exactly

Food, clothing and shelter are products of work. The question becomes, does a person have a right to the things they create by working, or may those things be taken from them and without their consent by other people? I suspect most DUers would say no, you do not have that right.

[bread_and_roses]

91. Your agenda is as transparent as your premise is flawed.

And I suppose everyone has = access to the means of producing, via "work" the necessities?And i suppose that the person who has "work" that "rewards" him/her to "buy" those essentials created that "job" all by him/herself in a vacuum? It's very existence did not rely on a social contract? and often it's disposition on unequal factors?

[treestar]

61. Yes, everyone should have the basics

And work to get more than that. But the basics should always be there. That's what is wrong with the all or nothing welfare programs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. Society Absolutely Should. But There Should Be Strict Oversight As To Who Is Eligible.

Those who set out to take advantage of the system should be left to their own merits.

Anyone truly in need should absolutely be helped to at least some mandatory threshold of reasonable survival.

[bread_and_roses]

97. And I guess someone just like you gets to make those decisions, eh?

I worked with a lot of little tinpot authoritarians who just LOVED doing that when I worked in the public welfare system. What looks like "taking advantage" (called fraud these days, and punished with draconian severity whenever detected, no matter how minor) often looks like desperation from the inside. Does it occur to you that if a minimum standard of existence was provided as a right, then "taking advantage" becomes, in most instances, meaningless? Of course, that would deprive a lot of sneering, condescending, power-loving little KGB/Stalin wannabees of the sadistic pleasure they take out of being "the decider."

[Lorien]

67. Countries that answer "Yes": Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Finland

and to some degree most of the EU. Countries that would answer "No" ; Sudan, El Salvador, Mexico, the USA. In the first group people live long and happy lives in Nations with low crime rates. In the second group people live shorter, more stress filled lives-including the wealthy who must reside in gated or barbed wired communities to be safe from the masses- and the crime rates are far higher. The choice seems like a simple one to me.

[laughingliberal]

98. True. Remind me. Which countries were rated best to live in?

Not the US? Go figure.

[MrMickeysMom]

70. I believe Americans have the right to pursue it .... eom

[IrateCitizen]

71. Perhaps a better question would be, "Do people have the right to a job if they want to work?"

But with regards to health care, even Friedrich Hayek agreed that it was a basic right of all people in a society, and that the free market could not be trusted to provide it to all.

[cynatnite]

79. Yes, everyone has rights to those things, however...

If they want to be a doctor, drive a cadillac, live in a mansion and so on...they still have to be willing to work for it in order to reap those rewards.

[SoCalDem]

80. When land and resources can be privately owned, no.. n/t

[mdmc]

81. opinion or fact?

I think we should be a welfare state, but we are not..

[Odin2005]

84. Yes. The basics of life are a human right.

[kentuck]

87. I think there was a Republican that floated the idea of a "guaranteed" income...

of $6,000 per year. Maybe it was Rockefeller?

That would be a bare subsistence. Anyone that wanted or need more would need to work for it.

[jdp349]

89. No, those are entitlements not rights

I hate this pattern of taking concepts rooted deeply in political theory and turning them into a rhetorical device to support a particular political or social agenda, even if I happen to agree with that particular agenda. Government derives it’s powers from the people. The people do not derive their rights from the government. Please get this distinction straight as it's one of the fundamental theoretical concepts the country and nation is founded upon.

In a state of nature I certainly have the right to obtain the necessities of life. This right I would argue should be protected by the government. I do not however have a right to these things. We might demand that we are entitled to such things from the government, but cannot do so intelligently on the grounds that we have a "right" to them.

I'm not going to write a whole essay here, as it would fall on deaf ears. I really hate the simplistic, reactionary and dichotomous thinking on this website sometimes. You see this here with terrible and incredibly flawed pro-life arguments. Most posters agree with the argument based on the conclusion and implications rather than the argument itself ... drives me up the wall.

[kentuck]

94. Such as the "pursuit of happiness" is a right??

But how can one pursue happiness if they have no food, clothing, or shelter? I think it is a given. It is included in our rights.

[jdp349]

104. Very simple

"But how can one pursue happiness if they have no food, clothing, or shelter?"

Really? ... By pursuing food, clothing and shelter one is pursuing happiness. The pursuit of happiness includes the pursuit of the necessities of life. One most likely would be happier if they possessed both food, clothing and shelter and therefore they have the right to pursue them and the state should protect that right. If the state finds one party intentionally and strategically keeping a specific group of individuals in abject poverty and desperation than the state should intervene because these peoples rights are being violated. If the state fails to protect this right than the people have a legitimate grievance.

Though the pursuit of happiness is an incredibly vague term. We'd need to really define what is meant by the pursuit of happiness without making it all encompassing as to include anything that is good. In addition the Declaration if Independence is in many ways a rhetorical document.

The state and the citizenry might find it convenient to establish a certain minimal level of material happiness which all citizens are *entitled* to protect this right, but the protection itself is not a right.

[kentuck]

106. Well, if I'm pursuing a rabbit for dinner this evening...

for the wife and 3 kids, but he gets out of the box and escapes, then we have nothing to eat. But we are all supposed to be happy with the pursuit, no matter if our stomachs are growling? One cannot be happy if they do not have food or a roof over their heads. It would be a constant struggle for survival, thus creating the distinction between being poor and being in poverty.

[depakid]

99. Speaking of dichotomies-

Worker in Rio builds a wall around the slums he calls home.

[jdp349]

103. speaking of irrelevant

Picture of Dog taken with wide angle lens.

[depakid]

109. What an excellent illustration!

Dogs you see- can be quite blind and yet still get around- and "see" with their olfactory senses and hearing. Most observers- watching a man walking with a blind dog, would notice little difference. Indeed, they might remark that the dog was exceptionally well behaved for its breed.

[bread_and_roses]

100. It's astonishing to me that so many respond as if there were jobs for everyone who wanted them

and as if all of those jobs provided an above subsistence level living. And as if the distribution of jobs by wages/prestige were totally fair, totally based on merit or some objective standard.

Get a clue. There are not enough jobs for even everyone who wants one as our society is presently configured. Now, that does not mean there is not plenty of work to be done. There are young children and elders who need care, there are bridges that need repairing, there is decent housing that needs to be built, schools that need more teachers and aides and carpenters to fix the roofs and more computers and more art supplies that someone needs to manufacture. There are abandoned local farms that need to be put back to work and windmills to build and forests to replant and the oceans to protect. But THOSE jobs - you know, real work that is meaningful because it actually produces something of value - don't exist because as a society we've made - or allowed to be made - other choices. And then we condemn and despise the very people who could and would do those jobs if the existed.

So how anyone can even talk about this topic as if everyone had a real "choice" in the matter of whether or not to "work" is unfathomable to me. As far as i'm concerned, someone sitting at home playing video games is doing a lot less harm to the earth and to other humans than some corporate raider or bankster hustling for his/her next million.

[laughingliberal]

101. I am so sick of the "why should I pay for someone else who (fill in the blank)...

I've been a taxpayer a number of years and far more of my money has gone to bail out the wealthy when they get in a little pinch. Perhaps few are aware that the S & L Bailout (not even counting the recent TARP) cost the taxpayer more than every social program in this country for the entire history of social programs in this country. No, I have no problem seeing a safety net for those who need food, shelter, and healthcare. Please enlighten me what the recipients of TARP funds are spending their welfare checks on.

[Cleita]

102. Here is what we need and yes people for the most part should be able

work at decent paying jobs to pay for these things unless they are unable to work because they are too young, too old or too disabled to work. Also, all those multi-billionaires sitting around the pool waiting for the dividend checks need to go back to work too. After all they are the ones always complaining about the poor running around with their hands out wanting everything free. Let them do an honest days work for their money instead of mooching off of the labors of the working class.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/econrights/fdr-econbill.html

Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The Economic Bill of Rights”

Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

source: The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Samuel Rosenman, ed.), Vol XIII (NY: Harper, 1950), 40-42

[dusmcj]

105. a right not to have them denied, rather than a right to receive them

the basics stuff about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness might be translated into present terms as, every living thing has a right to satisfy its survival needs. Too many living things 'competing' for limited resources ? Breed less, wrap your dick or don't use it, and don't whine about sex transporting you into a realm where you're under control of higher powers; that would just illustrate how much you suck (if only, pun intended).

That means water, food, shelter, medical care.

And now: it means that no one has the right to deny you those things. And that some, specifically water, should not be controlled by any entity except to ensure its delivery to all at the lowest possible cost. So fuck private water suppliers.

No one having the right to deny you those things does not equate to a right to receive them from some munificent deity/parent figure. So yes, you need to work to acquire them. And the expectation is that whenever you are able to exert yourself to acquire them, that's what you will do. So for example, you will pay your water bill to your nonprofit municipal water company - how things should be. When you are unable to exert yourself to acquire them, then your fellows have an obligation to maintain institutions where they help you out until you are once again able to help yourself.

All of this will of course be simpler when private industry is once again regulated to within an inch of its life, the way it should be, when it is supplying a basic need, like water, or health care.

One thing which is clearly not a right is that of some to satisfy their perceived self interest by exploiting others. Work from there, plus the basic rights of all living things and you can't go far wrong.