Should governments be obligated to protect citizens from hunger and homelessness?

Question

Can someone help me out

Answer 1

There are differing viewpoints on this but I will give you mine.

Freedom = Responsibility

With freedom comes a responsibility to accept the consequenses of the choices we make when practicing those freedoms.

Our freedom to choose our own career for example means that we must take responsibility for the career choices we make. Maintaining that freedom requires that we take on the risk that we could in fact become unemployed and as a result lose some or all of what we have.

The moment we set up government funded welfare programs to secure us from the possible negative consequences of a bad career choice we also give up our right to choose our own careers. This is not to say that the government will instantly take our control over our career choices away, but rather that the right to choose ones own career than becomes a privilege.

There are multiple possible scenarios in which we could lose that privilege:

Social Welfare programs cause taxes to go up and puts more money into the hands of government officials. The more money we put into the hands of the government, the easier it becomes for a dictatorial leader to arise. Dictators in turn tend to control who can be in what careers. For example, in Nazi controlled Germany teachers, medical personnell, and anyone working in the arts were subject to arrest and imprisonment unless they could prove that they were party members in support of the regimne

Social welfare programs tend to aggravate the people who put the most money into them (the middle and upper classes) and who feel that they should be able to keep the money they have earned. This leads to calls for accountability from those recieving benefits. Such calls were a major political issue in the early 1990's and led to welfare reform programs. Welfare reform has resulted in the development of worker retraining programs. Most worker retraining programs limit the careers that participants can train for to careers in certain fields or to training programs that train for specific positions for which workers are in high demand. Because these participants are recieving government funding they have given up the right to choose between a secure (high demand) career in which they have less interest or taking a chance by training for a less secure (low demand) carer which may be the fulfillment of a life long dream.

Although the actual benefits are payed by the former employer, unemployment benefits are mandated by the government for most employers. These benefits are another example of how our freedom to choose how to make a living is sacrificed for security. When someone accepts unemployment benefits they accept certain conditions. They must keep records of their job search and turn those records over to a government agency upon request. They must also apply for a certain number of jobs each week and accept any job offer they recieve. Often, this means that the worker must accept a job outside of their field, one that pays far less than what they were making before, or one that has fewer benefits than before. Once that person accepts a full time position it becomes difficult to continue to look for a job in their field or at the same level of income or benefits as the job they lost. They have in effect given up the right to take the time to find the right job.

This applies to other freedoms as well. For example, when we allow our desire to be free from listening to other people's religious views in public places (such as students listening to classmates say the words 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance), we also give up the right to express our own views on religion. In the short term such rulings permit the prejudices of special interest groups to prevail and in the long term it endangers the freedom to practice one's religion and to speak freely for all of the people.

Answer 2

No. That's absurd.

In a free society, it is not the government's job to take care of you. Ideally, a government has ONLY two functions: To protect us from foreign and domestic agressors and settle disputes between us. Anything else should be left to an individual to sort out for himself.

Poverty is a mental disease. That bum sitting there on a grate in the sidewalk is there by CHOICE. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made throughout his life. At any point, he can CHOOSE to stop living the way he does -- there is absolutely no limit to what a human being can accomplish. I actually work with a woman who was homless for seven years and finally decided that enough was enough and chose to stop living on the streets and get her life together -- she did it without help from the government, but from her friends and some generous people. Within two years she had an apartment of her own and a solid, good-paying job. It can be done. I've seen it happen more than once. But it could not have happened if she had not been willing to get out of what she calls her "poor pity me" mentality.

The ONLY exception to this truth are people who are physically or mentally unable to work and support themselves -- and those people constitute a VERY small percentage of the population and should be taken care of through PRIVATE charitable organizations.

Consider this: Of the number of Americans who are millionaires or above right now -- less than 1% of those people inherited their wealth. The rest earned it. That's something to think about. You don't have to be born rich... but if you work hard enough and make the right choices, you can sure as heck die rich.

Answer 3

Yes, I think the government should be obligated to protect citizens from hunger and homelessness. They already have tried to do this, but they could do better. I think that together the citizens government of a country could prevent starvation and homelesness. Some people have son much money and thay are not willing to give up a single penny to help other human beings!!! That is horribble and cruel!! They should try to be homeless for a week!! They wouldn't survive!

Answer 4

No. Governments should be responsible to set an environment for businesses to thrive or falter according to their own management abilities. Government should never guarantee success or promise that the business will not fail. We cannot learn or grow if we are always guaranteed that our needs will be met. In the event of failure, for no fault of our own, then a welfare system should be in place to help the unfortunate on a temporary basis until they can get back on their feet. Long term welfare for those that should and could take care of themselves should be eliminated. Families need to step up and be more active in assisting their respective family members. Churches already do help out in large measure for those that are "down on their luck." The community should also be ready to help as needed. I think this is something that is best left at the local level. The Federal Government is in no position to manage welfare problems on a local level. The key word in your question is "obligated". There is a moral obligation for the people to assist one another when in need. The governments should make sure that the stage is set to allow the locals to run the welfare programs. They should not try to protect the citizens from the risk of failure. That accomplishes indolence sloth, not productiveness and growth.
I hope this helps a bit. This is my perspective on the matter.

Answer 5

The simple answer is NO. Governement should protect the people from circumstances that would prevent an otherwise capable person from taking care of themselves and their family - the "Company Store" type things, the Depression, and that sort of stuff. WE are the government, don't forget. WE vote, WE pay taxes. Is it MY job to provide food and shelter to folks not in my family? No it is not. I can help out those who otherwise cannot help themselves. I can help out a little bit, for a little while, til someone gets back on their feet after catostrophic loss, or to help improve their lot in life.

In this country, with all the programs, both government and private, all that "free $$" floating around for education, food, temporary shelter, and all that; there is no excuse for an otherwise capable person to be in THAT much need - poor, because they CHOOSE to remain that way.

Answer 6

I didn't used to think so. But now I understand the point of government in the US was to regulate under a rule of, for and by the people, in order to give all the ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. I would think that any government willing to do so would be percieved as an integretable government that really is for the people. But as it is said, the only ones who can be helped are those who are willing to help themselves. I think the government should use the money it accrues to help install programs to get food to the hungry, but also to help them get back on their feet. Not all homeless people are drug addicts who refuse to work.

Answer 7

Depends on your political stance. I'm a registered democrat but I hate the idea of giving money to all those millions of welfare homies who refuse to work. I went to chatanooga years ago and got lost, I ended up in the wrong part of town during high noon and I seen about a thousand healthy young men doing nothing and living off the gov. I think we should feed children but hold the parents accountable. In other words make the out of work parents do road work, clean up down town and do litter patrols. those who are not healthy enough to work should be made to do jobs to their capabilities like sewing and other menial tasks. No one in my opinion should get a free ride. Now, healthcare on the other hand should be free to anyone or at least at a reduced cost. If we stopped enabling the welfare junkies by giving them free money and food we may have enough money for stuff like that.

Answer 8

sure and No. If the guy is lazy, or has made a large number of their existence by using detrimental alternatives, NO! the style of guy or woman could desire to acquire no help till they are waiting to alter. At that ingredient, help could desire to be available to help those human beings combine lower back into society. If the guy turns into homeless because of the fact of a organic / human catastrophe, sure! some human beings will say "that's why we've assurance". those human beings of course have not had to record a declare after a catastrophe. in actuality, while you're fortunate, the assurance pays a small quantity. relax certain it quite is going to be a fragment of what you have lost, in the event that they pay something. What happens if a guy or woman commits against the regulation, gets caught, does the time (in detention center or detention center), gets out and is not waiting to discover a role that could pay him adequate funds to proceed to exist? the appropriate they are able to wish for is to finally end up homeless, begging for spare replace. maximum turn lower back to crime, and finally end up lower back in detention center. in this occasion, i think of this guy or woman merits a raffle to place their existence mutually wisely. One extensive caveat is whilst toddlers are in contact. toddlers could desire to consistently be fed, clothed, knowledgeable, and enjoyed, in spite of the plight of their mothers and dads.

Answer 9

no , the government is not there for the lazy . any homeless person can find a shelter , take a shower , and get a job

Answer 10

YES! They should utilize all the Military bases that have been closed. The bases already have all the equipment for cooking, housing, and safety could be provided by the people hired to administer the facility.

Answer 11

Obviously since those are a part of human rights.

Read the Declaration of Human Rights. I believe it's from a Geneva Convention.