I find the way you phrase this interesting. It goes well with my ideas about what rights are and how they come about.
There are no inherent "God-given" rights. If there were, they would have existed even when humanity was in a state that was barely distinguishable from the other animals around it. "Rights," then, are an evolving social agreement that we have with each other.
If we as a society decide to elevate any or all of the above needs to the level of being a right, then they become so, but agreement on these rights must be sufficiently widespread to make their adoption universal.
By "society's worst," I assume you mean prisoners. When we imprison criminals, we make it impossible for them to see to their own needs and thus must take those responsibilities upon ourselves. The analogy does not hold.
But if the logic of your final argument is flawed, your proposal still has merit. How do you propose bringing it about?
2007-06-10 16:21:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by nightserf 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. All citizens should be granted the opportunity to obtain these things, and more. However, if you choose to be such an outrageous jackass that noone can stand to be around you, you refuse to make even the minimum contributions to society, and you fail to follow the laws of society, then why should we guarantee food, shelter, and clothing?
It is called personal responsibility. You make your decisions, and you live with the results. This is the basis of a free society.
2007-06-10 16:10:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Phil 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Well, the Declaration of Independence grants us all the right to Life. It's really about time that right is defined.
2007-06-10 16:11:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Frank 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Who is to grant them, and where are they to come from?
In order to give to someone, you have to take it either from your own pocket or from someone else's.
If it is to come from your pocket, we call that charity and thank you for it.
If you wish to grant these minimum necessities from someone else's pocket, it seems like theft to me. If they didn't freely give it, it seems like theft.
***
Socialism is that form of government which uses the police power of the state to redistribute resources from the most productive people to those deemed 'deserving' in such quantities as the government sees fit.
Rather obviously, all socialist states are also fascist states in that they assume the right to seize income and property for the use of the government [which redistributes it to others].
The major stumbling block of socialism is that economic growth first stagnates and then fails. Governments are very poor planners and very poor motivators.
Who would work hard to benefit everyone but himself?
And if you are granted life's minimums without any work at all, why should people work? [or admit that they do work].
{Prisoners give up something valuable ... the freedom to choose what they shall do and whom they shall asociate with.}
***
Nice try, no score.
:)
2007-06-10 16:11:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Spock (rhp) 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
They can break the law and often do to survive .
Once they no longer fit into society in general they are left to discover the other world .
that of theft scams and illegal activity .
They get caught and tend to do a few years in prison where they complete their education in crime .
If you can not make it on the outside their is always a bed on the inside for them .
Why do you think so many mexicans are willing to risk coming here and seem happy to get caught .
Our worst detention centers for them are like staying at Paris Hilton's Beverly Hills home for the average college graduate here with a good job . .
2007-06-10 16:07:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
By giving medical care to someone, you deprive medical care from someone else. Therefore medical care is not a basic human right. Neither is good, clothing, etc.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are the human rights that our constitution defines.
2007-06-10 16:03:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by x 4
·
3⤊
3⤋
YES!!
Here's another thing, prisoners also get cable TV and internet access, alot of hard working people aren't able to afford that. How is that fair?
2007-06-10 16:12:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by BobTheBlazer 3
·
3⤊
2⤋
Those things are not human rights. All humans have the OPPORTUNITY TO WORK to obtain those things. The man that doesn't work, doesn't eat.
2007-06-10 16:24:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
yes write something up and apply it to planet and citizens should be done. govs andcits sign aknk.before world red'd so no doubt.humanity is seen truly at last
2007-06-10 16:19:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by darren m 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
Of course. Because, depriving anyone of those things is actually a theft, a crime depriving them of their birthrights.
It's laughable to say a rigged system is a fair determiner of who gets what resources.
2007-06-10 16:05:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by cassandra 6
·
4⤊
4⤋