You will be a loser if you allow yourself to be derided as such, everyone do have "downs" in their life and nobody is exempted, even rich people do have downs and even the most notable people do have downs and do not forget that successes are measured when one overcomes the hardest obstacles in life during the most down episode of their life or perhaps chosen career and somehow did succeed. Fight back against yourself and against them for we are all the same and equal.
I follow the UN. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/...nations-convention-of-the-rights-of-the-child And the Declaration of Independence lists most of them, and a good deal more concisely, in the big three, but it also explicitly states these are not meant to be all-inclusive/
UN UDHR Article 25 1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control 2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. So the above are where the "positive" rights come in to play. But positive rights automatically place others in servitude because someone else must be forced to provide the "social security" and food, clothing, housing, medical care, and social services. So, Article 25 is in direct opposition to Article 4 and Article 17. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 17 1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. That people would be compelled by force to perform actions to provide for others is anti-liberty. The UDHR Article 25 declares that involuntary servitude is required - which is immoral, and I suppose, even evil. I wonder why the UDHR does not contain anything spelling out the proper way to forcibly remove property from one person and hand it over to another person so ART 25 can be met. I wonder why the UDHR contains no requirements for fathers of a child to care for the child and mother, instead of placing that burden on others who are not even involved. UN utopian and progressive thinking conveniently omits that someone else is going to be forced to pay. Charity is a much better way to handle these things.
Thank you Ms Rand That chair over there, the one labeled "hypocritical old biddy" has been prepared just for you. Prohibiting Slavery does not mean that the government cannot charge taxes or support the indigent through coerced payments. The government defines what property IS and taxes are part and parcel of that definition. If you have a problem in a democracy you have means of redress and are free to use them but remember that your property is there because of the government, not the other way around
And thank you Mr. Amost-Marx, "from each according to success, to each according to failure." That chair over there, the one labeled "thief who promotes involuntary servitude" has been prepared just for you. The government of the United States was not intended to be a "central planning authority" under which all individuals are subservient. That isn't what the founding fathers wanted. If the founding fathers would have wanted positive rights, they would have specifically included them in the founding documents. That the current government is exceeding its constitutional authority is something that many recognize and are reacting to with their votes. Like I said previously, charity is the way to take care of the issues in question.
Thank you! As I have said before, Positive Rights are very important. For people with disability, much more so then for able bodied and able minded people. Sometimes people who have no disability and fit into Society are called "normies".
You are requiring that Person A must involuntarily spend a portion of his time working so that Person B can have food, shelter, and medical care. You are advocating that Person A, who pays Person B's sustenance, can't own a gun. You obviously feel that Person B, who is a parasite, should have control over Person A, who is self reliant. Sounds decidedly evil to me. "Positive rights" is just another name for "I deserve free stuff and you are gonna give it to me."
Could you cut out eliminationist rhetoric -- it is equally bad coming from Right and Left. Targets are different, but arguments are the same.
From Merriam-Webster: Definition of parasite 1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery sought to rid the palace of the parasites of his prosperity 2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism an intestinal parasite of humansa parasite that causes malaria 3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return My use of the English language is appropriate. It may cause hurt feelings, but the truth sometimes does that. Do you have an actual argument for forcing Person A to involuntarily provide support for Person B? Do you not realize that Person A would rather spend his hard-earned resources on his own family? Person B has no right to ownership of Person A's time. Do you disagree? If you disagree, what argument would support your disagreement?
I disagree very strongly. Person B is either old and/or sick or maybe even very young, but has the failing of having parents who either dead or unwilling to support them. In any case, they will die without your "hard-earned" dollars. Anyone of us might become sick, we will all one day be old and if you think unfortunate children should simply die we have nothing further to discuss but you are simply wrong. This idea that we should kill all the old and sick and our functional orphans so you can have slightly lower taxes while continuing a trillion-dollar support of favorite industries like defense and oil is one of the most repugnant things I can think of about conservatism
It is called "charity." It is called family taking care of their own. The problem with forced giving is this: Those that receive the forced giving become entitled and constantly scream for more, more, more, and they come to despise those who, in their eyes, are not forced to give enough. As the forced givers see the entitlement mentality of the takers, and that they are not grateful for what they receive for free, and that they constantly cry "you should give me more," well, the givers start to despise the takers in return. The takers despise the givers and the givers despise the takers and a vast gulf occurs that tears society apart. That would not happen with voluntary charity. Free food, free housing, free clothing, free spending money, free cell phone service, free medicine, free healthcare, free college, free childcare, getting paid to have babies, holy jesus, is there no end? The other night, was watching the news - the story was about a local taxpayer supported housing project - the plumbing had backed up in an apartment.... They interviewed the much overweight inhabitant: "Somebody gotta do something about this, this ain't right, my babies crawling around in poo!" My thought was "Are you kidding me, get off your fat ass and call a freaking plumber, are you freaking helpless?" Man, how sad that government has destroyed people's sense of responsibility. Entitlement sucks.
Every person with Disability should be helped by Society. According to UN UDHR Article 25, food, shelter, and medical care are Human Rights.
That is not an argument. Do you have an actual argument? Person A wants to pay for his daughter's college education. Person B wants Person A to provide him with food, shelter, and medical care. Why do Person B's desires take precedence over Person A's desires? Why does Person B take precedence over Person A's daughter? Again, is there a logical argument beyond "the UN says so" or "it is extremely humane"?
Only The State can determine what property belongs to whom. Not paying taxes is equivalent to theft. In Scandinavia, basic food, shelter, and medical care is not viewed as charity. It is something rightfully belonging to every Human.
Proverbs 22:22: "Don't steal from the poor, because they are poor. Don't oppress the needy in the gate." According to Talmud, this refers to withholding obligatory charity. In Judaism, charity is more like a 10% tax for Community.
Not this. Everyone likes to look at people lower then them on Social Ladder. Many people can look down on me. Long term prisoners are on an even lower social status. But even prisoners have rights -- not in USA, but in West Europe and Canada.
The founding fathers did not intend it that way. We are not subjects. A careful reading of the constitution affirms this. Owning property predates the government. Those of us who bust our humps for a living do pay taxes. Lots of people do not pay federal taxes. But Paying taxes isn't the issue. How much and what for is the issue. Family is the very best way to handle these things. Absent that, voluntary charity is the best way to handle what we are discussing. Charity makes the giver feel good, and the receiver feel grateful. Government overreach that forces providing for others leads to conflict between the producers and the takers. The takers complain that the producers owe them more, the producers think "damn, when is enough, enough"? Families and fathers need to be responsible for their family members and children. Instead of passing bills that require the general public to provide that support, maybe they need to pass and then enforce some laws requiring fathers and families to take care of their own. So how about this... figure out how much you contribute to everyone else's food, shelter, and medical care, and then I'll pay the same amount. That's the fair way to do it, correct? Everyone should pay the same amount.
Are you so smug that you would force your religious beliefs upon others? Just to add to your contributions in this area: Thessalonians 4:11 But we urge you, brothers, to excel more and more and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you. Then you will behave properly toward outsiders, without being dependent on anyone.
Most American parents abandon disabled adult children. I am one of exceptions. We are Jewish -- not American. Without State support, millions of people face a life of misery and poverty. Without free medical care, millions of people are at risk for their very lives. In USA, 27 million people have no medical insurance.
