Again, the nature of a right is that government has a responsibility not to actively infringe upon it without due process. We have a right to life--not not have that life forcibly removed from us by the government. If our lives are taken naturally (through age, illness, or accident), that is not the government's responsibility. The government's only responsibility regarding our natural rights is to not do anything to inhibit them. You need to differentiate between rights and obligations. A right is completely on yourself, something you have simply by existing. An obligation is dependent on provision by another entity. It's easy to differentiate if you consider if the particular thing in question would continue to exist if the government ceased to. If the entire federal government closed up shop tomorrow, we would still have freedom of speech, right to life, the right to remain silent, et al. We would not, however, have government provided welfare, healthcare, housing, etc. Now, if you want to say that you believe that the government has an obligation to provide basic needs to its populace, then that's your right to hold that opinion. But it is a perversion of the concept of natural rights to identify as a right something that has to be provided by someone else.
Sure, they can be provided. But if I chose to use all of my income to pay for frivolities, would I still have a right to have the government provide my family all the food, water, clothing, shelter, and healthcare that they need? If these things are truly rights, then they should be available to me at all times regardless of my circumstances.
Pardon my confusion, but this doesn't make much sense. If your sister makes little enough to collect food stamps, and you make less, you probably aren't paying very much in taxes. Maybe things have changed, enlighten me!
You have a right to "health care" but you don't have a right to make doctors and nurses into slaves. If you want your right to health care, take an aspirin. That's where your right ends. You don't have a right to the fruits of someone else's labor. My words are carefully chosen.
Well, we saw how well "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" worked. I believe in charity, but not entitlement.
See, I believe WE are the government. It's not a separate entity. It is supposed to be for the people BY the people. We would be providing these rights to one another.
Charity doesn't fix the problem of hunger in this country when we literally THROW AWAY 51% of our food instead of giving it to the hungry and homeless.
No doubt. But in order to provide the would-be-rights of food/water/clothing/shelter/healthcare to the poor, you have to violate the property rights of the wealthy by taking from them to give to others. I agree that those with much should be willing to provide for those with little, but it is un-American to force them to do so.
See I don't believe that. Taxes are progressive. Cue @Denny Crane The top marginal tax rate used to be well over 80%. It was 79% before Reagan tripled our debt and plunged us into recession with his huge tax break on millionaires. Rich people who don't care if they live in a country full of poor people disgust me.
Also, raise my taxes. I will gladly have them raised so I can save money on basic needs. Edit: the basic needs of everyone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/ Size of national debt when Reagan took office:$1 trillion Size after six years:$2.3 trillion (130 percent increase) Size at the end of his presidency: $2.9 trillion (190 percent increase)
No, I am talking about how you use that argument when your darling president trumped reagan's spending and say, "Hey it's okay because he's a democrat!"
What the hell are you conflating right now? I never even brought up Obama. What do you have? Obama Tourettes?
