Do we have a RIGHT to Food, Shelter, Healthcare, and Security?

[leftstreet]

Poll question: Do we have a RIGHT to Food, Shelter, Healthcare, and Security?

[Renew Deal]

1. Has man ever had a "right" to those things?

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

4. Certainly not in the USofA n/t

[mix]

5. only when he or she decides to make them rights

by fighting for them politically...

[damntexdem]

23. In a decent society, yes.

nuff said

[Two Americas]

84. yes, of course

Absolutely.

What are rights? Where do they exist? How does a person "have" them?

People talk about "rights" as though the word meant "privileges."

The question is do you recognize this right. If you do, you are saying that it exists. If you are questioning whether it exists, then you are not recognizing it and are saying that it does not exists. The question is not whether people "have" this right, or did or should or can. All of that is the way we think and talk about privileges, not rights.

Rights cannot be granted or bestowed, nor can they be taken away. They exist at all times under all circumstances, or not at all. We eihther honor and respect rights, or we do not.

Do you honor and respect the right to food and shelter for all people, or do you not? If you do, it exists for all time and always has under all circumstances, or it is not a right.

There is not such thing as "I believe in the right, but it isn't practical" or "it isn't happening." We saw this recently with people here on the issue of GLBTQ equality. People said "I support gay rights, but...." which was followed by "we have other priorities" or "now is not the time" or "they are going about it the wrong way." That is not possible. You can't support a right and then qualify that with statements that violate the very concept of what rights are. People who made those illogical claims were saying wither that they di not actually support gay rights but merely mouth the words, or else they were trying to say that they supported giving privileges to "them." That is how people oppose rights, deny and violate them. It is in no way support for rights.


...

[ZombieHorde]

99. Perhaps a legal right, but not some cosmic law right thingy.

Rights are just an idea.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I believe our inalienable right is the pursuit of those .....

However, I think that an evolved society would want to guarantee them to all its citizens.

[Renew Deal]

3. That's a very good answer.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. TYVM

:thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

8. I like that

:thumbsup:

[Kip Humphrey]

6. Currently? No. Should we? Yes. Survival should be the right of every living, breathing person.

If a guarantee of survival is good enough for zigots and fetuses, it should be good enough for the breathing.

[Deja Q]

30. *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* We have a winner!

:thumbsup: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock:

[Patchuli]

38. Yayyyyyyyyyy!!!

:yourock:

[dflprincess]

44. You sound like a - dare I say it?

SOCIALIST!

:fistbump:

I'm with ya!

[Quantess]

52. But if we want everyone to live long, healthy lives, then family planning should also be a right,

so as not to overpopulate the planet even more than we currently are.

Free birth control of all available kinds, for everyone who needs it.

[jody]

9. Yes to at least one of the three "Security" because the 2nd Amendment protects the natural, inherent

inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

On that same topic, SCOTUS has said in several cases that government is not obligated to protect anyone unless she/he is in custody, i.e. self-defense is a personal responsibility.

Regarding protection by government for citizens, SCOTUS said in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

SCOTUS said in CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, “Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband”

[leftstreet]

14. Security of person can mean 'social' security

From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[jody]

25. You wrote the OP and used " RIGHT". The only rights recognized in the U.S. are those enumerated in

the BOR and unenumerated rights protected by the 9th Amendment.

Those rights exist outside of government as PA (1776) and VT (1777) stated in their constitutions and they are natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights. They protect individuals particularly a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority vote that would prevail under a purely democratic government.

But of course you knew that, I was just writing for others who might chance to read your thread.

[kentuck]

10. We should insist upon it...

Especially after what we have given Wall Street and the banks. That is the least they should offer in appreciation.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. Yes, yes, yes, and no.

Risk can never be totally eradicated. How's that saying? "Those who trade freedom for security" etc.

[Deja Q]

27. Yes, yes, yes, and partly.

If we made a world that reduced certain risks, we would ALL be better off.

Some security is not illogical.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. Reasonable; the "no" was to the blanket statement. -nt

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. You have the right to persue those things...

n/t

[MercutioATC]

22. Exactly! We have a right to the PURSUIT of these things...

...not a right to be GUARANTEED these things.

[Deja Q]

28. True. Stealing is a crime...

:sarcasm:

[Naturyl]

35. Until we decide we do have such a right.

And let's hope we do.

[tangent90]

13. It depends entirely on what is meant by "a right". Your question is meaningless without a

definition to use as a framework for responses.

:-)

[leftstreet]

15. You mean 'natural' vs 'legal?'

I don't know really.

That stuff confuses me!

:-)

[tangent90]

16. Either one, for the purpose of discussion. Anybody who proposes a 'natural' right will have to

convince me that such a thing is not only possible but real. :shrug:

[leftstreet]

17. I know. It's confusing

I always think of the exchange from Star Trek VI:

"We believe in inalienable human rights!"

"Inalienable. I wish you could hear yourselves. Human rights. The Federation is a homo sapiens only club..."

[tangent90]

20. I pretty much dropped out of the ST loop after Kirk said Spock did "too much LDS"

:rofl: :D :silly: :D

[leftstreet]

21. "Double Dumbass on you"

:rofl:

[Duer 157099]

18. Yes, these are HUMAN rights

The difficulty, and the issue that confuses many, is WHO is responsible for guaranteeing those rights?

In a society where humans are free to hunt and grow food freely, without having to "own" the land - then responsibility lies primarily with the individual. But once you start regulating such things and restricting the ability for individuals to survive on their own, then the entity responsible for instituting these restrictions and regulations assumes responsibility for maintaining the human rights of all citizens.

You can't have it both ways, and that's the irreconcilable difference that people don't seem to grasp.

The price for a "society" where land ownership is allowed and where regulations and taxes are instituted, minimize the individual's ability to survive outside of that structure. So the structure must assume the responsibility.

The "outlawing" of homelessness is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

[leftstreet]

19. What an EXCELLENT example to make your point

The "outlawing" of homelessness is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Makes your brain go :crazy: for a second.

[Deja Q]

29. Your response is worthy as an OP.

:applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock: :applause: :yourock:

[Duer 157099]

32. Thanks. But it's such a simple and obvious point isn't it?

I wonder why there's not more discussion about it.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked and recommended for your post.

:thumbsup:

[killbotfactory]

115. My thoughts exactly

If we want true liberty we must ensure that everyone has access to the means of life as a starting point.

[suston96]

24. We have natural rights and we have civil rights.

Uh, check the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and then get a copy of Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man". All very well explained.

Civil rights are specified by the government a society creates and have their sources and authority from the natural rights of mankind and from the members of that society.

[Deja Q]

26. Long ago, people worked the fields for a living - an agrarian society.

Agricultural.

With the rise of other technologies and human strengths, new fields of occupation came about.

As long as someone wants to do their best and excel, why shoot them in the foot or anywhere else? As long as they're used in a relevant field. (for example, you do not want me being a doctor; I have no skillset there. Not by talent, training, or temperament.)

God made us all with various talents. To not be able to make use of them is inhuman and ungodly.

Yes, we'll always have nasty people. That's not quite the same thing. Indeed, God made them too - and if their purpose is to be bullies or murderers, great. They served their purpose and can go to the only place where they belong.

[Naturyl]

33. Wow, surprising results here.

38 to 5 in FAVOR of separating work from survival - and yet whenever one brings this up in any discussion at DU, they get insulted and treated with hostility.

Strange that the overwhelming majority who actually support this don't speak up. I can only conclude they must be afraid to do so.

Thanks for this poll and keep advocating for this. It's the decent thing to do.

[fascisthunter]

34. .

interesting point

[Oak2004]

53. The raging right- er, "center", here is loud out of proportion

I know I weigh my stress level before jumping in on threads where the raging "center" is screaming for more starvation, more brutalization, more arrests, more control, and more death. The raging "center" is impossible to convince of their error, and rarely engage in genuine discussion. Mostly, they hijack threads and take a big "centrist" dump on them.

If I have too much real world stress, I avoid posts where the raging "center" is doing its thing. Sorry, that I'm not always supportive.

[Naturyl]

55. It's just odd that this poll is so one-sided

And yet when I am in other threads arguing my ass off in favor of a guaranteed minimum income, hardly anybody has the balls to come out and support the idea. I'm left alone to fend for myself against opponents who never fail to be insulting, dismissive, and personally abusive.

Some of the 75+ who voted YES on this need to seriously consider speaking up for this idea more often. How is it ever going to happen if nobody dares to take a stand?

DU supports separating work from subsistence by a 750% margin. We need to see that reflected in more threads.

[Pharaoh]

37. Yes we should

but no we don't.

[TahitiNut]

39. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1948 ... and says YES!

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Human_rights_set_out_in_the_Declaration

[Naturyl]

41. Actually, there's a catch there.

"lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control"

In other words, the "undeserving" poor are still ignored.

[1]

56. you'd have to take that up with the un. its not defined that way in the us constitution...

[diane in sf]

40. If we don't we should.

[Motown_Johnny]

42. we hold these truths to be self evident...... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit....

Food, Shelter, Health care and Security are essential to Life.

Without them you are denied your right to life, the most basic right and therefore the first one mentioned.


I try to grasp the logic behind positions people hold that I disagree with but I honestly can't grasp anyone not seeing this self evident truth.

[WillowTree]

100. You do, of course, know the difference...

....between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Don't you?

[AdHocSolver]

43. I prefer my tax dollars be spent on universal health care rather than bailing out a bunch of crooks.

I prefer my tax dollars to be used for feeding people who can't afford to buy enough food rather than subsidize turning corn into ethanol to increase oil company and agribusiness profits.

I prefer my tax dollars be spent on education and medical research rather than on cockamamy antimissile systems that have never successfully been tested unless they are totally rigged so that they can't possibly fail.

If the government uses my tax dollars for these kinds of uses then, hell yeh, I SHOULD have a right to determine how it is spent.

[Naturyl]

45. Kick - 67 to 8 in favor of gauranteed necessities for all

Anyone who advocates for a guaranteed income or similar programs should bookmark this poll. It's going to be handy the next time somebody trots out Boortzian arguments about "freeloaders" and such.

[leftstreet]

62. It's great to see, isn't it?

:thumbsup:

[Naturyl]

63. Absolutely, although I wonder...

I wonder how many of the "yes" voters really understand that a yes vote means supporting people who refuse to work.

Granted, it's perfectly clear in the wording of your poll and *should* be clear to anyone, but I've noticed that some people have huge cognitive impairments when it comes to this subject.

[leftstreet]

66. It's a whole new way of thinking for many people, that's for sure

That's why I used the example of Freedom of Speech not being tied to employment status.

Interesting stuff!

[NaturalHigh]

46. I voted yes, BUT there is a catch.

Everyone who is able-bodied should be expected to work for those things.

[Naturyl]

50. Then that would be a NO vote.

There can't be any exceptions to human rights. Exceptions mean that either not everyone has the right, or not everyone is human.

Additionally, the poll specifies that a yes vote means we are entitled *without* reference to employment.

[No.23]

47. No right; moral imperative instead.

I have no qualms in asserting that we have a moral duty to ensure that all of our citizens' basic needs are first met...

before we fill our tummies with extra portions.

Moral standard do not have to be religious ones.

They can issue forth from a strong sense of humaneness.

[SmileyRose]

48. Morally yes, constitutionally no. Therein lies the chasm between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals think in terms of what is the right thing to do for the community and the world. Morality, decency, human rights on the basis of we are all in this together. Conservatives only want to know what the most narrow definition of "rights" according to the law of the land is and the rest of the planet can go get bent.

[Naturyl]

49. Constitutionally speaking...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[SmileyRose]

51. A very good reminder and I thank you. Especially since

nearly all conservatives either never read the US Constitution or else they just prefer to lie about it. They seem to do the same thing with the Bible.

You have given me the idea that the next time some freepazoid sends me a whiney email about the welfare queens I'll lay the US Constitution on them and ask them if our founding fathers were wrong. That oughta make their little peabrains explode.

Thanks again for the great ammo. We who haven't seen the inside of the civics class for 40 years plus need a reminder once in awhile. :)

[1]

54. no. (well, it depends on how you define security. you should clarify that.)

so, this undefined "security" aside...

check the constitution. (and show your work. but here's a clue: these are not in there.)

should we help as best we can? as human beings, absolutely.

but none of these are "rights" as currently defined by the constitution.

that is the beauty of the constitution and its definition of rights. it can be changed.

so add to the the definition of rights if you feel they should be in there...

[Quantess]

57. Good point. Does "security" mean inside a fence?

Is "security" a code word for Homeland Security?

I know leftstreet doesn't mean it that way, and neither does any other liberal, but someone else could twist it that way. In fact, "security" has been twisted that way for so long, that I don't know what else it means anymore.

[Seldona]

58. Yes.

It is hard to have life or liberty without any of those things imo.

The pursuit of happiness is another business altogether.

[Angleae]

59. And who pays for all of it?

[Naturyl]

61. Liberace.

No... the taxpayers, of course.

[leftstreet]

67. There are many different ideas out there

Some links if you're interested.

:hi:

http://www.usbig.net/papers.html

The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen's income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income#Advocates

Guaranteed minimum income (GMI) is a proposed system of social welfare provision that guarantees that all citizens or families have an income sufficient to live on, provided they meet certain conditions. Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labour market or a willingness to perform community services. The primary goal of a guaranteed minimum income is to combat poverty. If citizenship is the only requirement, the system turns into a basic income guarantee.

Many different sources of funding have been suggested for a guaranteed minimum income:

Income taxes
Sales taxes
Capital gains taxes
Inheritance taxes
Wealth taxes, e.g. property tax
Luxury taxes
Elimination of current income support programs and tax deductions
Repayment of the grant at death or retirement
Land and natural-resource taxes
Pollution taxes
Fees from government created monopolies (such as the broadcast spectrum and utilities)
Collective resource ownership
Universal stock ownership
A National Mutual Fund
Money creation or seignorage
Tariffs, the lottery, or sin taxes
Technology Taxes
Tobin Tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Income_Earth_Network

The Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN; until 2004 Basic Income European Network) is a network of academics and activists interested in the idea of a universal basic income, i.e. a guaranteed minimum income based solely on citizenship and not on work requirement or charity. It serves as a link between individuals and groups committed to or interested in basic income, and fosters informed discussion on this topic throughout the world. Their website defines a basic income as "an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement."

Formed in 1986, BIEN held its first international conference in Louvain-la-Neuve in September of that year. It expanded its scope from Europe to the Earth in 2004. From 1988 they published a newsletter three times per year; however, this has now been discontinued and replaced by an electronic newsletter distributed every second month. BIEN's secretaries have been Walter Van Trier (1986-1994), Philippe Van Parijs (1994-2004), and David Casassas (2004- ).

[Matariki]

60. By "right to" do you mean the right to other's labor producing food, shelter, medicine -

or the right to the means of production?

[leftstreet]

72. That's an excellent question

The Ruling Class has felt it had the 'right' to the excess value of our labor AND a 'right' to own the means of production.

What system we, the serfs, would design as equitable on our own - I have no idea!

[Naturyl]

74. I say let them have all that.

All I ask in return is a viable *option* to drop out of their system without losing basic subsistence. A viable option to avoid participation - for everyone who feels motivated by conscience to do so.

It's the least they can give us. Let them have all the rest.

[GreenPartyVoter]

95. It is the collective work of the citizens for the common good, administered by a government of the

people, by the people, and for the people.

At least that's what I expect of my country, anyway. But then I am just some crazed democratic socialist, so what do I know? :crazy: :silly: :P

[dysfunctional press]

64. no, they are NOT basic human rights. they ARE human needs, and societal responsibilities.

btw- you DO NOT have to work to get them- you could always go to prison....where you can get ALL of your basic needs met- plus lots of sex...whether you want it or not.

[Naturyl]

65. Ah, thanks for the tip.

Glad to know the choice isn't just "work or starve." It's work, starve, or go to prison.

With meaningful, attractive, reasonable alternatives like that, who could call employment slavery?

[dysfunctional press]

68. where ISN'T "work or starve" pretty much the way it goes?

:shrug:

and remember- shangri-la and a land called hona lee don't count.

[Naturyl]

70. Makes no difference to me.

Some people look at what is and ask "why." I look at what could be and ask "why not."

Paraphrasing one of the Kennedys there, I believe, but the point is that progress is about imagining how conditions for human beings could be improved and then making it happen.

For centuries, chattel slavery was an accepted practice worldwide. Now it isn't - and that's because some people knew we could do better and said so.

"Work or starve" is barbaric, and it's time for a better way.

[dysfunctional press]

73. "..."Work or starve" is barbaric, and it's time for a better way..."

what would your suggestion be?

and remember- "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" is already taken(besides,it implies that work is necessary)

[Naturyl]

75. Guaranteed minimum income.

A subsistence-level income guaranteed to every citizen regardless of employment status.

Ends poverty overnight, replaces all welfare programs, and gives every citizen genuine freedom to decide what he or she will do with his or her life. Guarantees life, makes liberty meaningful, and enables the pursuit of happiness for millions who are currently unable to pursue it.

Detailed case/argument is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3817932

[dysfunctional press]

76. how would it end poverty? it's utterly ridiculous.

"A GMI has the potential to reduce excessive consumption by creating a small but significant class of people who voluntarily live with less in order to pursue interests other than traditional employment. Such voluntary simplicity could positively impact problems such as the energy crisis, global warming, pollution, etc. If we are serious about "saving the Earth," perhaps we should consider strongly motivating people to live with less."

what about the fairly large and significant class of people who would voluntarily live with less to pursue getting fucked up all the time...? and if you don't think that would happen- you obviously don't have enough life experience under your belt.

[Naturyl]

77. So what?

"what about the fairly large and significant class of people who would voluntarily live with less to pursue getting fucked up all the time...?"

That's their business. Who are you, Big Brother? Poor people don't want or need your advice. Cash only, please.

"how would it end poverty? it's utterly ridiculous."

How wouldn't it end poverty? LOL. Poverty is defined as not having enough money. If you give people enough money, they are no longer poor. It's quite simple. What the recipients choose to do with the money from that point onward is their own choice, just as you have the freedom to determine how your own money will be spent.

[1]

80. heh. you've convinced me. i'm tired of busting my hump. my monthly check would cover...

my cable bill and some of this soon-to-be legalized pot, right?

hell, the more i think about this the better it gets...

[leftstreet]

81. LOL

I knew you'd come around!

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

:hi:

[1]

83. come over to my place and we can chill over some bud and some hbo...

:hi:

[Naturyl]

87. Welcome aboard lol

[dysfunctional press]

90. your definition of poverty is a little off...

you might want to research that a bit.

THEN try to answer the question about how it would end poverty.

btw- one rather LARGE questiion- just WHERE is all the money to pay for your gmi going to come from?

[scrinmaster]

97. So why don't we all stop working and take this GMI.

That way, no one has to work. :eyes:
All of these stupid give everyone everything they need, depends on a good number of people actually working and paying taxes to support the deadbeats.

[Naturyl]

98. Of course, and most people *would* continue to work.

Most people want more than the minimum. It's human nature. The majority is never going to settle for basic subsistence when there is the opportunity for more.

Food, clothing, shelter, and medicine means exactly that. People would still have to work for everything else they are accustomed to. Are you telling me you'll give up your entire lifestyle to take a free ride with nothing but the bare necessities?

I doubt it, and not too many others would, either.

Get real. You call this idea "stupid." What I think is stupid are these objections which obviously haven't even given the subject any real thought. Stop the knee-jerk naysaying and start thinking.

[dysfunctional press]

104. wanna bet on that?

anybody who makes in the neighborhood of minimum wage will NOT be showing up for their shift.
and LOTS of people would be heading to the states with the best beaches.
you really need to garner a little more life experience, and get to understand a little more about human nature.

[Naturyl]

105. Don't patronize me.

I know plenty about human nature.

If minimum wage workers quit, that's fine with me. Those employers will have to raise wages or fold.

Since when are Democrats against higher wages?

[dysfunctional press]

108. i don't have any problems with higher wages....

don't you wish that you could say the same thing about reality?

[Naturyl]

109. 81% of DUer's support this.

Read it and weep:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5297268

I guess 81% of DUers also have a problem with reality, eh?

Or maybe, more logically, you have a problem with progressive values.

That's YOUR problem, not mine, and not DU's.

[dysfunctional press]

110. WRONG!

"81% of DUer's support this. "

what you MEANT to say was that 81% of the 129 people who responded agreed with your poll question, NOT the ultra-ignorant "GMI" concept...:eyes:

you still got LOTS o'learning to do- you might want to consider summer school.

[Naturyl]

120. OK, you're done.

Enough insults. Welcome to ignore list. :)

[dysfunctional press]

121. for some people, the truth just hits too hard...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


brave, brave sir robin- "run away, run away..."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The2ndWheel]

118. "For centuries, chattel slavery was an accepted practice worldwide. Now it isn't"

"and that's because some people knew we could do better and said so."

Or because we lucked out with finding all that oil and coal in the ground. Throw in a few wars here and there to see who was going to run things, and here we are.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

69. Guess I should have put 'sex' in the title

Might have gotten a few more votes anyway.

:rofl:

[dysfunctional press]

71. probably mostly angry ones...

from women who rightfully don't appreciate it when men see sex as a "right".

[Quantess]

85. LOL. I think people of all sexes appreciated that thread, though!

Well, maybe not the men.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5300500

dysfunctional press, I admit I was going to acknowledge your guilt in starting the thread, but then I realized I was mistaken. :)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

79. Do we live in a Commonweal?

As in states that are known as Commonwealths?

Do we have a Social Contract by the consent of the governed, as posited by Jean Jacques Rousseau?

[leftstreet]

82. "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains"

n/t

[Naturyl]

88. There are none so hopelessly enslaved...

...As those who falsely believe they are free.

-Goethe

[elleng]

86. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

.

[michreject]

89. Where do we answer the question in the title?

I don't get the connection between free speech and food.

[dysfunctional press]

91. you have a right to speak up and ask someone to give you food?

:shrug:

[michreject]

101. No you don't

This was the question

"Do we have a RIGHT to Food, Shelter, Healthcare, and Security?"

This was a reply option.

"YES! My Right to Freedom of Speech is not tied to my employment status, why should my Basic Human Rights be?"

I see no connection between the two.

[dysfunctional press]

103. i think the person doesn't think those things should cost money...?

which is pretty goofy.

[C......N......C]

92. Nature goes through a lot of problems to have a reproductive system.

Since it is so important to nature to have a reproductive system, then I would say all necessities are rights. By declaration of natural law. People have a right to live and that right should not be infringed upon. Do some people have the right to heaven on earth just because they can manipulate other people ? Is it just the more powerful that have more rights? You know that if the more powerful wanted to be nicer and make life good for everybody, it would happen. So it all depends on what mood they are in.

[leftstreet]

93. THANKS EVERYONE for participating!

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

94. And education.

[Lucian]

96. Yes.

[surrealAmerican]

102. What do you mean by "security"?

Is it financial security, protection from crime or from wars? I don't get it.

[mykpart]

106. We the people of the United States

in order to form a more perfect union, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . well you know the rest even if Rush Limbaugh doesn't.

[Lyric]

107. Yes, they are rights.

As someone said above, we can no longer hunt freely, grow food freely, or build a house as we please. We are forced to live within a structure that says, "No, that land is not yours. Don't build your home on it, don't kill those deer, don't grow tomatoes there!" Because we can no longer live as individuals, we should not be individually beholden to provide everything for ourselves. At least a basic minimum standard of living should be allotted to everyone, with the OPTION of selling labor and/or services to increase your standard of living above that minimum.

A regulated capitalist economy, combined with socialist domestic policies that guarantee health care for all, and at least the basic amount of shelter and food necessary for survival. THAT is how America should function.

[scrinmaster]

111. You have the right to obtain it,

but not the right to be given it for free.

[Hugabear]

119. Then you would agree that you do NOT have a "right" to healthcare

I take it that you agree with the rethug principle of "survival of the fittest", and if you can't afford healthcare, then tough shit.

[Iris]

112. Re: healthcare

Many doctors are educated in publicly funded medical schools; therefore, we are entitled as taxpayers to decent healthcare.

[Hugabear]

113. You have a Constitutional Right to as many guns as you want. No right whatsoever to Healthcare, etc

Yes, I'm going to say it, and flame away.

There is something fundamentally wrong when the US Constitution guarantees you a right to have as many guns as you want, but no mention whatsoever about a right to healthcare, shelter, food, security, etc.

[Freddie Stubbs]

114. The Constitution states that there is a right ot keep and bear arms, but it does not state that

society has to provide arms to people.

[killbotfactory]

116. But what would become of the soul crushing bureaucracy?

What kind of world would this be if we recognized basic human rights, instead of making poor people feel subhuman about their condition and forced to navigate a bureaucracy to avoid starvation and death?

Who would flip our burgers if people could live without being forced to sell their labor for the minimum allowed by law to ruthless capitalist enterprises?

It's like you want to create a job market where all people are free agents and can demand fair compensation for their labor, rather than be forced into exploitative labor conditions.

And I suppose you want to give everyone access to higher education, as well!



Bah!

[Naturyl]

122. Hehe, great post.

Thanks for getting it.

[LanternWaste]

117. In that it is the responsibility of those who may provide...

In that I think it is the responsibility and the duty of those who may provide those services to those who cannot afford or do not have access those services, I believe it is indeed an ordained right of and to all mankind.

I would also ad education to your list.