Post #149,860
4/2/04 11:09:17 PM
|
Another thing to consider as a source - the UDHR.
[link|http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html|Universal Declaration of Human Rights] (from 1948) at the UN. I applaud your effort in this area. But consider your audience and the purpose of the document. Is it to limit the government? Is it to spell out universal truths? Is it to enumerate rights of the people? The document will have a different form depending on the answers to those questions. I think you're trying to cover all three at once. A brief comment: The ability for a person to survive, and to meet their basic needs, is a fundamental right of all people.I don't think you mean "ability" there, I think you mean "inherent right" or similar. The UDHR expresses it as: Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. and 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.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. and 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. They cover a lot of the things you're addressing. :-) The UDHR can't be enforced, so it's easy for countries to sign on to it. If it had the weight of law, then lawyers would be very busy. ;-) The history of the Bill of Rights, and its predecessors like the [link|http://www.constitution.org/bor/vir_bor.htm|Virginia Bill of Rights] is quite interesting. It's fascinating to read the arguments of those opposed and supporting the ratification. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #149,861
4/2/04 11:27:34 PM
|
total disagreement on a few things
> 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. no you have the right to puchase those items when you are in health and working, if you fail to purchase future sustenance then you have the right to go to a soup kitchen, homeless shelter and charitable clinic where available. A person who works and is frugal should not be forced to sustain a fellow worker who parties his wage away weekly with no thought for the future in the same comfort of themselves, that is stealing, see above for leaving ones personal property alone. I have no obligation to the wrecks of humanity other than a charitable one. I will decide whether and when to assist those whose ability to sustain themselves has been curtailed. You have no right to steal from me and give it to those you deem socially acceptable for state freebies. 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. sorry babysit your own ass and leave mine alone. I am free not a slave and if you cannot develop a personality without the asistance of the UN then fuck off and die. thanx, bill "You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #149,862
4/3/04 1:16:37 AM
|
Re: total disagreement on a few things
You have no right to steal from me and give it to those you deem socially acceptable for state freebies. That is the basic function of states. Everything else is simply a question of arguing over how much they can steal and what is important enough to hand out. Jay
|
Post #149,869
4/3/04 7:27:15 AM
|
that is not a basic function of states
a state function is to negotiate treaties with other states. Record keeping of who owns what to settle disputes and a collective for defence of the whole. It should have squat to do with income redistribution.
thanx,
bill
"You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #149,871
4/3/04 10:20:41 AM
|
The basic function of states . . .
. . is to operate a highly profitable protection racket.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #149,879
4/3/04 1:54:38 PM
|
Re: that is not a basic function of states
a state function is to negotiate treaties with other states. Record keeping of who owns what to settle disputes and a collective for defence of the whole. It should have squat to do with income redistribution. Nope, all three of those things you mention involve the government taking my money and doing things for other people with it. There is no qualitative difference between defense and medicine that says one is a state matter and the other isn't. In the end, it's a question of what the state is better at doing then individuals or private companies. Jay
|
Post #149,898
4/3/04 8:47:38 PM
|
what the state is better doing?
Check your local VA and Indian Health Service, report back.
thanx,
bill
"You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #149,919
4/4/04 12:20:27 AM
|
US doesn't do it very well
Just because the US government doesn't do it very well doesn't mean that it is never a good idea. Both Canada and much of Europe have resonably efficent systems.
And on the other side, consider the number of countries who's armies have failed when put to the test in wars.
Jay
|
Post #150,135
4/5/04 4:33:12 PM
|
Actually, it is...
Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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. If you look at the preface to the whole mess, it's all there. It's just a matter of interpretation... Which is why our legal system is a hoinked up. If you don't provide for the common defense, you'll have a hell of a time ensuring domestic tranquility, establishing justice, etc... Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #150,149
4/5/04 5:28:23 PM
|
Confucius said it better
(Explaining various of the consequences, if Language is not correct)
. . . etc.
..the people will stand about in helpless confusion.
Then justice will go astray, hence it matters above all else that language be correct.
(Hell, you can't even WRITE a "Constitution" - if no one can imagine why you'd need one - or decipher what's in it.. if you try.)
|
Post #150,163
4/5/04 6:01:44 PM
|
Not sure what your point is
I'm not sure what your point is here, but I suspect you are forgetting the context of this conversation. It's not a question what our constitution says, but rather a question of what a constitution should say.
And just so it's clear, I certainly do agree that defense is matter for the government. It's just that I also think health care is a matter that our government should cover. And I don't see any absolute difference between them that says that one must be a government matter and the other shouldn't be.
Jay
|
Post #150,167
4/5/04 6:06:00 PM
|
why should government cover health care?
"You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #150,178
4/5/04 7:40:43 PM
|
Why should business 'cover' health care?
And for those not-working for a plethora of reasons:
Should there be any healthcare?
(After the local hospital is bankrupted by indigents at Emergency rates: mandated by State govt but unfunded.)
Practicing up for social Darwinism again, Box?
ie.
Screw your 6 word slogans about complex matters. Is that Geek-debate or something? We get enough of that horseshit on FOXX.
|
Post #150,189
4/5/04 9:44:30 PM
|
Lets start a new thread, free medical care for all or not (new thread)
Created as new thread #150188 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150188|Lets start a new thread, free medical care for all or not]
"You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #150,187
4/5/04 9:37:12 PM
|
Things to consider
These are some of the things I would consider when deciding if something should be run and/or managed by the government.
1. It is something that everybody needs.
For both defense and health care this is obvious.
2. It is something that need to be organized on a vast scale.
Obviously true in both cases.
3. It is not something that can be run well for profit.
More arguable, but experience shows in both cases that maximizing profit involves reducing quality of service. For mercenaries this means dragging out conflicts while minimizing actual combat. For medicine, it means forcing people to use cheaper medicine even if better ones are available and denying coverage as much as possible.
4. It is something that is better run by governments then others.
For military service this has been historical true, countries that depend too much on mercenaries end up in trouble. It's more arguable for medicine, but the experience of European countries says that at the least it can be run as well by the government as by buisness.
5. It's in the government's best interest that this be handled well.
Obvious for the military, more arguable for medicine. But I think it's in a countries long term interest to have healthy citizens.
Jay
|
Post #150,190
4/5/04 9:45:36 PM
|
Have you visited a VA hospital or IHS clinic lately?
"You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #149,937
4/4/04 1:32:10 AM
|
Re: that is not a basic function of states
Take just one example, then - to see why oversimplification of the idea of a 'State' fails in 04, or any time:
KISS - never mind even 'in-State' redistribution [a real Biggie]:
"Redistribution of ("Our") wealth" - specifically in the bestowing of 'aid' upon other States on the planet: this is about bobbing and weaving in the leveraging of Our Power VS the combined Power of all others' -- so as to maintain that "5% using X% of It All". <<< THAT is the aim of Our State\ufffd, if you like Simple.
And since all States are entirely cynical in the employment of lofty phraseology and deadly euphemism - but mainly in pursuit of the above - nope, the need for bafflegab / shameless obfuscation of Obvious Intent: guarantees that such simplistic definitions of The State, as you prescribe
Fail.
Personally, I believe that no revisitation of the present US Constitution can effect 'improvement'; we must Preserve That from attacks by such as the Neoconmen / My Gramma, or see the chaos of unrestrained Vulture Capitalism destroy the entire operation, very possibly including nukes -- thus virtual termination for most.
We can't improve on the original because:
Language has been poisoned, and at an accelerating rate in past 2 decades. The poisoning is now epidemic. Judgment call whether or not Language can next -?- be revived.. from within an environment of creeping [and consequential-] dumbth. You know my guesstimate on that.
Nice word exercise, though. Helps save Language, I suppose. . .
moi
|
