Reply
Sun 20 Jun, 2004 12:33 pm
With all the debate recently for amending the United States Constitution in favor of recognizing marriage as a union between a man and woman, perhaps a more appropriate amendment should guarantee each citizen of the United States the right to food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Poverty is defined as the condition of being poor or lacking the necessary means of support to live or meet needs. Today we read of enormous corporate tax breaks, outsourcing of jobs overseas and outrageous salaries "earned" by athletes/entertainers. More recently came the revelation of the $200 billion dollars spent by the U.S. on the war in Iraq. In the meantime, the number of those in poverty continues to increase. The Old Testament of the Bible often makes references to the promised land flowing with milk and honey. All one has to do in this country is take a trip to the grocery story or department store and bear witness to the fact that if anywhere was close to exhibiting the characteristics of "the promised land", this country is it. Yet somehow we are still unable to meet the four basic needs every citizen has. Some would argue that this proposal is an extension of Socialism/Communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism/Communism is a political or economic theory in which community members own all property, resources, and the means of production, and control the distribution of goods. No one is suggesting the replacement of Capitalism; an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned, and prices are chiefly determined by open competition in a free market. What is being suggested is that in this land of surplus "milk and honey", there is absolutely no reason why the four basic needs of every U.S. citizen cannot be met. Some would argue that food stamps, thrift stores, public housing and medicaid already meet these needs but in the words of President John F. Kennedy, "this country is divided between those who have never had it so good and those who know we can do better". I think we can do better. Resolved, it shall be the right of every United States citizen (in order to further guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to receive food, clothing, shelter and medical care that is adequate to meet their basic needs.
The utmost any constitution can give, is an adequate constitutional protection of civil, political, economic and social human rights - which is, IMHO, written in the most modern constitutions.
Another question, however, is, if these rights are easily to get.
Quote:Resolved, it shall be the right of every United States citizen (in order to further guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to receive food, clothing, shelter and medical care that is adequate to meet their basic needs.
I can't think of no prescription that would turn the United States into a third world banana republic faster than this.
In my opinion, the United States Constitution was intended as a framework to guarantee that all citizens have equal opportunity to aspire to whatever (legal) visions they hold. It cannot guarantee each citizen equal ability to achieve their goals nor can it guarantee success.
A right has to be that which requires nothing from another person but his/her non-interference. When what you demand requires action/ resources/wealth from any another person, it is not a right but a privilege.
Conservative mindset says: What? Not rich? It's because you don't try hard and smart enough. Help to the needy? Er - (mumble) churches and charities - Safety net? What for? You made your bed; lie in it.
Marat/Sade: "When the giver bends to the beggar it is little more than a kick."
I don't know what conservatives you party with Edgar, but I don't know a single one that thinks what you just wrote.
JOEBIALEK
What exactly are you suggesting a welfare state? We had something similar to that for many years. It ended up with generations of welfare families. I agree we should help those who cannot but not those who will not help themselves.
Foxfyre wrote:
I can't think of no prescription that would turn the United States into a third world banana republic faster than this.
Quote:Article 2
(1) Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual.
(2) The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the individual shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public administration to secure the right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care and social security and a good living environment
Not exactly from a banana republic, but from a banana constitutional monarchy (although bananas only grwo in Swedish botanical garden's greenhouses :wink: ).
The right to work, the right to housing, the right to obtain an education is somewhat different than giving a person a job whether he wants it or not, giving him a house, giving him a diploma.
Nothing I wrote suggests that the government should not promote the common welfare--in fact that is a provision of the United States Constitution. It does not say PROVIDE the common welfare. Big difference. There is also a big difference between 'rights' and 'provisions for a safety net for the truly needy.'. The safety net, however, is a privilege and not a right.
What does Sweden do with able bodied people who refuse to work even when a job is available, who refuse to lift a finger to help themselves. The government just keeps right on taking care of them?
"Bannana republic"... what an interesting Freudian Slip.
Yes, like in most other European states (with a "social welfare system" = the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life).
CDK writes:
Quote:"Bannana republic"... what an interesting Freudian Slip.
How interesting that you seem to make a presumptions about a Freudian Slip instead of commenting on the intended thesis. At least I spelled it right.
The initial thesis in the thread is, well a common one that I think has already been addressed well. The Freudian Slip was therefore more unique and subsequently more interesting. :-)
I asked (primarily of Walter but would welcome any input here)
Quote:What does Sweden do with able bodied people who refuse to work even when a job is available, who refuse to lift a finger to help themselves. The government just keeps right on taking care of them?
And Walter, could you expand on what this means?:
Quote: It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth,
Equalityof opportunity means a) everybody has a chance to compete or b) there is no discrimination for any reason or c) equality of opportunity for those who meet certain standards?. . .
and
equitable distribution of wealth is accomplished how?
If you can answer for Sweden, great. But Germany will do.
The food stamp program funded by the feds is a program to ensure that nobody in this country goes without food. Section 8 housing can help the poor with rents or to purchase a home. All children in california can sign up for medical care. We've still a long ways to go to meet everybodys four basic needs, but I'd rather live in the US in poverty rather than anyplace else on this planet.
Agreed C.I. I do believe a moral society takes care of those who cannot fend for themselves. I also believe a moral society requires people to do what they can, to strive for excellence, and encourages them to succeed.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace