US arms spending is used largely for attack
That isn't in the constitution
its cheaper to destroy the thing attacking you than to insulate yourself from it's effects.
US arms spending is used largely for attack
That isn't in the constitution
How then do you determine what is, and what is not, a right?Of course there are limits
How then do you determine what is, and what is not, a right?
Open seems to think anything essential to our survival is a right, certainly that includes; food, water, clothing, shelter, medical and dental services, a decent paying job, old age pension, etc.
Should all of those "rights" be provided by government at little, or no, cost to the individual?
Might as well throw shoes on the list as a right. Can't have bad foot health, right?
You did not answer my questions. Please do so.So you think itbis right to operate an healthcare system that leaves 50million of your fellow citizens bereft of healthcare in a country that could easily afford to fix this?
Your healthcare system is one if the worst in the western world
It excludes millions of people simply because they are poor forcing them to avoid seeking treatment for many maladies because they can't afford it
It wasn't that long ago that Americans were saying black people didn't have the right to vote
I guess it is no wonder you can't understand that healthcare is a right you can legitimately expect in a wealthy western democracy
Oops, I forgot, the US isn't one
How do you determine what is, and what is not, a "right"?In years to come, the attitude of you lot - what are you? I guess you would call yourselves regressives in a rare moment of self knowledge - to healthcare will be viewed with the same disgust as your attitude to black people a short time ago
Maybe it is no coincidence that you are so opposed to providing healthcare to all as black people are disproportionately poor
I think we are determine what is right or wrong by whatever law we believe in. Some were be guided by the moral law of various religions. Others by secular law like the UN declaration of human rights, The Geneva Convention or even the Constitution.. In all these help for the poor and weak is mandated, To allow people to starve to death or die of illness that can be treated but they have no money to pay is wrong. While The USA might giver emergency health to the poor they also according to the New York Times sue them for unpaid hospital bills. Most countries do not do this.How do you determine what is, and what is not, a "right"?
I think we are determine what is right or wrong by whatever law we believe in. Some were be guided by the moral law of various religions. Others by secular law like the UN declaration of human rights, The Geneva Convention or even the Constitution.. In all these help for the poor and weak is mandated, To allow people to starve to death or die of illness that can be treated but they have no money to pay is wrong. While The USA might giver emergency health to the poor they also according to the New York Times sue them for unpaid hospital bills. Most countries do not do this.
Dogtowner is correct, you have completely missed the point of the question. I asked, HOW do YOU determine what is, and is not, a "right"? Do you make any personal effort to evaluate the merit of something you're being told is a "right", is there any thought process at all on your part, or do you simply accept that it is a "right" because others have said so?I think we are determine what is right or wrong by whatever law we believe in. Some were be guided by the moral law of various religions. Others by secular law like the UN declaration of human rights, The Geneva Convention or even the Constitution.. In all these help for the poor and weak is mandated, To allow people to starve to death or die of illness that can be treated but they have no money to pay is wrong. While The USA might giver emergency health to the poor they also according to the New York Times sue them for unpaid hospital bills. Most countries do not do this.