Why does the right want to deny basic human rights to US Citizens?

[jimbo]

So anytime anyone hits hard times it's because they are not self-reliant enough?

So when tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs, businesses, and homes in this last recession over the course of just a few months, it was because they all suddenly decided to become lazy and stupid? They and their whole family should have been left to die on the streets until they just learned to work harder?

That's actually often the case. When times are good, some put money away against the not so good times.

Others choose to upgrade the automobile or buy a boat, then demand the savers pay for the gas when good times go south.

 

[jimbo]

If you were homeless, would you move to a place with rich in resources like LA, or rural Trump country where they got nothing?

Depends on whether I expected to bail myself out of my homelessness or expect someone else to bail me out. Personally, I'd move to Boise.

If large cities were good at helping the homeless, there wouldn't be so many inner city homeless.

 

[trixare4kids]

Funny, maybe that's why 39 million people choose to live here, gotta love rats and typhoid.


Oh, and there are more destination weddings in California than any other state.

Nothing like rats and typhoid to spruce up a wedding, eh.

Carlsbad CA - Google Search


California suburbs

california suburbs - Google Search



Yeah, rats, lots of rats and typhoid.

Sheesh.


And you live in which state?

We're talking about the city of LA.
Do try and keep up.

But since you are talking about the city of San Diego, how soon you forget the health crisis that plagued our streets not too long ago due to unsanitary conditions downtown San Diego; infectious hepatitis A.

Note: the homeless don't generally congregate to North County cities like Carlsbad. :lol:
Nice try though...

 

[DifferentDrummr]

why don't you support your own link.
you are the one making the argument not me.
this is what we call shifting the burden of proof.

Bull. S***.
I did not make the argument that:

The lowest income people
get free housing, free good, free utilities, etc ...
most have at least 1 car cell, phone, cable tv etc ...

That's all you, sport. Now support it or STFU.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

In a country with so many people obese who are below the poverty line, your premise seems empty.

Access to this page has been denied.

Guess you don't know much about nutrition. If all you can afford is mac and cheese, you're likely to get obese.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The title of your thread is why does the right want to deny basic human rights but yet it’s the democratic run cities that have homeless problems with tent cities in LA and San Francisco. What is the left doing about the problem, locally in the cities and the state as well at the federal level?

You're not bothering to read the thread.

Most of the homeless are addicts or mentally ill. Thanks to Reagan-era laws, these people can't be forced into treatment: they have to get it voluntarily.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Charity would be enough if people put as much time, energy, and resources into providing it as they do in demanding the government do that for them.

A traffic light IS social contract benefiting all and, because it does not discriminate in who it benefits, is a legitimate function of good government.

But forcing Citizen A to fork over his hard earned money to Citizen B who did not earn it or do anything to deserve it cannot be justified under any definition of human rights. Human rights respects each person deciding for himself how he will enjoy and use the fruit of his own labor.

Citizen B may be in dire circumstances and I have no problem with social contract providing help for him. I have no problem with government making it easier to provide help for him. But once you establish a welfare state, you promote more and more need for welfare.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. (In his travels). . .I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
― Adrian Rogers

This is just insane: you're calling the same thing (a law) by two different names: a "social contract" or a "welfare state." The only difference being that YOU approve of one and dislike the other.

 

[Moderate Right]

First, to be clear, I'm referring to the long-established UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US (up until now) has been pressing other countries to accept.



Why have conservatives and libertarians been so dead set against this? Allowing Americans to live so far below the poverty level hurts both the economy and national security. To make it happen for the sake of a tax cut is completely and utterly stupid.

Everyone has the right to work.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Everyone has the right to work.

Which is meaningless if they can't manage to sell their labor.

 

[ataraxia]

That's actually often the case. When times are good, some put money away against the not so good times.

Others choose to upgrade the automobile or buy a boat, then demand the savers pay for the gas when good times go south.

If you think anyone who hits hard times or goes homeless does so because there are irresponsible, stupid, or lazy, , you are hopelessly out of touch with how the real world works.

 

[ataraxia]

Everyone has the right to work.

So your answer to the tens of millions of Americans who suddenly lost their jobs, businesses, and homes in this last recession over the course of a few months was just to tell them to go find work?

 

[Neomalthusian]

First, to be clear, I'm referring to the long-established UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US (up until now) has been pressing other countries to accept.

Why have conservatives and libertarians been so dead set against this? Allowing Americans to live so far below the poverty level hurts both the economy and national security. To make it happen for the sake of a tax cut is completely and utterly stupid.

"Everyone has the right to" implies that if someone doesn't have whatever follows, then something or other has violated his or her human rights.

If I load my family into a car and say "we're moving to Manhattan (NY) starting today," and we show up there and are homeless, and I meander around looking for someone to lease me a 2-bedroom for $1,000 a month or less and no one is willing to do that, and I meander around looking for someone to offer me a job that pays at least $150,000 so that I can afford what my family needs, and no one is willing to provide me a job that pays that, and so we remain homeless in Manhattan, who or what has violated my family's human rights to adequate income and housing and all those other things you mentioned?

Any well-intentioned declaration of rainbows and unicorns for all can reach for the stars in the sky and declare everyone deserves everything. These lofty standards are feel-good notions that imply nations should strive to improve the standard of living of their citizens.

But the literal details of how the real world actually is, on the other hand, involve some challenging realities that have to include some degree of individual responsibility, critical thinking, and prudent decision-making. In my hypothetical, it's not Manhattan's fault I showed up expecting everything to be placed at my feet. It's my fault for harboring utopian expectations that the external world would place everything I want and need at my feet, and for putting my family through the chaos of my delusional and impulsive decision.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

"Everyone has the right to" implies that if someone doesn't have whatever follows, then something or other has violated his or her human rights.

If I load my family into a car and say "we're moving to Manhattan (NY) starting today," and we show up there and are homeless, and I meander around looking for someone to lease me a 2-bedroom for $1,000 a month or less and no one is willing to do that, and I meander around looking for someone to offer me a job that pays at least $150,000 so that I can afford what my family needs, and no one is willing to provide me a job that pays that, and so we remain homeless in Manhattan, who or what has violated my family's human rights to adequate income and housing and all those other things you mentioned?

Any well-intentioned declaration of rainbows and unicorns for all can reach for the stars in the sky and declare everyone deserves everything. These lofty standards are feel-good notions that imply nations should strive to improve the standard of living of their citizens.

But the literal details of how the real world actually is, on the other hand, involve some challenging realities that have to include some degree of individual responsibility, critical thinking, and prudent decision-making. In my hypothetical, it's not Manhattan's fault I showed up expecting everything to be placed at my feet. It's my fault for harboring utopian expectations that the external world would place everything I want and need at my feet, and for putting my family through the chaos of my delusional and impulsive decision.

Don't blow up the concept into something it's never been.

ALL it's saying is that homeless persons have the right to food and shelter. Period. It doesn't say where, either. People absolutely must have their basic needs met before they can achieve whatever else they want.

 

[jimbo]

If you think anyone who hits hard times or goes homeless does so because there are irresponsible, stupid, or lazy, , you are hopelessly out of touch with how the real world works.

I didn't say anyone, or everyone. I said often.

I'm staying with that.

 

[trixare4kids]

You're not bothering to read the thread.

Most of the homeless are addicts or mentally ill. Thanks to Reagan-era laws, these people can't be forced into treatment: they have to get it voluntarily.

You're shifting the blame totally to Reagan when in fact it was the Carter administration who was responsible for most of the deinstitutionalism in this country in that he developed a commission where it was thought that self-autonomy was a better solution for the mentally ill. As the population grew over years, yeah, we are seeing how well Carter's vision has worked. :roll:

Deinstitutionalization was based on the principle that severe mental illness should be treated in the least restrictive setting. As further defined by President Jimmy Carter's Commission on Mental Health, this ideology rested on "the objective of maintaining the greatest degree of freedom, self-determination, autonomy, dignity, and integrity of body, mind, and spirit for the individual while he or she participates in treatment or receives services."8 This is a laudable goal and for many, perhaps for the majority of those who are deinstitutionalized, it has been at least partially realized.

For a substantial minority, however, deinstitutionalization has been a psychiatric Titanic. Their lives are virtually devoid of "dignity" or "integrity of body, mind, and spirit." "Self-determination" often means merely that the person has a choice of soup kitchens. The "least restrictive setting" frequently turns out to be a cardboard box, a jail cell, or a terror-filled existence plagued by both real and imaginary enemies.

Deinstitutionalization - Special Reports | The New Asylums | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[OscarLevant]

Um, no. My comment was extremely factual and on-point. There was nothing "emotionally-driven or stupid" about it.

It was incompetent, in the extreme.


Sorry. That kind of analysis would not sail farther than some cocktail bar, somewhere.

Not worthy of anyone's attention, to be sure.

 

[OscarLevant]

We're talking about the city of LA.
Do try and keep up.

But since you are talking about the city of San Diego, how soon you forget the health crisis that plagued our streets not too long ago due to unsanitary conditions downtown San Diego; infectious hepatitis A.

Note: the homeless don't generally congregate to North County cities like Carlsbad. :lol:
Nice try though...

In SD, A four block radius near 17 - 13th streets/Imperial ave. That's where it was. Homeless are unsanitary, who'da thunk?

The congregate down there because there are food distribution programs down there. I wouldn't expect Carlsbad to do that.

L.A has a skid row, bid deal. You get that in big cities, especially where the weather is nice.

Gov Reagan practically doubled the homeless population in CA when he cut back funding on the mental health hospitals.

Homeless people migrate to California for the weather.

That's the price of having nice weather, poor want it too.

To accuse California of it is unfair.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

You're shifting the blame totally to Reagan when in fact it was the Carter administration who was responsible for most of the deinstitutionalism in this country in that he developed a commission where it was thought that self-autonomy was a better solution for the mentally ill. As the population grew over years, yeah, we are seeing how well Carter's vision has worked. :roll:



Deinstitutionalization - Special Reports | The New Asylums | FRONTLINE | PBS

Totally? No. What started under Carter, Reagan accelerated because it seemed like a great way to save money.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This is just insane: you're calling the same thing (a law) by two different names: a "social contract" or a "welfare state." The only difference being that YOU approve of one and dislike the other.

Yes. Social Contract has served civilization well. It gave us the Declaration of Independence. It gave us the U.S. Constitution.

Welfare administered by social contract also has served civilization well. Welfare, most especially the one-size-fits-all type, administered by fiat or government dictates not so much. I believe every part of my post that you quoted and have lived and witnessed real life situations to support it first hand.

 

[Josie]

It was incompetent, in the extreme.


Sorry. That kind of analysis would not sail farther than some cocktail bar, somewhere.

Not worthy of anyone's attention, to be sure.

LOL. Okay, dude.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Don't blow up the concept into something it's never been.

ALL it's saying is that homeless persons have the right to food and shelter. Period.

That's not all it's saying. The "human right" you quoted in post #1 is ambiguous to start with (does every individual have this "human right to housing," or only those afflicted by misfortune beyond his or her control? If the former, then I haven't "blown up the concept" at all, and if it's the latter, then endless speculation can go into what constitutes being within or outside of one's control, and what constitutes "adequate." And thus this "basic human right" is not in fact a "basic human right," rather it is a highly conditional government-funded social benefit (the condition being you first have to demonstrate to the government that the misfortune you're suffering is actually beyond your control).

All of this is to say, it does not make sense to regard this stuff as "basic human right." Good government policy that advanced developed nations should strive for and implement? Sure, perhaps. But "basic human right" it is not. To call it "basic human right" implies that anyone who struggles or suffers is having their basic human rights violated.

It doesn't say where, either.

Therefore again I argue that this "basic human right" is actually an extremely conditional and unspecified thing, to the point of being virtually meaningless.

People absolutely must have their basic needs met before they can achieve whatever else they want.

I agree, achieving goals starts with having the basics covered, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to declare all basic needs a "basic human right." It's very different to argue advanced nations should aspire to raise living standards across the board versus declaring good living standards a basic individual human right. No one has to call those things a basic human right, and what's wrong with it is that it implies anyone lacking those things is therefore suffering a human rights violation, which externalizes all responsibility and denies any individual actually has any. That sort of allegation is too incendiary to work with. It shouldn't be difficult at all to understand why people object to the declaration of positive human rights (i.e. rights to be supplied with all basic needs by the external).

 

[Moderate Right]

Which is meaningless if they can't manage to sell their labor.

LOL again. There are jobs everywhere.

 

[Moderate Right]

So your answer to the tens of millions of Americans who suddenly lost their jobs, businesses, and homes in this last recession over the course of a few months was just to tell them to go find work?

What? There are millions more jobs now than there were just before the Great Recession. Everyone who wants a job can have one. The others can rot in poverty. We need to swift kick millions of people in the asses and raise up what we pay those who truly are unable to work. Those are the ones who should have an average living standard.

 

[Rickeroo]

First, to be clear, I'm referring to the long-established UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US (up until now) has been pressing other countries to accept.



Why have conservatives and libertarians been so dead set against this? Allowing Americans to live so far below the poverty level hurts both the economy and national security. To make it happen for the sake of a tax cut is completely and utterly stupid.

This is very simple. I don't consider someone taking food out of my kids' mouth and putting it into their kid's mouth a "human right". I consider it theft, and I consider it an attack on my family. The UN Declaration only holds if goods and services materialize out of thin air like magic.

 

[trixare4kids]

Totally? No. What started under Carter, Reagan accelerated because it seemed like a great way to save money.

You're confused. Carter's administration financed this disaster by throwing grant money at outpatient mental health centers which in turn promoted the permanent closing of involuntary/voluntary mental health institutions and hospitals.