Do we have the right to goods and services provided by others?

1. 78

   wba108@yahoo.composted 8 years ago

   Do we have the right to goods and services provided by others?
   
   If we have the right to a good education, food, shelter and healthcare then doesn't it follow that we should be able to demand these goods and services by any force necessary, including demands made at gunpoint?

   replyreport
2. 95

   lions44posted 8 years ago

   We only have the right to pursue a good education, food, shelter, healthcare, etc.  We have to send kids to school by law, but that does not mean what they are receiving is a  "good" education.  As humans, I think it is a natural inclination to provide food, shelter, etc.  But we have no right to go to a doctor and demand service; or go to a supermarket and rob it. Does it bother me to see families go broke caring for a loved one? Yes.  Whether you be President or homeless, we should get equal medical care. But I'm a realist, I know that might never  happen. We should at least make it a goal.
   The violence over the past year, whether it be by mob (protests) or some individual nut, makes it appears as though  people believe they have a right to everything through force; whether it be people demanding justice, or as in the case of the theater shooter, freedom from "perverse" material.  As a society we need to restore faith in the system. It can work if we all have a stake.  Interesting topic. Can't wait to hear the other answers.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wba108@yahoo.composted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly, the rights afforded in The Constitution were mainly the right to be left alone by the government. The rights of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not the rights to the goods and services of their fellow man.

      replyreport
   2. 95

      lions44posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thx very much. I'm honored.

      replyreport
3. 80

   dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

   None of those are considered rights.
   However the government stands to gain by making sure a large percentage of it's citizens are educated as opposed to illiterate.
   Every industrialized nation has some programs to help the poor, sick, and elderly. With FDR's new deal came compassionate programs such as minimum wage, social security, unemployment, welfare, and Medicare.
   Essentially the federal and state government attempts to provide a floor for it's downtrodden citizens.
   The alternative to government programs is having every man and woman fend for them self. Many of today's leaders and most citizens have benefited from getting a free public education through their formative and high school years. Even with that we're ranked fairly low compared to countries' educational levels.
   I imagine if there were no public school system we much worse off. If one were to figure out exactly how much of their property tax, sales tax, and income tax went into these programs as opposed to roads, police, fire, and other services they would realize if they kept the money it would not improve their overall living standard.
   Not many of us could say: "If I didn't have to pay whatever my percentage of taxes (that goes to schools and food programs) I'd be rich!" Some people hate the idea of giving a dime to anyone else.
   To them I'd say: "Tin man, Lets go see if we can find you a heart."
   What makes the system work is taxes on several millions of citizens.
   I'm grateful to have had a free public education, access to free libraries, and from time to time when I've needed it unemployment was there until I found another job. We give billions of dollars in aid to other countries. I see nothing wrong with helping people at home.
   Only 6 cents out of every tax dollar goes toward providing welfare services. That's not exactly a major sacrifice for most of us.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wba108@yahoo.composted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You are quite correct, we don't have the rights to what belongs to others but we have many in Washington who believe that its alright to have the government confiscate the goods of one citizen to give to another and to do this on a large scale.

      replyreport
4. 52

   poetryman6969posted 8 years ago

   I look at your question as an oblique way of asking the question:  What is the proper role and purpose of government?
   
   The politically correct class has made it perfect clear that the true and proper purpose and roll of government is to serve the needs and protect the "rights" of foreign criminals ( aka illegal aliens, aka undocumented democrats).  The proper role and purpose of legal citizens is to pay for for all the benefits that all those foreign criminals receive.  In a more honest future this system shall be known as socialism and the government control over capital shall be known as Marxist redistribution.  Under political correctness nothing can be called what it is.   And if you look careful at what's going on you will see why I emphasize NOTHING.
   
   If you don't accept what I have said then how do you explain the existence of Sanctuary Cities and the fact that the Chief Law Enforcement  Officer of America backs Sanctuary Cities--even when that policy gets legal Americans killed?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      EXACTLY!

      replyreport
   2. 78

      wba108@yahoo.composted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ditto, the roll of government is to secure our inalienable (God given) rights not to take from one group to buy the votes of another. This is not contributing to our general welfare, but only to the politicians and their favored groups.

      replyreport
5. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 8 years ago

   
   
   No, I believe that one is "entitled" to goods and services if h/she pays for them.  No one owes anyone anything.  It is up to the parties involved to provide for themselves and their families.  There are too many entitlements in our society today.  People have to learn to provide socioeconomic sustenance for themselves and for their families.  There are too many people who have a helter skelter attitude and mindset as far as socioeconomics go and what is "owed" them by a society. 
   
   I believe that services and goods should be provided for if one pays for and contribute to them in some way no more no less.  Only people who have a poverty mindset, consciousness, psychology, and mentality believe that people are entitled to services and goods which they should provide for themselves and for their families.  If one cannot pay then h/she should not expect to receive the goods and services.  Something has got to give.  Please do not mention social security, social security is not an entitlement-working people have their taxes taken out for social security- so this case is moot.   I staunchly maintain that the government does not owe anyone anything; each person is to provide for himself/herself and his/her family.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wba108@yahoo.composted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, good answer. Thief's commonly believe that someone else owes them, so they take it upon themselves to decide how much.  Empowering the government to redistribute another's goods or services isn't much different.

      replyreport