NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello Everyone!

What basic things do you think that every human being should be entitled to?
Im talking about things that every person not only has a right to but a needs in order to live a decent life?
Im sorry if this doesnt make sense but I will do my own list and you will see what I mean.

Water, Food, Housing(being affordable, with heating, plumbing and furniture), freedom of religion, Free Healthcare, Free Education up to PHD level, access to affordable leisure facilities of your own choosing, freedom from intimidation or bullying in any form, crime free society where you should be able to walk down whatever street whenever you want without being in fear of danger, private ownership of business(with strict standards to avoid exploitation of workers), freedom of movement within your state.

The reason of the thread is that not all of this is provided in present western world nations.

Im going to think of a few others but tis should get the ball rolling!

freedom of speech, a certain level of personal privacy

freedom of speech, a certain level of personal privacy


Full-on Freedom of Speech, complete personal privacy, and unlimited civil rights.

How the hell can you say only a "certain level of privacy"? Do you really want the FBI wiring your house "just in case"?

Full-on Freedom of Speech, complete personal privacy, and unlimited civil rights.

How the hell can you say only a "certain level of privacy"? Do you really want the FBI wiring your house "just in case"?

Convicted terrorists, criminal suspects (serious suspects, with at least some solid evidence), especially when it comes to organized crime forfeit their rights to privacy to a certain extent. That's what I meant by a "certain level"

Freedom of Speech is relative anyway in my opinion. I wouldnt allow it.
Privacy rights in all for though

freedom of speech, full privacy, unlimited civil rights, free land where one can grow a crop and live a life free of the corporate world if one wishes :P

That's different, then. Somewhat, anyway.

freedom of speech, full privacy, unlimited civil rights, free land where one can grow a crop and live a life free of the corporate world if one wishes :P


That would be quite a nice place.

That would be quite a nice place.


well they may take away my right to a simple life free of materialistic burdens but they cant take away my dreams. :P or can they? :confused:

The FBI can, and they'd probably enjoy it.

The FBI can, and they'd probably enjoy it.

Remember, you're only entitled to "the PURSUIT of happiness"- they won't actually let you catch it.

Remember, you're only entitled to "the PURSUIT of happiness"- they won't actually let you catch it.


Then please don't tell them I found it
<.< >.>

well they may take away my right to a simple life free of materialistic burdens but they cant take away my dreams. :P or can they? :confused:

Answer ur quetion?

http://www.crystalinks.com/dreamcatcher.jpg

well they can catch all my bad dreams if they like - which is what the dream catcher is supposed to do right?

equality under the law


thats it

although there is a different list of the things that would make a country more propserous or a nicer place to live

Donuts. Everyone should have donuts. Maybe coffee, too.

To everyone who is saying unlimited civil rights, what if those rights interfer with the rights of others? [E.g. a cannibal eating someone who doesn't want to be eaten] Where do we draw the line?

The right to food, basic shelter, medical care and basic education. To be protected from criminals, including the corporate kind. To clean air and water. Freedom of speech, privacy and some say in the government. To those that score high enough, a free secondary education. The right to due process before any rights are denied. The right to competent representation if accused of a crime.

Water, Food, Housing(being affordable, with heating, plumbing and furniture), freedom of religion, Free Healthcare I agree with you up to there.

Free Education up to PHD level
I thik education should be free through college, but not grad school. However, the problem here is that if you enact it and everyone has a college degree, then you start facing some serious job competition for college level jobs. The market would actually constrict itself and you would have higher unemployment due to the free education, PhD level education would only add to this. Like it or not, having uneducated people in scoeity actually helps out economic growth.


access to affordable leisure facilities of your own choosing
Again, economics gets in the way of this. Private society runs on the idea of profit. If they can find a market for low-income people to entertain themselves, then they have a business. Although have you ever been into a really bad bar or strip club. You just don't want to be in there which is a problem.

freedom from intimidation or bullying in any form, crime free society where you should be able to walk down whatever street whenever you want without being in fear of danger,


Thats just not possible.
private ownership of business(with strict standards to avoid exploitation of workers), freedom of movement within your state.

Once you enter freedom of ownership for business you open possibilities of exploitation (and I'm not talking about just workers). You would have to regulate businesss practices to ensure fair market competeion which eliminates the total freedom of ownership.

I would add freedom of speech as long as it doesn't incite violence towards a group or things like sexual harrasment. I would also free and fair elections for all governmental positions and base them off popular vote, not an electoral college.

Hmm... well, in addition to the no-brainers (clean air and water, FREE food and housing, etc.), I think people should have the right to near-complete privacy, fairly unrestricted (no FCC, etc.) free speech, and unrestricted freedom of sexual practices/easy access to sexual gratification (this would probably come most often in the form of legalized, affordable prostitution, but I'm actually talking about the government encouraging people to be more promiscuous in general).

Yeah, I know that last one's a bit weird, but having multiple partners in one day is extremely important to me.

Hello Everyone!

What basic things do you think that every human being should be entitled to?
Im talking about things that every person not only has a right to but a needs in order to live a decent life?


To be honest, I don't believe we are entitled to/have earned on the basis of our existance anything but the natural results of sin, that being death.

We do each have a responsibility to love God and each other which means we have a responsibility to care for, provide for, share with and treat others with respect. However, that responsibility is between you, me and God. Governments, particularly those that claim to allow personal freedoms should only stop us from directly harming others and have no business forcing us to help. Again, the helping each other part is between you, me and God.

[QUOTE=Olwe]Hmm... well, in addition to the no-brainers (clean air and water, FREE food and housing, etc.), I think people should have the right to near-complete privacy, fairly unrestricted (no FCC, etc.) free speech, and unrestricted freedom of sexual practices/easy access to sexual gratification (this would probably come most often in the form of legalized, affordable prostitution, but I'm actually talking about the government encouraging people to be more promiscuous in general).[QUOTE]A responsible state would censor this sort of thing and put an end to de-generatism and stop promoting 'unnatural sexual practises' in the media.
Maybe thats another right for people, to be surrounded by Moralistic Values and not have these values corrupted by anything.(this includes censoring the media and carefully watching businesses that use sex to sell their product.)

Eqaulity under the law
Full-on freedom of speech
Civil rights
Free beer on Tuesdays
Right to privacy
Healthcare
Education

life, health, education (enough to be qualified to work), privacy, equality before the law

A responsible state would censor this sort of thing and put an end to de-generatism and stop promoting 'unnatural sexual practises' in the media.
Maybe thats another right for people, to be surrounded by Moralistic Values and not have these values corrupted by anything.(this includes censoring the media and carefully watching businesses that use sex to sell their product.)

Yikes. I'm glad you're not in charge. If someones morals are so weak that they can't stand up to being exposed to these things, they're not very moral. My country is built on the idea of personal choice. What if you were forced to live by my morals? I bet you wouldn't like the things I consider moral. Live your own life and be content to let me live mine.

Had to respond to both people here...

>Quote:
>>Originally Posted by Teutonnia
Water, Food, Housing(being affordable, with heating, plumbing and furniture), freedom of religion, Free Healthcare<<
I agree with you up to there.<

Food and water are required as well as housing. But what do you maintain as a standard? At which point are you crossing over from minimum requirements to taking from a hard worker to provide for a lazy person? If a person won't work ( and we certainly have plenty of those who rely on the state for their needs) then do they deserve to be provided these things?

provided healthcare has demonstrably increased wait times for getting to health care providers. I don't personally see where that is helpful


>Quote:
>>Free Education up to PHD level<<

I thik education should be free through college, but not grad school. However, the problem here is that if you enact it and everyone has a college degree, then you start facing some serious job competition for college level jobs. The market would actually constrict itself and you would have higher unemployment due to the free education, PhD level education would only add to this. Like it or not, having uneducated people in scoeity actually helps out economic growth.<

Look at where education in America has been going. More and more money is put into it by the Gov't but less true education is actually occurring. Granted part of this is coming from parents suing if Johnny doesn't get a good grade, but even so. By providing up to the PHD level, you could very well, albeit inadvertently, lower the standards to obtain a PHD, especially if people start claiming it's their "Right" to have (not earn) a PHD. At that point the degree would become absolutely worthless. This is why those children attending private school and to a larger degree those home schooled can score better on national tests even when the teachers of the public schools are "teaching to the test"


>Quote:
>>access to affordable leisure facilities of your own choosing<<

Again, economics gets in the way of this. Private society runs on the idea of profit. If they can find a market for low-income people to entertain themselves, then they have a business. Although have you ever been into a really bad bar or strip club. You just don't want to be in there which is a problem.<

Define affordable. Again using those people who are living off the welfare systems who don't actually try to get a job, their income is really low. So how do you define affordable for them? Running a business that doesn't become a lowlife bar like business would by necessity become a cash drain. If Gov't provides for it then it has to take the money from the people who are working.


>Quote:
>>freedom from intimidation or bullying in any form, crime free society where you should be able to walk down whatever street whenever you want without being in fear of danger,<<
Thats just not possible.<

Agreed. It's a great ideal, but there is no way to enforce it without going to a police state in which case then you have to worry about the law enforcers doing the bullying and intimidation. And in reality there are more places where you can do just that than there aren't.


>Quote:
>>private ownership of business(with strict standards to avoid exploitation of workers), freedom of movement within your state.<<

Once you enter freedom of ownership for business you open possibilities of exploitation (and I'm not talking about just workers). You would have to regulate businesss practices to ensure fair market competeion which eliminates the total freedom of ownership.<

Real slippery slope here. Who sets the definition of exploitation? Some people claim that a boss asking them to do something outside their job description is an attempting to exploit them while others think it's just a chance to do some good for their company.

I’m assuming that by state you mean country or place of citizenship. Even then, there still would have to be limits. Obviously they couldn't go on just any Gov't property or even private property. You may assume these to be givens, but others would take advantage of such a wording if it suited their best interests.

>I would add freedom of speech as long as it doesn't incite violence towards a group or things like sexual harrasment. I would also free and fair elections for all governmental positions and base them off popular vote, not an electoral college.<

Freedom of speech would allow sexual and other violent speech by its nature. Indeed by limiting it you introduce the concept of policing thought. Now you might want to consider strict punishments if the speaker make false claims. For an example to claim that someone is a thief might be a punishable offense if no proof exist to back up the claim, but by saying “Well I think he’s a crook” defining the diffrence between a claim and an opinion is acceptable. Granted that is a little harsh example and probably not enforceable. Basically it’s Libel and Slander which we already have laws for.

In my opinion, a government has no place providing for its people. Its job is to protect them from threats external to each individual, both domestic and foreign. This mean that while a law may protect you from someone taking your property without due process, it doesn’t not protect you from losing it from being stupid like betting your home away.

Private property right must be protected, whether it be real estate or household items. Of course laws would have to be established to determine the fate of joint property and such.

I personally have a real problem with most people’s definition of right nowadays. For every right you have responsibilities. If you fail in your responsibility of using a gun ( say kill or rob with it) then you lose your right to it. Most people feel they have rights to education. While true in and of itself, a) that doesn’t mean you have the right to a good grade b)you don’t have a right to have someone else’s money to provide that education to you. It merely means that no one can deny you access to education. If you fail to take the steps to get the education then no one has denied you your right. That extends across to each and every right there is.

Jetpacks. Everyone should be entitled to have their own private jetpack.

Remember those "visions of the future" circa 1950? We were all supposed to have jetpacks by now.

And robot servants...

Yeah... jetpacks and robot servants.

Free Healthcare, Free Education up to PHD levelHmm... well, in addition to the no-brainers (clean air and water, FREE food and housing, etc.),
Why does nobody ever explain where all this free stuff comes from? The ether? A wall socket? Outer space?

C'mon, people, there's no such thing as "free". In some societies, you'll pay for it in taxes. In others, through labor. If it's granted equally to everyone, then some folks will have to contribute more than their fair share to make up for the ones who can't (or won't).

TANSTAAFL.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Somebody, somewhere, is paying for it.

No-brainers, indeed.

Freedom of expression, the freedom to do whatever non-violent thing there is, and the freedom from violence. And also, knowing that know exotic diseases can grab you in a country, and inspection of things you buy for things like pathogens and such.

Took me a while to write my last and other responses have come in that I feel the need to respond to:

(Another twofer ;) ):
[QUOTE=Olwe]Hmm... well, in addition to the no-brainers (clean air and water, FREE food and housing, etc.), I think people should have the right to near-complete privacy, fairly unrestricted (no FCC, etc.) free speech, and unrestricted freedom of sexual practices/easy access to sexual gratification (this would probably come most often in the form of legalized, affordable prostitution, but I'm actually talking about the government encouraging people to be more promiscuous in general).[QUOTE]

Again it comes down to definitions. How do you define near complete privacy? Anything that happens in the home I grant you should be private especially between consenting adults (I am not limiting consenting adult activities to just sexual activities here as the phrase is most commonly used for), but the moment you step out of that house and can be seen from the street, how much privacy are you entitled to? If your voice gets loud while talking on your cell phone, can you have any reasonable expectation to privacy of your side of the conversation? If you engage in suspicious activity, does your right to privacy override the attempt to determine if you are going to violate someone else’s rights? As per my previous definition of Govt, it shouldn’t be encouraging or discouraging people to be more or less promiscuous. That is for individual people to decide. And what is easy access to sexual gratification? Legal prostitution may be one thing, but what if all the women (or men if that is the case) in a reasonable traveling area from you decide they don’t want to prostitute? Have you been denied easy access? And really do you have a right to such. By what I stated before yes, which means that no one can deny it to you, but it doesn’t mean that someone has to provide it either, unless they want to.


[QUOTE= Teutonnia ]A responsible state would censor this sort of thing and put an end to de-generatism and stop promoting 'unnatural sexual practises' in the media.
Maybe thats another right for people, to be surrounded by Moralistic Values and not have these values corrupted by anything.(this includes censoring the media and carefully watching businesses that use sex to sell their product.)[QUOTE]

Here we go again; definitions. What is an “unnatural sexual practice”? Some Christian religions would have you believe that anything other than the “missionary position”; i.e. face to face man on top intercourse; to be unnatural. However there were many tribes that prior to Christian missionaries coming through (hence the name) knew nothing other than man on top his front to her back intercourse. That was natural to them. For that matter not even the various Christian denominations can agree on exactly what is moral and what isn’t; some will claim that ‘a’ is and ‘b’ isn’t and another will go the opposite way. Since there is no way to legally and demonstrably prove which subgroup of which religion is correct ( and I personally believe that the Creator {He, She or They} purposefully made it this way) from a civil and legal standpoint it MUST be assumed that they ALL have a equal chance of being correct. When it comes down to it we may all be wrong, but that is the topic for another thread. The point here is that we then have to fall back on protecting the individual from other individuals.

This means first and foremost the government cannot make any laws controlling a person’s morals (or lack thereof). They can however make laws that prevents any given individual from doing something to another without the other’s permission. When it comes to the point of the public forum it does get a little tricker, but it is still workable.

Let’s start with the home. In the context of a home, if person ‘a’ wants person ‘b’ to flog them, then no one has the right to prevent it no matter how personally disgusted or morally offend they may be. But persons ‘a’ and ‘b’ do not have to right to perform their mutually agreed upon activity in such a place (such as their back yard) as to not give anyone else the ability to enjoy their own property devoid of such sights. A privacy fence would then allow them to “play” outside (assuming that they can mask the noise). Anyone going up to the privacy fence and attempting to look through it or over it would then be the offending party as they violated persons ‘a’ and ‘b’ ‘s right to privacy on their own property.

Now out in public it get harder. With media everyone has the ability to select what they want to see. The market will cater to what will pay. No one has the right to be free from the availability of things that offend them. Your right to be able to read, view or hear things that do not offend you does not mean a law can force a person to provide them to you. You may have the right to TV shows without “sexual saturated content”, but if no one creates it then your right has not been denied. Only if a law was created that said that all TV had to contain such material would your right be denied. The reality of this is that if someone wants something then several people want it and someone will provide it. You may have to work to find it, but that’s life.

THANK YOU KShaya Vale and Frisbeeteria

Both of you are ever so correct. Too many people today have the utterly mistaken notion that they are owed / entitled something simply because they exist. Which is utter bullshit - no one ( much less the universe ) owes them anything, nor by simply being born are they entitled to anything.

I would say that they are entitled to an equal chance to acomplish life goals. This means that they are not denied any legal standing due to conditions they cannot help (race, gender, age, and {depending on your viewpoint} sexual orintation) and a couple of selectable items (like religion and sexual orientation if you believe it's a choice). THAT is the role a Government should provide. But beyond that no they have to go earn it. Hell even Adam had to earn his food by working for it. After the Garden of Eden scandal he didn't have anything handed to him!