poverty

[HoreTore]

You've misread me, ACIN. I'm not arguing in favour of charity at all.

Workers rights have nothing to do with charity.

And what is specified by the HR is absolute, not relative, poverty.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You've misread me, ACIN. I'm not arguing in favour of charity at all.

Workers rights have nothing to do with charity.

And what is specified by the HR is absolute, not relative, poverty.

Enacting government policy to provide services or wealth in some form to those less off is just organized, collectivized charity. There is no real difference in taking a dollar out of your pocket and giving it to a poor person and having that dollar go through the government as a middleman who organizes large amounts of dollars for a great impact per dollar on the same poor person.

Your second statement is but one view on the question I asked.

The Human Rights Declaration is written towards absolute poverty, but the logic it uses carries to relative poverty as well.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

We can look at those who have nothing right now and clearly say it is not adequate. But where does the cut off for adequate get drawn? Here in America we live in a 1st world country that doesn't meet up with the standards I just posted. Many people don't have health insurance, many more don't have enough insurance to cover for everything they need. Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Here in America we live in a 1st world country that doesn't meet up with the standards I just posted. Many people don't have health insurance, many more don't have enough insurance to cover for everything they need.

Well, in the case of the USA when you say "first world" you have to qualify it a bit. There's a huge difference between first world countries when it comes to human rights and poverty in particular. Simply put, by North Western European standards the USA is 1st world in some aspects and very, very, much a developing country 3rd world in others.

Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?

No the declaration doesn't stipulate how you implement the necessary provisions, just that you should do so. Americans would be in violation of human rights were they to categorically deny people access to health care based on some criterion (e.g. no insurance). As I understand it, fortunately for you things are not quite that bad yet in the USA.

[Idaho]

We can look at those who have nothing right now and clearly say it is not adequate. But where does the cut off for adequate get drawn? Here in America we live in a 1st world country that doesn't meet up with the standards I just posted. Many people don't have health insurance, many more don't have enough insurance to cover for everything they need. Are Americans violating human rights because they refuse to implement a universal health care system?

As time progresses, wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. 50 years ago, being rich meant earning 20 times the average wage. You had a few cars, big house, great holidays. Your kids went to an expensive school. You owned a yacht, etc. You had a bit more influence, but no great power over elected officials. On the flip side, most people had a job that paid ok, and they had some collective bargaining power in the workplace, they had healthcare, and their wages were increasing most years.

Now being rich is earning 300 times the average wage. You can do all of the above x 1,000. You pay less tax, you have channels into the centres of power. Large numbers of people don't have a job, most don't have healthcare, and those who are working have seen their living standards decline over 20 years.

Americans seem to act as if these facts are abstract and removed from the reality that people are now much lazier and just want free tvs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No the declaration doesn't stipulate how you implement the necessary provisions, just that you should do so. Americans would be in violation of human rights were they to categorically deny people access to health care based on some criterion (e.g. no insurance). As I understand it, fortunately for you things are not quite that bad yet in the USA.

I feel like going down this road of american healthcare will only distract from the original question: are we morally obligated to help the poor?

As time progresses, wealth is being concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people. 50 years ago, being rich meant earning 20 times the average wage. You had a few cars, big house, great holidays. Your kids went to an expensive school. You owned a yacht, etc. You had a bit more influence, but no great power over elected officials. On the flip side, most people had a job that paid ok, and they had some collective bargaining power in the workplace, they had healthcare, and their wages were increasing most years.

Now being rich is earning 300 times the average wage. You can do all of the above x 1,000. You pay less tax, you have channels into the centres of power. Large numbers of people don't have a job, most don't have healthcare, and those who are working have seen their living standards decline over 20 years.

Americans seem to act as if these facts are abstract and removed from the reality that people are now much lazier and just want free tvs.

If you were to say such a thing in the 1940s and 1950s people would laugh at you. It seems history is more complicated than "elites get richer all the time".

Nevertheless, if you are going to make the point that the rich are getting richer, is your underlying argument that charity is morally obligated because the wealth comes from the poor and middle class in the first place?