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?