Article 25.
- (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.
6 comments:
I do understand---that it is a bunch of crap. If this were fully implemented, half the world would be working hard, the other half would be freeloaders.
Yes in this utopian paradise, no one works (its not PC) and everyone looks to the government for everything
Another way to see this happening if employers paid a living wage, if companies actually hired the people they need instead of downsizing to make their profits meet with the approval of Wall Street, rather than just making a profit. It is a misconception that most people who are poor are not working, and that those who aren't working don't want to.
Ann
If the living wage goes up, then the price for goods and services follows, then the living wage goes up, then the price for goods and services follow.
The current trend in downsizing to part-time employment is as a result of the pending expense of Obamacare. If the living wage for part time work is increased to a living age at part time employment, then the price of goods and services will increase.
Do you see the trend here. Wall Street is not the cause.
The purpose of a business is to provide goods or services and to make a profit.
I have a problem with such "positive rights." that is, rights that entitle you TO something, as opposed to "negative rights," rights to be FREE FROM something. Anytime we speak of rights, they inevitably restrict others. If I have the right to be free from racial discrimination, someone else is not free to discriminate. I am perfectly okay with that because the good to person A outweighs the restriction on person B and what person B wants to do was not good to begin with. But if we talk about positive rights, let's say a right to food, we move from person B being required to refrain from something, to his affirmative duty to provide it. So Person A could demand food from Person B and be within his rights. That seems like a dangerous slope. We can decide, and vote, that Person A will get food from the government if he needs it, because that's the kind of society we want to have, but I think it is a mistake to talk about it as a "right." Same with housing and health care.
Post a Comment