Sounds like a good reason...

[miko2d]

 From the days of Eleanor Roosevelt, the former first lady who shepherded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights through the UN and served as first chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, the United States has taken the issue of human rights around the world seriously. And that is what the human rights abuser states on the commission didn't like. What they want is to continue their human rights abuse without interference or comment from the U.S.
             The Osgood File

 For historically illiterate (I mean you, Boroda), The whole "human rights" hysteria did not start in mid-70s, when US forced the "human rights protection" into Helsinki agreements. ... only to have another instrument of pressure against USSR.
 In 1947 Stalin was alive and Iron Curtain was firmly in place and nobody had any chance to pressure USSR in any way other then militarily or even see how soviet citizens lived.
 So get off your high horse and stop thinking that the whole world revolves around you...    

 Anyway, here is democracy in action - crooks voting an honest guy to continue their ways without interference. What did you expect? They are evil and totalitarian but mostly they are not stupid.

 miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 05-08-2001).]

[Karnak]

Baroda,
Gorbochev repeatedly tried to get Reagan to address the United States failings to meet the requirements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The US has never housed or fed all of its people, and both of those are part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It was somewhat of a two way street, but the US media only reported it as one way.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak

[Gadfly]

I have seen one case of a starving child in the US, and the parents were(today) convicted of child abuse. Nor does the US institutionalize(jail) its mentally ill or shiftless, so yes there are persons that live without a fixed address.

So, think what you will, there is still no better system or country than the US, in spite of it's faults.

[mrfish]

 

Originally posted by Gadfly:

So, think what you will, there is still no better system or country than the US, in spite of it's faults.

ever been to switzerland?  

[StSanta]

Or to for(int i = 0; i< most OtherWesternCountries.size(); i++)
{System.out.println(mostOtherWesternCountries.getName());}

     

------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
       


[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 05-09-2001).]

[MrSiD]

I've seen plenty of documents of street kids, bag-ladies, homeless people who got that way because they happened to get sick TWICE and didn't have coverage.. heh.

Get out of the elite neighbourhood where you live and see the streetlife a bit (if you think there aren't starving kids or grownups in US of A)

This btw is true even to finland despite our very high social support network. Alcoholics and drug abusers many time fall out of the system - if you can't apply for social benefits, you're never gonna get any either.

I've seen cases where alcoholics refuse government paid housing, or repeatedly destroy the facilities on purpose.. Nothing can help that kind of people except psychiatric care maybe.

Anyway, for all its worth, I know that the social benefits people get in the states are a fraction of what we have here. So I'm sure you have a LOT of homeless and starving citizens, illegal or legal.

[miko2d]

 Guys, are you confusing human rights with morality?

 A human can be totally free and have absolutely equal opportunity with the other people and still starve.

 State is just a bureaucratical machine created by society. So it can have no obligations separate of the obligations of society.
 In US one of the tasks of the state is to ensure that individual freedoms and rights are not infringed upon.
 The society has no obligation to feed anyone. Society is people and I am one of them.
 I have no right to kill or enslave someone but why should I be obliged to provide for someone?
 I am not responcible for bringing a person to this world, I have no say in his/her upbringing or influence on his/her actions, so making me pay for it is a violation of my rights.
 
 There are cases when bad things happen to people who did not deserve it. For that we have insurance and charity - I gladly participate in both.
 If someone decides to bring a child into the world without an idea how to support and educate him or wish to do so, why am I automatically obligated to foot the bill?

 It may be morally right to do so and morally wrong to decline to do so (in our society - for spartans it was morally wrong to bring a sickly child to the world or rely on charity). It is in no way an obligation.

 It is a common soviet saying - "who does not work, does not eat".

 A person could be born to parent(s) who abused drugs and alcohol, then not brought up properly for the lack of care. Such person will have a clear disadvantage and most likely be poor.

 That is very different from denying that person right to leave the country, work or study in certain places because of his nationality/religion/political or sexual orientation, etc.

 Also, do not confuse private person prejudice with state policy. There are plenty of people in US who privately dislike, say, jews and discriminate against them.
 It was a state policy in USSR to discriminate against jews when it came to work/education/party membership which was not, incidentally, based on nationality factor but on them having relatives abroad and more access (and interest) to the information out of bounds in USSR.

 miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 05-09-2001).]

[mietla]

well said, miko.

[Boroda]

Miko, sorry, don't want to spoil my mood by answering you now.

Happy Victory Day!

Hope you still remember this day. Your health. Going to Poklonnaya Gora to watch the salute.

Hope to write a detailed answer tomorrow.

------------------
With respect,
    Pavel Pavlov,
    Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS

[miko2d]

 I'd like to expand on my point a bit. Please remember that all that is just my opinion.

 Bringing a child into the world and rearing him is one of the biggest responcibilities a person can undertake. That responcibility is to the child in the first place and the society to some extent because that child will affect other people - positively or negatively.

 A responcible human balances his desire to have children vs. his ability to provide for them and educate them.

 If you take money from such a person in a form of taxes you infringe on his right to have children among other things. That is a tradeoff we have to take when we live in a society - sacrifice money (which is hours spent working, comfort or more children) in order to have the benefits the society provides.
 In that context taking money from a person and depriving him from ability to have another child and giving it to someone who has children without any responcibility or intent or, even worse - as a means to make money for herself (welfare moms) is a clear violation.

 If I have a child, I am responcible and have control. If my neighbour comes to me and asks for a donation to have a child I will consider that and if agreed,  will definitely take responcibility and demand some control over many things like mother's lifestyle and child'd upbringing.

 If someone just breeds indiscriminately - wether in my country or anywhere else without consulting me, it may be my concern but it definitely should not be my responcibility - exactly because I have no right to interfere.
 I am not denying anyone their right to produce children.
 It's just that if I have a limited amount of money and a choice to feed other people's children or produce, feed and educate one of mine, I will choose mine first or at least consider their cases carefully.

 The great thing about charity is that it comes with strings attached. A donor undertakes a responcibility and gets rights along with it (at least a right to deny).

 If there is a single most destructive thing for a society, it is rights (or privileges) not balanced by responcibilities.

 miko

[MrSiD]

Miko: I share your views on that..

However we're (un?)fortunate enough to have a political system controlling our lives.

That means losing part of the wealth produced by our work for a common good.

In some cases that's very noble.. On some cases it's disgusting to see the benefits go to a person that doesn't earn even a spit on his face.

Social democracy is a great thing when you need it, a burden when you're paying it. The catch is, you never know when it's YOUR turn to depend on the support. It's funny how your views about social benefits change when you have to feed yourself with them..

Happened to me. I learned something in the process, and most importantly, the system kept me fed, provided shelter and a little spending money.. Just enough to enable me to get back on the wagon and start paying the treat to others (abusers too =( )

[miko2d]

 

Originally posted by MrSiD:
Happened to me. I learned something in the process, and most importantly, the system kept me fed, provided shelter and a little spending money.. Just enough to enable me to get back on the wagon and start paying the treat to others (abusers too =( )

 I was on welfare too while I was in college since I came to this country with nothing.
 I also took loans for my education (and my ticket to US) and paid those off.
 Nothing wrong to help someone in need to get a start or even to create living conditions for someone for live who is not capable of supporting him/herself. It's not that expencive. In the first case it works like insurance, in the second like charity. Except that real charity comes with strings attached - the money is not for drugs or alcohol or any other excesses.
 When such a permanent welfate person conceives a baby, she does not have means to support it which means she (along with teh father) puts responcibility for it on the taxpayers.
 Welfate should be like a mortgage insurance that costs a little but covers your payments if you lose your job.
 Instead it's like someone without money buying a new expencive house that we would have to cover.
 Humans can control their procreation. If they won't, it's not my responcibility. What's more - parents bringing children into the world must bear responcibility for their action - like a manufacturer of a faulty and dangerous product. That would make some evaluate their need to have more children or ability to educate them.
 What about child abuse? The responcibility is not only to society but first and foremost to the children. There must be some law against bad parenting with punuchment - including not subcidising future attempts.

 How about that - you have a child that you cannot support, you are guilty of starving him! The child goes to public assistance and the parent(s) go to special facility where they work it out - 8 hour work days, minimal wage, any work - even pointless one, as long as they are not idle. Decent living conditions, food, medical care ans 2 hours TV a day. Unlimited access to books. Children can live with them.
 And no conjugal(sp?) visits or co-ed!
 Like a debt prison - a person is not considered a criminal but cannot leave.
 You could even get an education (by correspondence or through visiting teachers or volunteers).
 If such a person finds a job or he/she can leave, take over their life and have as many children as they can afford.

 Also it would help if the public housing was not built in the most valuable real-estate on earh - like in Manhattan. Those people do not work anyway, why couldn't they live somewhere on the edge of a town with fresh air and a nice view of a forest or fields or something?
 Hundreds of thousands of working people would move there, stop wasting their time, money and gas commuting, generate income for the City, etc.

 miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 05-09-2001).]

[StSanta]

Hm, Miko2's views on this are the exact same as mine.

Yet cabby calls me a leftist socialist.

You wanna join me for the next round of socialist paraeds on may 1st next year miko?  

------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"