The New Constitution: Amendment XIV – basic human rights
All citizens shall enjoy the right to shelter, nourishment, healthcare and educational opportunity.
Too much mischief has been accomplished under the guise of the rabid social Darwinian dogma that people don’t have a right to a basic standard of living, a toxic ideology that over time has tended to divide the people into two camps: the haves and the parasites.
The New Constitution rejects this ideology outright and asserts that we all benefit from a society that doesn’t accept extreme poverty, blaming the underprivileged for a condition that all too often arises from the indifference of the wealthy.
Reblogged this on Adventures and Musings of a Hedgewitch.
I know, and in my spiteful moments I do enjoy the irony. But it’s a free country, and if these folks would rather starve in the streets than avail themselves of basic human rights, they are welcome to do so.
YES! Absolutely! “blaming the underprivileged for a condition that all too often arises from the indifference of the wealthy.” I might go a step further. It MAY be a condition that arises by the DESIGN of the wealthy. For what purpose, one may ask? To maintain or to create a workforce that is desperate enough to do anything for virtually no pay.
Yeah – I was trying not to be overly inflammatory there, but you’ve hit the nail on the head.
So, how very diplomatic of you 🙂
My first thought was “Dang Commie.” 🙂
Seriously, this is one that you have to have some idea how you are going to accomplish. Housing inspections and then government money to fix to acceptable levels? I agree that everyone should have decent homes, food,etc. A few of these have programs in place that will need more money, but some can be very invasive.
As for how to do it, I say we ask the rest of the developing world, all of which is doing it way better than we are. As for how to pay for it, if we cut our defense budget by 75%, then
a) we’d still have the largest defense budget in the world, and
b) we’d free up over half a trillion dollars to spend on frivolities like our citizens.
Imagine what would happen if, on top of all that, we actually required corporations and the hyper-rich to pay taxes commensurate with their wealth.
The developing world is doing which of these better than we are? I’m a bit confused with that statement.
DevelopED. Dammit. Sorry about that.
My first reaction was negative to this and I have been thinking about it since you posted it. Part of the problem I have is I think you may have left the realm of constitutional issues and dipped into the area of the legislature. This seems more prescriptive than the other ammendments — I think you need tp pull back. I think there is a world of potential mischief put on the table with this one.
There’s potential mischief with every word in the document. We’re talking about corrupt powermongers and the lawyers who love them, after all.
But a famous man once spoke of “inalienable rights.” If packing heat is a basic right ordained by our “creator,” then how the hell is food and healthcare not a right that ought to be articulated in a document that defines our highest principles?