|
Alrighty, I'll bite:
Your age and gender: 35/M
Your nationality: Connecticut Yankee (Carpet bagging in Virginia of late)
What religion/school of thought you practice: Rcovering Catholic, current Individulalist (I am god, and so are you - Mix of Buddhism, Pantheism, Deist eclecticism, a dab of Christianity, and generalized gnositicism.)
Your political mindset: Social Libretarian, Fiscal Bordeline Socialist (I tend to show up on Bill Clinton in the Political Compass.)
Now, I do not believe that there are <i>any</i> inherent rights, merely social contracts that people mistake for god-given. So be it. So half of my answer is:
2: The so-called "right to life" is merely a reciprocal agreement in which we agree to let others live if they do the same
That said, I think that there is an ethical basis for a higher standard:
9: Every person has a right to live in a hospitible and comfortable environment, even if providing this requires the involuntary payment of support by those of a higher economic status
Except that, for "has the right", read, "should be afforded the oportunity". Eat the rich. It ain't exactly a zero sum game, but there is a certain level of wealth that it is impossible to attain honorably, and wealth over and above that level should be taxed intensively.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
|