Revolutionary Socialism a good idea for Victorian Britian?

[Ome_Vince]

About 9/10 countries today are violating International Law and Human rights law, where should the UN Start?

Here's a nice highlight
Cuba is in violation of Human rights, Hezbollah and Hamas are in violation of Geneva convention and every international law, considering the Cairo Agreement Lebanese Government is indirectly in violation too.
Israel is in violation for occupation, Syria for terrorism and years of oppression of Lebanon amongst things, and Iran is in violation of pretty much everything, The US is in violation with its prison camps and illegal war, Sudan is in a state of genocide, Iraq has violation of Geneva convention and every international law written all over it, by all sides involved (which is pretty much most of the middle east, and American allies for the illegal war).
Pakistan and its sponsored organizations are in violation of international law and the Geneva Convention with its sponsored terrorism in India, along with Russia committing genocide in Chechnya.
The Chechnyans are in violation of the Geneva Convention for terrorism, China is in violation of international human rights laws, etc etc
The Geneva Convention, International Law, the U.N only apply to sides who can "afford" it, and who feel like it, which in the modern-day world, is not very "popular" anymore.
Considering many laws in the Geneva convention focus on it being illegal to cross the line between soldier and civilian, it doesnt leave alot of "clean" countries these days.

 

[repiV]

In 2005, 46.6 million (15.9%) Americans were without health insurance.

(continued below)


Currently, close to 13% of the population (37 million people) in the United States are deemed to be below the poverty line.

13%? Is that all? The US is doing pretty well then, huh? The percentage of people living in poverty in Britain is more like 33%, despite being much more socialist-minded. In inner London that figure is over 50%.

The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.

Since these people do not have sufficient income to provide food and shelter, let alone $1000 healthcare, they do not have any form of security in the event of sickness.

Are these people poor because they're idiots? Are they poor because they have no common sense? For the most part, no.

There are numerous percieved direct and indicrect causes of poverty in the United States. They include:

So, out of 14 percieved reasons for poverty, 2 are most likely the individual's own fault, and 4 might be the individual's own fault. 9 of these reasons are out of the individual's control, and thus are not subject to their idiocy nor their common sense.

Assuming each of these reasons have equal probability of being the sole cause of an individual's poverty (unlikely, but take it as a thought experiment), 9 / 14 * 37 million = close to 24 million people are living in poverty due to reasons beyond their control.

(continued below)

Shifting the blame...most of those reasons you claim are "out of people's control" are anything but.

As I stated in my last post,

The UDHR states that it is one's right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and of one's family. The UDHR further states that one has the right to security in the event of sickness, disability, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Finally, the UDHR also explicitly makes clear that these rights are universal, (hence the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,) and must be applied to everybody, regardless of their social status.

So if one were arbitrarially deprived of their means to security in the event of sickness, that would equate to arbitrarially depriving them of their rights.

As it has already been shown that under the US current system, there are individuals who are unable to access health care / health insurance for reasons beyond their control. Hence, since people exist in the States who are not able to recieve security in the event of sickness, Human Rights are being compromised.

Nobody is denied critical treatment in the US because they don't have the money, I told you this already. Besides which, it's laughable and inane the way you cherry-pick the parts of the UDHR you want to condemn a country you hate for asinine reasons. Your beloved Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and the other shitholes of this world breach most of those conditions but I don't see you complaining about it. ****ing hypocrite.

Since it is the responsibility of the State to guarentee it's citizens general welfare, (In the US's case, in the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution) and ensure their right to life, thus, the State is at least in part responsible for providing earlier stated security.

Therefore, universal Healthcare is a right.



An interesting side note, numerous other countries have agreed with this, resulting in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which declares, amongst other things such as the right to self-determination, the right to medical security. Currently, the US is not a member.

So what? Because a bunch of suits decide something is absolute truth, it must be so? You're a sheep, and cannot think for yourself.
What if I use the second amendment as an argument for the freedom to bear arms across the world? Bet you wouldn't be too happy about that, huh?

Currently, money from your paycheck is forcibly being taken so that the US military can rob - theive - 655,000 Iraqi people from their lives, yet you object to having money from your paycheck go towards curing someone's life-threatening disease.

Last time I checked, British taxpayer's money didn't pay for the US military.
Defence is the most important function of the state...but I wouldn't expect someone as detached from reality as yourself to understand that.

Even if one were to argue that the military budget is soley used for defensive purposes, the purpose of defense is to prevent people from being killed or injured - the same purpose of providing universal healthcare.

No, the purpose of defence is to preserve the integrity of the nation-state.

Though I agree that the UN is a joke, (though for far different reasons than yours), the UN provides little backing for the arguments presented. The arguments are backed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Human Rights in general, which form a part of International Law.

Invalidating the UDHR by invalidating the UN is like invalidating the claim that "planes can fly" by showing that a plane factory cannot fly.

Not really. You refer to the thing like it's a scientific document (despite conviniently ignoring all your bestest buddies in Latin America and the Middle East who violate it in far more serious ways), when it's just a piece of paper written by a bunch of people.

By the way, you can usually tell how good a country is by the number of people trying to get in. The US is winning quite comfortably on that front. I wonder why.

 

[DaMaN]

About 9/10 countries today are violating International Law and Human rights law, where should the UN Start?

9/10 if not more...

Here's a nice highlight
Cuba is in violation of Human rights, Hezbollah and Hamas are in violation of Geneva convention and every international law, considering the Cairo Agreement Lebanese Government is indirectly in violation too.
Israel is in violation for occupation, Syria for terrorism and years of oppression of Lebanon amongst things, and Iran is in violation of pretty much everything, The US is in violation with its prison camps and illegal war, Sudan is in a state of genocide, Iraq has violation of Geneva convention and every international law written all over it, by all sides involved (which is pretty much most of the middle east, and American allies for the illegal war).
Pakistan and its sponsored organizations are in violation of international law and the Geneva Convention with its sponsored terrorism in India, along with Russia committing genocide in Chechnya.
The Chechnyans are in violation of the Geneva Convention for terrorism, China is in violation of international human rights laws, etc etc
The Geneva Convention, International Law, the U.N only apply to sides who can "afford" it, and who feel like it, which in the modern-day world, is not very "popular" anymore.
Considering many laws in the Geneva convention focus on it being illegal to cross the line between soldier and civilian, it doesnt leave alot of "clean" countries these days.

Sad, but true.

The UDHR is essentially guidelines, written after the atrocities (on both sides) during WWII:

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

It is unfortunate that people absolutely don't learn anything from history.

Shifting the blame...most of those reasons you claim are "out of people's control" are anything but.

Please explain how Mental illness and disability, Out of wedlock birth, Domestic abuse, Natural or other disasters, Institutional racism, Limited job opportunities, and The structure of social class are in the individual's direct control.

Nobody is denied critical treatment in the US because they don't have the money

Correct, but that is not what I'm arguing. People who are treated if they don't have money are denied the ability to live a life free from debt, where their future abilities are often shackled by said debt.

---

Essentially, what this discussion over the last two pages has been is whether or not a universal system of healthcare is neccecary to protect the worker and less fortunate. Obviously, in my opinion it is. In addition, I have argued that it is immoral to force people to choose between dying or spending the rest of their lives in debt if they cannot afford insurance.

 

[repiV]

9/10 if not more...

Sad, but true.

The UDHR is essentially guidelines, written after the atrocities (on both sides) during WWII:

It is unfortunate that people absolutely don't learn anything from history.



Please explain how Mental illness and disability, Out of wedlock birth, Domestic abuse, Natural or other disasters, Institutional racism, Limited job opportunities, and The structure of social class are in the individual's direct control.

Mental illness is the exception.
I'm disabled and missed years of school, but I'm still more successful than the vast majority of 20 year olds around.
Out of wedlock birth...in itself, that's a meaningless reason for anything.
Domestic abuse...yeah, it sets people back, but it can also drive them to be stronger. Blaming external factors for your own failure to pull yourself up and succeed is a loser's mentality, pure and simple. Noone else is gonna take responsibility for your life, so you better, whether you caused the problem or not. I have little sympathy for losers.
The main "institutional racism" in the Western world is against whites, as the institutional sexism is against males. Nothing is stopping ethnic minorities from succeeding except themselves. There are so many measures in place that give them an unfair advantage and discriminate against the majority it's sickening.
If you can't speak the language properly, show up to work wearing a tent and shun the local culture, no ****ing wonder you're gonna be poor for life. You deserve it.
Limited job opportunities in the local economy? Duh, move elsewhere.
What "structure of social class"? I've lived in grinding poverty for most of my life. I lived in a council estate we had to flee in fear of our lives. I used to have to keep replacing my pillows because they would go mouldy from all the damp, we couldn't afford to heat the house or have carpets or any decent furniture or food. But it's partly because of those things that I am the driven and ambitious person I am today. Also because I don't whine about how unfair life is to me...

Correct, but that is not what I'm arguing. People who are treated if they don't have money are denied the ability to live a life free from debt, where their future abilities are often shackled by said debt.

---

Essentially, what this discussion over the last two pages has been is whether or not a universal system of healthcare is neccecary to protect the worker and less fortunate. Obviously, in my opinion it is. In addition, I have argued that it is immoral to force people to choose between dying or spending the rest of their lives in debt if they cannot afford insurance.

You are ignoring the fundamental issue here that the money to treat these people has to come from SOMEWHERE. It doesn't grow on trees. Life was never supposed to be easy or fair. It's a series of challenges and we grow as individuals and as a society by confronting these challenges and improving ourselves. True greatness comes by overcoming hardships, not by allowing everyone to live a sheltered existence.