If food, shelter, clothing, education and health?
you're able to call those products elementary human rights, however the government does no longer exist to offer you those issues. it is not your mom or your father or your keeper, and it won't be. the U. S. government's obstacles are that it in undemanding terms is going as far because of the fact the form, however the state-run tutorial device has ensured that none of its voters can or will examine this rfile -- they have quite discovered that in the event that they cry and stamp their ft that the government will supply them with beer and circuses quite. we've a large form of undocumented immigrants -- criminal trespassers, easily -- that are doing their area as leeches to bleed this united states dry. Our firms are chasing sky intense bonuses and haven't any satisfaction in this united states. They outsource issues to different countries and haven't any experience of community duty. that's fantastic in the event that they do no longer -- loose markets being what they are, and all that -- yet with a sloe-eyed and slow American inhabitants that would not recognize its real rights or customary jobs, we've little sensible recourse in terms of suffering with or fending off the agencies completely, or kicking out of workplace their elected cronies. we are being choked. that's an election 365 days. KICK THE BUMS OUT.
Lets imagine there are only 4 people in the world A,B, C and D. At given point of time, sayA is the manipulative person who has gathered/earned/amassed a lot of money by doing illegal things.B is the hard working rich guy who has earned all his/her earnings the legal way.C is like 'A' - cunning and manipulative- just that he has been unlucky and whatever he has lost, A has gained. He doesn't have money as well.D is an unfortunate person as well - but morally he can't do illegal stuff. His hard work hasn't paid. Hence he doesn't have any money.From outside, both C and D look like people in need. However from inside its only D who is the deserving needy.Similarly, B would be wiling to share his wealth; 'A' would be the apprehensive one.Now if A and B were to give half of their earnings to C and D; this time 'C' would try to cheat the other three. So would 'A', as he had to part half of his wealth. Depending upon who turns lucky, there could be a possible situation where in the end, A and C would land up with the wealth and B & D may turn out to be the unlucky ones.Now imagine, if only B were to give half of his earnings to D, for time being, situation will be fine till C would start cheating - especially he would aim for D and B - the easier ones to get money from. Bottom line is that, in due course of time, yet again there will be a scenario where one person would have the money and the other won't - and you never know whose side the luck would be. It could be with the manipulative ones OR the morally right ones. Hence giving away money would not solve the problem in the long run.Nevertheless, charity helps. One should never shy away from it - just that one should spend some time identifying 'D'. And the attempt should be to sharpen the axe than giving cut wood.
Should everyone have food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care provided for them?
Let me put it this way... I believe that no one should ever have their personal property which they have earned and worked for taken away from them at the threat of force just because people believe that they need it more than the owner does. I also believe that the government does not own anyone's labor... no matter how much they believe they do. That's called slavery. I don't care how much good stolen money does other people, it still doesn't justify stealing in the first place. I'm all for voluntary charity however. I just think that if charity were left to the free market, rather than extracted from the poeple by force, it would be much more efficient, as no one is going to want to donate to an organization with ridiculously high overhead, or one that mismanages their money and hands it out to those that don't really need it. The leaches would be forced to work, and those that TRULY need help through a difficult time would get it. As mean as this might sound, I don't believe that healthcare, housing, food, etc... are a right. While at the same time, I believe that if you have the slightest shred of human emotion and dignity in you, you will not allow your neighbor to suffer while you live it up. People should have a moral obligation to help one another, it should not be forced. I've met several people that thought that they didn't need to give to charity, or volunteer to help others in need because "that's why I pay taxes! The government will help them!) well... it doesn't always efficiently help those that are truly in need. All it suceeds in doing is stifling true charity.
If everyone, i.e. every couple, had 1 child, the world’s population would halve. It's not hard to implement this policy.Insert a chip into every person at birth, when these people get married, link their 2 chips together, so that when a kid is born, both chips read 1 child complete. This can get tricky with kids out of wedlock in that their chips can only really read the 1 child complete for the pregnant wife giving birth. Nevertheless, it is a temporary solution.The idea of decreasing the population is to raise the living standards of people worldwide. Consider what would happen if suddenly there’s less people in a class, less applicants for a job, and so on and so forth. It would mean that the limited resources of this planet in food, shelter, sustainability in general, would not be as limited as before. Countries would have lower unemployment rates, recessions and depressions wouldn't happen.Right now, the problem we are facing is there’s 1 pot of gold to procure a plate of rice for 500 people. Does that make sense?Thus, population decrease is necessary, not to the point where in 33 generations there is only 1K people, but rather to a place where there’s 1 health care professional for every 200 to 300 people. And who knows, when everyone is fed and working hard, tech may reach a point where this professional is a living, breathing, (not) machine. The other benefits include no wars due to no lack of resources, thus no one needs to fight for survival. One more thing to note is with less people, the level of pollution will decrease and we will be able to possibily mitigate global warming and other pollution related problems.
What would happen if no one died?
People would keep reproducing. Countries would probably pass 'no reproduction' laws to keep population balanced, but obviously not everyone would comply. The world's population would grow exponentially and quickly at that. Animals and plants would become extinct, because humans needed the food. The world would reach its' carrying capacity. Scientists and such would most likely try to create living 'communities' underwater, on the moon, and in space stations. The issues of starvation and lack of space would run rampant. Natural selection would happen with humans, which is when certain types of a species are selected for (given natural conditions they live), or selected against (they do not have what is needed to survive so they die). For instance, rich humans and strong, tough humans would be more apt to live, because the rich could afford to buy the limited food, and the tough humans could kill people for their food, and steal the food. This scenario pertains to the assumption that humans would not die of diseases and such, but must be killed or run out of the necessities for living (food, water, shelter, air). If you mean that no one could ever die, even if they were shot, burned, starved, suffocated, and eaten, then that would never ever happen; it's a fantasy. However, if that were the case, then at some point, if there were not more areas to live than the land that humans live on now, then we would end up so packed that it would be virtually impossible to move, and humans would be forced to be on top of other people. It would be ridiculously cramped. Although, if humans lived forever, then I assume that we would all be extremely smart, and would have figured out solutions to the living situations, like on another planet, on the moon, under water, etc.
No-kill cat shelter is to full? help?
As sad as it is right now, that's the problem all the shelters are facing. They're all overwhelmed right now. All of them. With the economy the way it is and people losing jobs, so many people losing their homes.... all of a sudden a lot of people are being forced to abandon their animals or drop them off at shelters. Some of the homes are being foreclosed on and people are leaving the animals locked up in the homes with no food and water and they're being left there for weeks before anyone even finds them. Times are tough for people... people are getting scared and a lot of animals are paying for it. The shelters will do everything they can to work with you and to save your animals. They're all working together as much as they can..... all the different counties are working together to help each other out. They don't want to euthenize any animals and try to rehome as many as they can. They'll do whatever they can to rehome your cat.... that really is their ultimate goal. They're just so overwhelmed, sometimes it's hard for them to do. I hope things work out for the best.
Should it be a human right to have food, shelter, and clothing?
Yes, because it is so necessary to me I look at the world and understand what brings the most of this over the long haul. A market allows the highest amount of goods at the highest quality. Governments all over the world restrict the free economy causing shortages, price increases, a reduction in quality leading to a lower product. There is one thing that is for sure. France, Sweden and other countries that have switched over to government run plans including Canada have loans that cannot be paid back without economic devastation. Canada at one point outlawed private healthcare completely creating a crisis unmatched by any other country. Not long after they had to back out of that legislation and resort more on the private market to bring the best product possible in the real world. There is no such thing as this dream world. The government gives back little to the people because the cost of force is expensive. To take this money we have to build a Gestapo IRS service that embreaches on civil liberties everyday. Then there is the cost of the administration that must administer the cash not to mention the rip off price the government gets charged through the bs contracts the lobbyist taking politicians take. This is not conspiracy, this is real crap. You limit the market to try to help but today most wives have to find work because their dollar doesn't go as far as it would in a true market. The answer is yes and until the day I die I will defend personal libetires, economic freedom, and the free market in order for the people to truly get the most from their countrymen. P.S. Go Ron Paul, thanks for being a real American, not a neo-con republican or a stupid *** socialist democrat!
What if there was no money and EVERYTHING was free? Would it be good or bad?
first, look up the word "random" in the dictionary. I'll try to answer your several questions. Everything costs money, otherwise it would cost beads or people would be doing bartering. Every service or product has a worth and gets a price put on it for exchanging among people, Some people strive for wealth and when it's overdone (just like AA or GA...alcoholics anonymous or gamblers anonymous) it's called greed. People in AA and GA are in there forever because they will fall off the wagon from time to time because their inability to adjust is either hereditary or learned or is some weakness in their dna. Without intervention they don't even realize what they do, know that they can live more decent lives, or maybe they just don't want to change. It could be something they enjoy. People continue enjoying something because they get a payoff from doing it. Their payoff could be nicer home, better contacts, socializing, bigger toys, etc., so why would they stop? They are better in social status if they have more money, that's just the way it is, more personal "and" public payoff, and more recognition. I don't get your next question/comment about celebrity complaints. Celebrities are paying their share to help the world from the wealth they have built up. In fact the US has heavily contributed to the needs of the world both from our taxes and from our personal contributions, plus from our volunteer work. Some nations are stuck because of religion, sect, race or environment and they can't get out. Some have been alienated by other religions, sects, races into some dry area where they just simply can't move from where they ran to for safety and their food or water system has dried up. Sometimes getting out takes centuries (because of mindset or inability to make connections or get the tools they need or even because the environment is harsh there). People are thankful. I answered the way I did so that your rant question would not get removed.
Places to help with pet food?
The most important issue right now is getting them fixed. I would call around to local shelters (humane society, spca, etc.) and see if they can help. What needs to happen is they need to be trapped and fixed and either added to a colony or rehomed. Alot of shelters work with TNR (trap neuter return) groups and they will come help you out. If they aren't fixed you will be easily feeding 100 cats in no time (seriously!) so they need to be trapped. The traps are humane..nothing scary...you put food in and once they walk in the door closes behind them so no worries there. They should be easy to trap since they are already coming to you for food. Depending on the shelter you should be able to get some help pretty fast. If one shelter can't help then they will probably know one that can. GL and props for taking care of them...especially since no one else seems to give a crap. As for food the shelter should easily be able to help you out until they are trapped.
It is easy to see how tragic it is and be critical, but unfortunately a reality for many shelters because they do not have an infinite amount of cage space. Municipal shelters have little funding and are required to take in all animals in their jurisdiction, so they cannot just turn away animals either. Shelters are left to do the dirty work because people won’t be responsible for their animals. There is not an easy solution to this problem if you understand all the issues shelters face. “No-Kill” shelters are not always a better alternative. Some no-kill shelters we dealt with had dogs tied out their ENTIRE lives with little human interaction. This is no better than how some dogs are kept in puppy mills and many we took from these shelters had serious behavioral problems and couldn’t function with people. In my opinion it is cruel to keep an animal in a miserable position like this. Also remember that there are also shelters and rescues that call themselves “No Kill” that will still euthanize animals for health or temperament issues- so be sure you understand what that shelters definition of the term truly is. If you are concerned, please spread the word on spaying a neutering your pet and educate those around you about being a responsible pet owner. Encourage adoption instead of buying from petstores or backyard breeders. You may also want to sign up to be a foster for a shelter or rescue so you can directly help the animals in need.