Poor people and even just the middle class need help now everywhere. And systems like democratic socialism work very well, ask Sweden and Denmark. But in some places like the US that might not be feasible. And sadly in some fascist dictatorships, it's not very likely at all. But they have to find some way of helping their people now. Yes they have to be forced to adopt democracy some day, but their people need help now. And like the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 says about economic and other rights: "Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs..." So what they might try now instead are things like the welfare state. Or universal basic income, like I've said. And universal health care, like Saudi Arabia recently adopted, is important too.
Im unsure of the context of that quote. Seems more likely to relate to immigration than to a county's welfare system for its own population. The UK has the world-leading health-care system. Apparently. Mis-managed by successive governments and insufficiently funded but it's still free at the point of need. It used to be that UK middle class were OK and could manage comfortably. Not so much these days. We now have 'food banks' which middle-class need and there's also middle-class people in work but receiving social/welfare benefits if/because their income doesn't cover the cost of living. I'm not sure the US population is ready for such health-care or welfare system given that Obamacare was so unpopular. I know many Americans of both political sides who didnt want it because they worked hard and earned their money and disagreed with any plan to give people free help from their tax payments. Someday; Karma might make them change their mind.
Well, anyways. Thank you Bazz888 for your reply. And I wanted to share this too. People in the US don't seem to understand. It's our obligation as a society to help the poor. Even if that means giving a share of your income to them. Because that's called paying your fair share of taxes, not socialism.
And just to repond to what you said, I looked it up a little. This is what Google says about Article 2 of the UDHR: AI Overview This quote is from Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes the principle of non-discrimination. It means that human rights are universal and apply to everyone equally, regardless of the political status, sovereignty, or any other characteristic of the territory they are from. The declaration explicitly states that rights apply without distinction based on factors like race, sex, religion, national or social origin, and also extends this protection to include the political and international status of a person's country. Universality: The principle ensures that rights are not conditional on nationality or any specific political status. Non-discrimination: It builds on Article 2’s broader prohibition of discrimination, specifically addressing the political status of a person's country. Protection for all: This includes people from independent nations, as well as those from territories that are part of a trust, are non-self-governing, or are under any "other limitation of sovereignty". With Google AI putting emphaiss on the word non-discrimination. It also says AI Overview Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grants everyone the right to all the rights and freedoms in the Declaration without discrimination based on factors like race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. It ensures that... Again, that is their emphasis.
People who get a $79 daily stipend for meals just cut off food assistance averaging just $6.20 a day to the 41.7 million Americans who rely upon SNAP benefits to put food on the table, which the Republican regime has refused to fund beyond tomorrow, despite a $6 billion USDA contingency reserve fund set up to fund the program under precisely these circumstances (and despite passing a $2.32 TRILLION military budget, giving the ultra-rich $117 billion in annual tax breaks, and $40 billion to shore up the Fascist regime in Argentina). Even with the SNAP Program, 47.4 million Americans live with chronic food insecurity. Tomorrow that number will start to climb rapidly. If you want to help someone, give to your local food bank; and not just a random can of beans, either. Some local restaurants are starting to advertise that they'll feed children for free during the shutdown; you can support them with your patronage. If someone ahead of you in the checkout-line at the grocery is having difficulty coming up with enough cash, if you can afford it, have the clerk put theirs on your tab. If your neighbors are elderly, disabled, or have kids, make sure they're OK. Look around. Help where you can.
“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Anyways, I know this thread hasn't been responded to in a while, but there is something I wanted to add that I have also been thinking of for a while. The issue of how many people are involved with each country. That makes a big difference. Prosperous countries like Sweden and Denmark only have about ten million people each. That shows their system works and works well for them. But there are countries with much larger populations. I heard even a couple of decades ago that the US population has grown to 300 million. And there are countries with much larger populations. In some of those places overpopulation is an economic issue too. Thirty years ago I read an article in a book (written in the early 70s ironically) that said world overpopulation will lead to disaster some day. But around that time a news magazine had a story. They said the best approach to that is lifting people up to the middle class in those countries. And I read recently online educating women and giving them full rights. Because the earth's resources are renewable, but they are also limited.
I was also going to add very importantly, we do live in a global community, and some countries should help others more. Really I do think overpopulation causes more problems than people realize. But as I said, I discovered a while back lifting people up is the best solution to that. But it's worth pointing out that the most prosperous countries are also the smallest ones in population. Places in Scandanavia and even Canada and the US too in some ways. I'm not saying they should give away all their wealth, but they could share and do more. And I do think we need a better system, international now as I said I mean, to deal with all these problems. Problems worldwide IOW. Along with all the social injustices and inequalities too.
Also I think I'll put this here. I also find it hard to believe how far some countries are behind in animal rights and welfare. They were talking on TV once about this country, Iceland I think, where they have this horrible way of hunting dolphins once a year. And I just discovered in some places bullfighting is still allowed. I think most people agree with me even hunting should be eventually abolished. I tell people I don't understand why they still do it now. But I didn't even know they were doing those other things. But just to summarize my views, and I think they are probably the views of everyone else. Animals have the right to be completely free of pain, unless it is to cure some serious or deadly illness. Even then as painfree as possible. And like I've said, I saw a special in the early 80s about a pig farm. They tried to give the pigs there a reasonable quality of life as much as possible. Mainly I think we need to focus on the worst offenders first. And then gradually outlaw things like eating meat later.
I think I'll put this here (and maybe round off this thread). But I wanted to put it somewhere. There are many problems in this world and they need solving. But the solutions must be compassionate. They must not heartless even if they are seemingly the quickest and even best solution. A while back there telling this story on the news. I think it was around that time I read that article in that book on overpopulation, and saw that news magazine story that talked about solutions. In this South American country there were all these homeless families. And a judge there thought it was in the best interest of the children of those families to separate them from their parents and put them in orphanages. But you know the best place for any children is with their parents whatever the circumstances are. And after he did that, there was a public outcry and they were all returned. Or in the mid-1990s former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich proposed the idea that that should done to children here whose parents couldn't afford to care for them. Not surpringly there was a public outcry here too and nothing came of that plan. So radical plans might seem the best way to solve difficult problems sometimes. But we must always keep our compassion as we do that and approach the situation from that perspective.
And like I've said, we need to ban veal and foie gras now. And I think most people would agree with me.
