Any right to life has to be weighed with some notion of viable life, whether as a patient on life sustaining apparatus or a fetus. I do not wish to enter this debate, clearly a complex and emotional one.
But if there is a right to life which forbids the taking of human life than there is certainly in a regime of private property a right to work at a "living" wage for how else is that life to sustain itself? As private property has shorn the earth of its natural ability to sustain the individual whose unfortunate circumstances of birth leaves him or her dispossessed their ability to hunt, gather, farm or otherwise access the bounties of the earth, water, food and all except the air, how is he to live. Society gives him the possibility to reclaim a right on these resources only through work. But if society can not offer this alternative because of unemployment or other conditions the right to life is usurped. It would not be excessive to call those who oppose employment programs for the unemployed as "murderers," certainly passive if not active for they withhold the essentials of life to the same degree as a warden who refuses food to his prisoner, a doctor who withholds care or a parent who neglects his children.
Total USA Debt
9 months ago