You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Stability is subjective.Secondly, quality health care for all is part of being in a stable society, which leads to high living conditions, and a great chance of having a good life.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.Also you can want to do something to help your fellow person without it having any direct benefit for you, not all things are cold economic decisions, humanity comes into our thinking.
I never said there's anything wrong with being concerned for your friends. The question here is a matter of rights though, not concerns.
the healthier a society is, the more efficient & prosperous it is, the richer everyone is.
that's why considering healthcare a right....ends up benefiting us all.
None of the above. It's a service.
A house is just as much needed as health care. So should everyone have the right to have a house built for them? Clothing is also just as needed.
The only thing you should have a right to, is what you can personally provide for.
“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
― Thomas Jefferson
They are, after a fashion. Even the weak ones who can't provide for themselves bring out an important aspect of society. We are better as a people, and more ethical in general, the more we take care of the weak ones. Societies that care the least are the worst to live in.
In your scenario, yes, I'd save the person I knew better. And the reason is because, ethically, it makes no difference who I save. Unless I know that one of them is some sort of serial killer or something, they are equals. I can't save both, so I must pick one. I would pick the one who would hurt the least for me to lose. Because ethically, there is no clear-cut answer, so I can decide for whatever arbitrary reasons I like. Either way, I will lose one of them.
Again, what are you talking about?Again, you're enslaving supply to demand. Not only is potential limited, but potential takes commitment to be fulfilled.
I'm not sure why you would even consider saving people who don't personally commit to your potential's fulfillment.
If you hate this society so much, leave. That's the choice you have. I don't. I like it here. It could be a lot better, but at this point in human history, this is where we are. And when I say, "I like it here," I don't mean America in the generic. I like Minnesota, because it's a state that functions very well and takes extraordinary care of its people.
Almost everyone does contribute something. The people who don't are few, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in order to provide for the overwhelming majority who contribute. We can never totally eliminate people who take advantage or cause harm, but that's a crappy reason to punish the majority.