> My personal view is that the natural birth rights in a social contract for a functioning society must include basic needs being met. People have to exist, the

> My personal view is that the natural birth rights in a social contract for a functioning society must include basic needs being met. People have to exist, they need shelter, food, medicine, etc. The notion of positive rights is inherently absurd. Nobody is entitled to nobody's labor or resources except from their caretakers when they are a minor. This may seem like a needlessly harsh position but think about it: farmers can't be forced to grow food, doctors and nurses can't be forced into taking care of patients and nobody has an obligation to build anything for anybody just because "it is a basic right". Making the government pay for it does not make more of it nor does it make it cost less. Unless the basic problem has not been addressed, that is scarcity, then any solutions is pure utopian bs. Why drugs and treatments cost so much? Why we can't build new buildings? Why do we insist on living in impractical over-packed big cities? > Losses and deferments should be taken by banks, land/property-owners, and generally the 1%. You know, the people that bribe politicians with campaign funding. Banning foreclosures will backfire very quickly. Where I come from a law was passed that banned banks from foreclosing houses built on native grounds / reservations. Result? Now no one has access to the credit needed to own a house and everything are in the hands of a very few corrupt individuals.