Most of these questions are seriously lacking in context.

In what context? Biologically? Legally? Pretty much anything that is capable of acting autonomously from its environment is living, though the scientific definition of "life" often refers to activities like eating, growing and reproducing.

That's a badly worded question. IMO the Constitution gives citizens *civil rights*, not *human rights.* And while many of them apply to noncitizens (free speech, government must get warrants to search a noncitzens house), not all of them do (they can't vote, they're subject to deportation without trial, etc.). In the broader sense of human rights, noncitizens enjoy most if not all of the same ones citizens do -- can't be tortured, no discrimination in housing and employment, etc.

This is a meaningless question. In the first phrase, you exclude morality, and then use the word "wrong" in the second.

The Indians actually believed in territory, even if not all of them believed in formal land ownership. They had their wintering grounds and their summer hunting grounds, and they'd fight over them with neighboring tribes. Even if they were fully nomadic, they can't be nomadic unless they've got land to be nomadic upon.

Our dealing with Indians were far from straightforward, honest or fair. We, rightly, should be embarassed by our behavior back then, even while agreeing that it's impractical and silly to try to undo it.

(To be clear, not all of our dealings with them were underhanded, and it wasn't a simple one-way street. But on balance we did far more of the screwing).

This, to me, is a term that has had all the meaning sucked out of it. You'd have to define what you mean by imperialism before I could answer it.

Another poorly phrased question. Who are you talking about? More than what?

From a business perspective, the reason to pay your workers good salaries is to a) attract good people, b) reduce turnover and c) reduce absenteeism and other personal problems that can affect work quality. Do you really want the drill-press operator falling asleep on the job because he's working three jobs?

The moral component can be phrased as: does being a slumlord make you feel good? Alternatively, it can be phrased as: do you view employees as slackers who should be grateful to have a job, or human beings who should be paid well for working well and not treated as drudges or slaves?

Well first, nothing is "free". but you decide what to subsidize by priorities and available resources.

You can pretty much count on people doing what they have to to get food, shelter and clothing. That said, we do help with those things because it's immoral to let people starve or freeze.

Education is an abstract good that people aren't going to pay for if they're already having a hard time finding food, yet an educated populace benefits the whole nation in the long run -- in part by reducing their use of the other services described here. So it makes sense to provide that.

Medical care is something that everyone needs, and that can put people deep into debt through no fault of their own. So it makes sense to help with that. And again, it's immoral to let people die simply because they lack the money for treatment.

An important caveat, though, is that government should only provide things that the market is failing to provide.

That's spin masquerading as a question.

__________________
Man up.