Somethings I never really understood was:

What constitutes a life?

Do people who are not U.S. Citizens get the same "Human Rights" as given to citizens of America via the Constitution?

(THIS ONE SOUNDS WORSE THEN IT IS!!!! I do not believe in it)

Besides morality, what is so wrong with slavery?

Was it, so wrong that we took the Indian's land because if it is no ones land to claim how can they claim we can't use it any way we want?

What's the matter with Imperialism?

Why if I work hard my whole life and become a CEO, should I be morally inclined to pay more to the people who did not take the same time to get where I got?

If everyone deserves health care and education, shouldn't necessities like food, shelter, water, clothing, love be provided for everyone? So how do you choose what can be given to people for "free"?

Why would people have more victims killed by criminals rather than criminals killed by police?

Answer if you want, Debate them if you want.. I just wanna see some answers because I am confused.

__________________
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary"-James Madison, Federalist 51

lol this is a sun:

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

Uh. That's a lot.

Morality is probably the biggest thing with slavery. But besides that if you have to many slaves you get a system vulnerable to being overthrown. Also I don't think it actually works out more productive. I seem to recall reading that northern farms with hired hands actually had higher net profit than southern slave farms.

Also I do believe in our current system food, shelter, water, and clothing are already provided to all. So the cart isn't before the horse with giving stuff away for free.

Ok...I'll play...

Yes...but "human rights" should be BASIC. Forcing U.S. Citizens to pay for illegal aliens' education is NOT a human right.

Nothing, as long as the slave is a midget.
Honestly, one person should not force another into servitude.

Nothing...as long as the land claimed is un-owned frontier. That's the problem...there's no more "frontier." Everything is owned by someone, so Imperialism nowadays, is very similar to "hostile takeover."

YOU DON'T. NO ONE should forcibly steal your hard-earned money, just to give it to some schmoe who doesn't deserve it as much as you do. People who think this way are socialists.

No one "deserves" anything for free. People should have to earn what they consume.

I don't get this question. I would MUCH rather cops waste criminals, than have criminals prey on others.

ya, but that's when they were making next to nothing. they'd probably get pennies, if that.

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

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.