: My point is that money, or productive ways to earn money, should not be necessary in order to survive.
You can go direct to growing food, if you have the facility to do so. If not, then a stretch of someone elses land is not a birthright of any claimant.
: the above-mentioned groups and those belonging to visible minority groups are often the least likely to obtain gainful employment. This does not mean that the effort isn't there. These people make up the reserve pool of labour in a capitalist system - they are the last ones hired, and the first ones to be let go.
People dont hire others unless those others offer something the hirer wants. if they dont recognise the skills of someone then they cannot be forced to do so. i do like to of people who refuse to lie donw and become self employed though.
Is this fair? Should the state not have a moral responsibility for those who are not favoured in the labour market?
The state has no moral responsibility. Its supposed function is to protect individuals from doing violence to one another. Its actual practice seems to be that of an animal farmer, using some animals to support others according to its agenda, and the loose connection to populist democracy (ie the few people who actually vote). the winner is the govt, growing by (and i like this nasty phrase) "feeding off the sores of the needy and the blood of the able"
This idea, that the state should do it, seems based upon a view of humankind as naturally evil and vicious, if not controlled by others (and why are govt people not subject to the same 'evil' then?). Its utterly fallacious.
: Society does not support them because we are conditioned to measure a person's worth based on their socioeconomic status. Rich people are deemed "good" simply because they have money, and poor people are perceived as "bad" simply because they don't.
Are you sure about this? Rich people are often portrayed as evil in the media, whilst poor people get portrayed as innocent and wholesome (so presumably, if they win the lottery they become evil overnight)
I do think that among some poeple attention is paid or not due to economic status. Why would a person derive his self value from the judgement of others anyway?
: It doesn't matter whether a person created their own wealth, or was born into it, or was just lucky
It does. In the US the self made ones are equally admired and hated (hated for ability?) whilst winners and rich kids are not subject to the same scrutiny.
: If you think about it, there are many elements of being that are not recognized in the work-for-pay system. Our thoughts, our feelings, parenting, volunteering, spirituality
Great. but thoughts, feelings, parenting, spirituality dont make crops grow or machines asemble. In other words, they might be very importnant to an person but they dont directly contribute to productive ability unless applied to it.
A person who feels and thinks about farming but doesnt do anyting will get the consequence of that inaction.
: The reality of it all is that we are all of EQUAL INTRINSIC WORTH, and no one is better than another.
In the sense that we all have an equal right to life, and liberty yes.
: * Because in a society, EVERYONE has the right to the basic means to survive at the very least.
Such a right requires that other people work to meet the right. in other words to enforce such a right other people must be persuaded, defrauded or forced into providing for it. How moral is that?
: What you are suggesting is that it should be social darwinianism, survival of the fittest.
You really believe that wihtout the 'mommy state' there would be no kind acts between people, no charity?
: *Until we have walked in another person's shoes, we cannot possibly judge their actions, or inactions as the case may be.
You mean a vicious killers murder of how ever many poeple cannot be judged evil, except by herself?
: I hope this has shed a little more light for you. Good luck in conquering the world!
Its more a desire to avoid being conquered by others.