OK, so the question is... Is the individual responsible, either morally or otherwise, for his brother's or sister's welfare and insuring their well being? Put another way... Are you your brothers (sisters) keeper?
And the answer is an emphatic NO. Also, if you answered yes to either of the afore-going questions you are an avowed progressive, socialist, Marxist and need read no further. Why? Because Lying Lester knows you do not try to reason with that which is evil.
If however, you stopped to seriously ponder the questions with an open mind, and to consider the proper role of government versus that of the individual to insure their well being then please read on (people who agree with me have open minds).
As individuals we are ethically responsible for ourselves, and only for ourselves. We have no right, natural or societally given to impose that responsibility upon another. We either rise or fall on the merits of our own individual effort and capabilities. As Ayn Rand recognized, selfishness is the HIGHEST virtue.
The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America when taken together insure the right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That and the guarantee that we have, and shall retain the right of self government based on the principles enumerated in the Constitution. The Founders were all selfish as*holes like me, in other words.
With respect to one's current and future well being; the responsibility to insure we have a satisfactory means to take care of our health concerns rests with each individual, not with society at large, and certainly not with the government. Should we be concerned if poor people are dying in the streets? Absolutely not. Aside from the fact that Lying Lester hates poor people, I do not want my money stolen to save the lives of any losers.
The notion that you are responsible for your own health care is similar to the idea that responsibility for providing satisfactorily for our senior years also rests with the individual. The decisions each individual makes, or, on the other hand chooses to evade will ultimately determine their happiness during their retirement. And, if circumstances beyond your control ruin your carefully laid plans, Lying Lester simply does not give a shit.
Individuals must take responsibility for their own needs and wants. Governments place is to oversee the existence of a civil society and enforce laws that will protect and preserve the peace and security of society. It is not now, nor has it ever been the responsibility of the state to insure all individuals are guaranteed equal results under the law. Rather the sTate's roll is to insure only the equal opportunity under the law. Results are the responsibility of each individual to secure through their own efforts and perseverance.
Obviously the lIberal pRogressives strongly disagree with my Randian sentiments expressed above. They believe that we (sOciety) are/is our brother's and sister's keeper, but Lying Lester regards such sentiments are pure evil.
This is what charities are for, stupid pRogressives! If you want to voluntarily give your hard earned money to a worthless loser, do it though a charity and LEAVE ME OUT of the equation! Frankly Lying Lester thinks you're throwing your money away, but I support your right to do with YOUR money has you see fit (including throwing it away to "help" worthless gutter trash). You do NOT, however, have any right to do with MY money as YOU please!
That said, Lying Lester MIGHT support using public dollars to feed poor people... if it were the RIGHT kind of program. Feeding young and healthy poor losers by grinding up and turning old/feeble sick poor losers into some kind of foodstuff... that is the kind of program Lying Lester could support.
Although, now that I think about it, such a program of turning worthless undesirables into food for losers who could provide some value as menial labor would probably be a task best handled by our corporations.
Which is why Lying Lester would support the passage of legislation allowing licenses to be granted to the rich to hunt and kill, or otherwise roundup the poor so they could be euthanized and fed to other Poors still in good health.
Under this legislation our corporations would be given license to round up the Poors and sort them into two groups: one group of old/sickly Poors that would be used as food for the second group of Poors (the young healthy one). This second group would then be forced to provide menial labor for the corporations (in exchange for very low wages).
This would ethically solve our homeless problem and our problem of sick people who can't afford medical care. "Ethical" because we would not need to resort to the evils of wEalth rEdistribution or infringe on the Rights or Liberties of anyone with worth (non-Poors). Call me Lying Lester The Problem Solver.