Left Wing want all have a chance to succeed. Right Wing prefer it only for a select few.

You didn't tell me why I'm wrong.

The Left Wing programs don't go wrong when passed untik the Right Wing plot to sabotage it. That's a fact, not a theory. This is precisely what occurred with Medicaid that devolved into Obamacare.

Then pray tell - what is the obligation that the poor get from receiving benefits? Because the only thing that occurs to me is taxes. There is no obligation. 

Also... yes - taxes are a form of a social contract 

Your anarchy will solve it all.

Anarchy being derivative of individualism presumes to focus on individual rights being the key component to social interaction as well as the resolution to disputes.

Social Contract - "an agreement among the members of a society or between a society and its rulers about the rights and duties of each"

Perhaps you could attack it semantically, technically taxes themselves aren't a social contract, but paying taxes is indeed a social contract - the agreement implicitly signed whenever you pay taxes is that you have a duty to help pay for the government's expenses and that government will create infrastructure, work, income, etc.

And  who assigns those rights. Government.

If not government, then it is chaotic mess of who ever comes to the meeting with largest guns { most explosives } to rule those they are in disagreement with.

Right wing wants to go back to the good ole days when men were men and women were women and and a exposed gun on hip, shoulder, legs arms is the best way forward for humanity to meet in the streets, the shopping malls, restaurants. park and day care center.

Athias.....That's better than the Left-Wing agenda in my book

Athias.....Government isn't necessary to "assign" rights. Rights are moral concepts; only rational people are necessary.

Anarchy is all cute and fun until the thugs who fought to free you end up ruling you with an iron fist.

Government is a set ---meeting--- of rational and irrational people deciding human "rights" as "moral concepts".

Government is a set ---meeting--- of rational and irrational people deciding who is rational and who is not.

In you anarchist and chaotic brute force meetings of supposedly ---"only rational people"--- we would have government ---irrespective of what you want to call it, that, will bring explosives, guns and ammo to decide who is rational, who is moral etc.

 

2232  or there about based on my set of formula/factors.

In autocracies like China and Iran, yeah they are brutal thugs indeed. In more democratic nations not so much but partially at times.

You're a devout anarchist, I'm not going to 'deconvert' you by one clever post. Your devotion to anarchy is akin to a Nun's devotion to Christ almighty and Lord God.

I object to anarchy ergo chaos and the new texas recommended law of open and carry.  Especially if open and carry has no limits as to;

Lincoln was a racist

At the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, held in Charleston, South Carolina, the “Great Emancipator” began with the following [transcript courtesy of the National Park Service]:

“While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. … I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”

You accuse a man who died 156 years ago. 

The conditions of his time are radically different from your time, so don't paint Lincoln with a 2021 brush of conditions.