lagarthaaz

No, of course we aren't teaching our children that sexual violence is acceptable - I don't, and I'm sure no-one else on this board does either.
 
While I empathize with anyone who has been a victim of sexual abuse and can see how the quote above might make you feel, I do not believe that President Kimball would have ever intended his words to be interpreted as blaming a victim for the sins of their attacker. The key part of the quote for me is this: "There is no condemnation when there is no voluntary participation.".
 
Having read many of his talks and listened to him in various conferences, I know that President Kimball greatly valued and loved women in the church and he had compassion for the struggles that many women face. Yes, some of his comments were reflective of his time (and therefore may seem old-fashioned today), but I do not for one minute believe he would have ever condemned a victim of sexual abuse.
 
As a convert when Pres. Kimball was prophet of the church, I recall reading the "Miracle of Forgiveness" and took from it a powerful message of Christ's atonement and forgiveness for each of us. I too was abused as a child, and did not take from the book that I was somehow unworthy because of what happened to me, I just thought the message was beautiful in that each of us can become clean and pure through Christ's atonement, no matter what we have done.
 
What's most important to remember about the issue of sexual abuse, is that the church today most definitely does not blame victims of abuse or assault. The church website states:"Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin."
 
Elder Richard G. Scott reinforced this: "I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty."

Yjacket, I'm sorry but your comments are very out of line.  And MM has EVERY right to be upset at her husband sexually exciting himself thinking about other women, especially as a repeat offender who's blowing off her feelings on the matter.

When I said 'shocking,' I meant I was truly surprised to see something I didn't expect in that context. Not that I was angered or something like that. Shocked as in I had to stop reading right there and think about what I had just read. I don't think that just saying I was surprised would have adequately conveyed the level of slapped-in-the-face that I felt. 
 
I'm over it now.  

I am trying to read the BOM by Christmas. It's not going as fast as I had hoped, but I'm still reading, so I guess that's what counts.
 
The other day I read, "Brethren, adieu." in Jacob. Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. Adieu? In the BOM??? Obviously I didn't read as closely as I might have the first time around. This was shocking. Now, I firmly believe that Joseph Smith translated the BOM, but 'adieu'? Surely Brother Joseph sneaked in there a little, certainement? I could have let that be the beginning of a slippery slope of picking apart the BOM for what I thought didn't belong there.
 
Then I did some online searching and found 'Why is the French word "adieu" in the Book of Mormon?  And my questions were answered!  See:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/%22Adieu%22 
 
As President Uchtdorf said, "Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters - my dear friends - please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."  
 
Doubt your doubts and do your research!
 
 
 

Hello everyone!
 
It's been a crazy/busy/wonderful time!  I recorded on an album/this music video in May while juggling my now five children.  It took me a long time to heal from being rear ended at 35 weeks pregnant and then my 36 hour back labor a month later.  I couldn't sit at my computer much at all without being in horrible pain and had to lie down to nurse my baby quite a bit. 
 
Anyway, my husband was so supportive and made it possible for me to record on the album "Winter Symphony" and be a part of this video. Jennifer Thomas (the composer/pianist/violinist) is a wonderful LDS woman who is the mom of three young boys and it's so inspiring to see everything she has accomplished.  Hope you all watch this and enjoy! 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njBGubkF5WA
 
 

Just before going through the temple my first time one of my friends had just finished going through in preparation for his mission. He ended up leaving the church instead saying that freaky expletive stuff went on in their and he wanted nothing to do with it. He was still down with the rest of the church but didn't like the temple or agree with what goes on in there. His parents felt bad that they had not helped prepare him better and had a brief conversation with me about how everything there just builds on gospel principles already taught and that there should be no surprises.
 
I went to the temple the first time wondering what on earth would happen in there that no one was allowed to talk about, but also trusting that it must be sacred - I never believed the nonsense that goes around about what happens. I felt it was an interesting experience, but it didn't ever bother me. A nice Elders Quorum President wanted to ensure I became more comfortable with going and set time aside to take me on a few more occasions. He even took me for chinese food to discuss things about it. These early temple experiences were nice, even if unfamiliar to me.
 
On my mission we could go to the temple on preparation day. My trainer would make us get at 5:30 am to travel to the bountiful temple from near Hill AFB (Clinton, Sunset, Clearfield all runs together). I ended up sick and really needed to rest on P-day, but my trainer would have none of it and as a greenie I wasn't ready to stand up to him so I went along and didn't get my rest which kept me ill for six-weeks. I was too tired and unwell to ever get anything out of it and started to despise being there.
 
I later regained some enjoyment of the temple - especially doing initiatory and baptisms. I can tend to struggle with the changes that have taken place over time, even since I've been attending. I suppose this is what ongoing revelation is for, but it seems like ordinances aren't supposed to change; hence we don't Baptize by sprinkling and so on. So it eats away at me when I'm there remembering how certain things were done and how they are done and knowing that many changes have happened along the way.
 
I also had the unfortunate experience of a terrible wedding day that further taints my temple experience somewhat, because even to go do sealings there is always a part of me that feels like I missed out on something special that day. My wife and her family insisted that we had to have the day over-full of non-essential crap so we didn't have time to enjoy the actually important part of the day and reflect on the commitment/covenant being made. Maybe I'm just weak minded but I always feel like going to the temple re-opens wounds and hurt feelings.
 
I also find that so many people seem to talk about how much they learn in the temple - I can't say I've ever felt this way either. I learn more reading in the scriptures than I do attending the temple. I might not be wired to pick up the lessons that are supposedly there for me and it makes me feel stupid - even with an IQ score and patriarchal blessing that suggest I'm actually quite bright.
 
I have the further trouble of having lived so close to a temple that I could literally walk there within five minutes, that the idea of driving for an hour both ways makes it hard to pull off - there is pretty much only time on Saturday and I have so much other stuff to catch up on Saturday that my temple attendance is woefully infrequent these days. Add a wife that takes two-years to get ready and is incapable of being punctual and the added blessing of a little baby and my outlook of improving attendance doesn't appear to be going up.
 
To summarize, I know I should love the temple, I would like to say I love the temple, I have felt the peace the temple has to offer (but inconsistently), I love to go for walks around the temple, but I don't love going through the temple.

I don't think it matters who has been in office.  We sometimes tend to forget what prophecy has told us about the last days.  Evil will increase and we are seeing an increase.  Has there been more mass shootings since Obama has been in office?  Sure there has been.  But he is also the most current President in office as we move closer and closer to the second coming of Christ where evil will abound before His coming.  It's just easier to blame the current President.

Personally, I think scripture and the missionaries are the best way to learn (otherwise, you may learn trig before algebra and it won't make sense).
 
That said, all of the below are available for free in the Gospel Library app created by the church (available for Android, Apple, and Windows Phone / 8.1+) and on LDS.org.
 
The free Deseret Book Bookshelf app has others for free.  Some may be available in Google Books for free.

One of the great aspects of being LDS is access to revelation.  Also - one thing about the poor that stands out in history is that poverty will not solve itself.  There are a few historical examples of the way and means to end poverty but these examples are rare and the necessary details are somewhat hidden and not as obvious as some pretend.  The best example I am aware of from scripture is King Benjamin and the best era was for a couple of hundred years following the appearance of Christ among the Nephits.
 
There are a lot of pretenders when it come to caring about the poor.  Many like to volunteer at soup kitchens or get involved in fundraisers so that they can have the outward appearance that they are charitable and care about helping the poor.  But these are in essence smoke screens intended to create an appearance of caring and a feel good for doing something.  The reason I say smoke screen is because such efforts are so ineffective. 
 
I was raised in a home of a King Benjamin.  I know how to take care of and actually help the poor.  Sadly I am not the person that my father was.  I am not rebellious as was Laman and Lemual but I am not a King Benjamin.  I am selfish enough to keep myself out of poverty but I lack the charity spoken of in scripture as the pure love of Christ.  But I have walked enough in conservative circles as well as liberal circles to know that few are involved in the kind of charity that is the pure love of Christ (necessary for helping the poor) any more than I am.  From time to time I come close knowing specific circumstances of certain individuals suffering unnecessarily poverty that they do not deserve at all.  But in general - I have great difficulty getting past the impression that so many suffering financial difficulty are for lack of better description - fat, lazy and selfishly foolish.  And that any effort to awaken them to the possible of loving labor and contributing to their own good health and financial stability is interpreted as hateful at worse or not caring at best.
 
My problem is when help is offered (which is learning how to fish rather than being handed a cooked and prepared fish to eat) and treated in return with a response of disdain and scorn for such help - I am of the nature - that they and everybody else would be better off if they starved.  And that I know is not the charity that is the pure love of Christ.

Vort, I appreciate your articulate response to my limited understanding of the concept of "rights" as its been discussed in this thread. After reading your comments I did some reading on the origin of the Declaration of Independence, which took me on a trip through the  the Age of Enlightenment, and the concept of 'natural rights' espoused by Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers. That's all helped me understand what you were trying to explain about the difference between natural rights and government protected rights. I also read up on what other posters said about the 'unalienable/inalienable' rights referred to  as well. 
 
So, bearing all that in mind, when I say that 'healthcare is a basic human right' as outlined by international agreements that a country may be signatory to, I am not referring to 'natural' human rights, but to social rights decided on by citizens that the government is then obligated to protect. Does that make sense or am I still not getting it? 
 
Having lived in a society for most of my life where services like healthcare and education are taken for granted and always referred to as a 'basic human right', my ideas have very much been entrenched in this understanding. Australia, like the USA, is signatory to various international agreements on human rights, and citizens' rights are further protected by federal and state laws. And yet, for a country with cultural sense of entitlement to 'rights', we don't even have the concept enshrined in our Constitution (and we don't have a Bill of Rights).  Rather, rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution.
 
That's where I've been coming from, hopefully it gives some perspective about how we've been viewing the concept of 'rights' in very different contexts.  
 
There is a difference between a government protecting rights, a government defining responsibilities, and a government doing its duties. Rights have to do with allowable actions, exercise of conscience, and human interaction, never about possessions. In no case is health care a human right to be protected, any more than education is a "right" or property is a "right". We have a right to possess such things, but you have no right to demand that I give you such things.
 
Yes, I understand that.
 
A simple and pretty good way to test if something is a "right" is to ask: "Can I reasonably demand my neighbor to supply me with this?" If the answer is "yes", then the thing under consideration might be a right. If the answer is "no", then it is not a right.
 
Examples: In general, can I reasonably demand that my neighbor give me:
My exercise of religion, without interference? Yes. An automobile? No. The freedom to speak my mind about politics, even if he doesn't like them? Yes. Health care insurance? No So exercise of religion and freedom of political speech are true rights; cars and health insurance are not. If the UN doesn't understand that, that just goes to show that we should not take our legislative understanding from the UN.
 
One question here - do you know if the idea of universal 'natural rights' as determined by Enlightenment thinkers and then enshrined in the Declaration of Independence -  are considered to be culturally variable - or, do they only subscribe to a European construct of 'true rights'? [Edited to add - never mind, I just read this site and read that the issue was not clear cut even in the 17th century!) Maybe you can add to this? 
 
A government has a few primary responsibilities. Foremost among those is defending the rights of its citizens.
 
What other things a government takes responsibility for is up to those who establish the government. In the case of US and western democracies, that means it's up to the people, since it is the people who establish the government. But people must then be wise about what they demand of their government, because government is a huge and immensely powerful tool. It is a genie that, once out of the bottle, won't go back. Americans have traditionally understood this, and many Americans have thus argued forcefully for a very limited government. Thus we have the apocryphal quote, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least."
 
If the people get together and decide they want their government to tax people and use the money to pave roads, then that becomes a duty of that government. But "paved roads" do not magically become a human right. There is no human right to paved roads, any more than there is a human right to automobiles or health care. Similarly, people might decide they want their government to tax everyone and use the proceeds to fund public health care. If they so decide and legislate -- and that is a foolish choice, in my estimation -- then that becomes a duty of the government. But never confuse that with a right. it is no right.
 
A good, righteous government might very well do away with publicly funded health care, publicly funded child support, publicly funded education, publicly funded welfare payments -- heck, even publicly funded roads. But by definition, a good, righteous government can never do away with defending the rights of its citizens.
 
Thanks for the insights!

The terms I "actually" used were actual numbers of church members and actual membership numbers.
 
For example my husband was baptized into the LDS church as a child but left the church when he was about 16 (he is now in his 50s). He has never considered having his named removed from the membership rolls because he says he doesn't want to give the church the satisfaction of credibility (his words). He has been an ex-member longer than he has been a member. His name is still counted as a member but he hasn't been one for decades.
 
If members who resign and have their names taken off membership rolls are "actually" not counted anymore, than those membership numbers will more closely reflect reality. That's all I'm saying.
 
M.

My statement doesn't even come close to saying or even hinting at such a thing.
 
The people that I am reading about that have decided to officially resign are the ones that are admitting that they are not active members. I'm taking them at their word.
 
M.

Lot's of interesting opinions about our public education system, some good, some ....just arrogantly ignorant and insulting to a noble calling. My wife has been in education on some level for her entire adult life (about 27 years) and I think it would be incredibly difficult to find many that are her equal with regard to passion and work ethic. She began her career as a high school math teacher earning $19,500 and now as a Principle of a high school (working 60 hours a week) earns $75,000. She works year round, no summers off.....
 
She has also been an education consultant and author of about a dozen algebra text books earning a healthy six figure income, but, loves kids and wants to be involved with them and is passionately committed to developing educators into the best educators the flawed system we have will allow. There are many excellent educators and some that should seek employment elsewhere....just like most professions. The obvious difference is the future of our nations children.
 
My wife could easily stay home and not work if she chose to do so due to my income ....as could many teachers. Oh, and she could have easily been an "engineer" or pretty much anything else as she is far beyond "average". Like the church manual....Teaching, no greater calling.
 
If we want the education system to change, we need to get the political correct lunacy in check and keep the federal government away from our children. Mean while, let's try and honor teachers for their willingness to serve.

Except it will not...  You say this
 
 
 
Which has historically been proven false.  The whole reason Public school came about is because enough parents where neglecting it, to make government backed schools seem appealing.
 
Your method does not fundamentally change the nature of the parents.  Kids who's parents are fulling their God given stewardship to educate their children, by studying our and prayerfully choosing a path for the child's education will continue to do so. Even if/when public schools are not a option.  Parents that don't care, will continue to not care, and will blame their failure on other people (as they have always have)
 
Simple fact is there were problems with private education...  Public education did not solve those problems like people claimed it would.  But removing public education will not magically fix the problems private education had before it existed.  It not a magic fairy wand that changes irresponsible parents into responsible ones.

I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK, the average teacher quits in the first 5 years.
 
Beginning teachers earn about £30, 000/year($60, 000 currently). Head of year, about £70, 000($140, 000/year) and Headmasters, £100, 000/year(About $200, 000).
 
I am currently going back to school to finish my training myself because, in addition to  this, there is a £30, 000 incentive for IT teachers who are willing to get teacher certification.
 
This is because UK teaching is very, very difficult. You are micromanaged. Your work takes you far in to the night. You have to manage both parent expectations(Failing a child is ridiculously difficult) and stress is high. Because of this, despite very good wages, teachers are in desperate short supply.
 
 
But with a $60, 000 bursary as per: https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/bursaries-and-funding - I can put up with a difficult 5 years. That's a very sizeable down payment on a house.

Have you ever considered the fact that as a parent...she is tired of being told she is a failure as a parent, by some random stranger on the internet flogging whatever hobby horse hobby horse floats their boat?
 
As for the subject I read your dire warnings and grim pronouncements and I compare it to my own personal experience in the public school system.  I went through it as a kid, and in my case your dire predictions failed.  My kids are in public school and all signs point to them turning out alright.  (Although I admit it might be a bit early to tell)
 
So from my personal experience I can only reach 3 possible conclusions to your claims. 1. That you are making it up by reading into thing what you want to see.  2.  That you aren't making it up but the people who made those claims are incompetent, and have utterly failed.  Or 3.  You aren't making things up, the people aren't incompetent, but that even at six to eight hours a day it is very hard to over come the power influence of an active and engaged parent even if that parent it using the public school system.
 
I am tending toward number three...  I think the problem starts and ends with parents who don't care to really be a parent.  And that has always been a problem no matter what school system is used.  Thus discussing school system is discussing a symptom and not the the root cause.  And no fix will work unless it changes the heart of the uncaring parents.

I don't believe either of these are known to have been said by Einstein.

I am a big fan of Running Start, at least from the academic perspective. I am not a fan of "honors" classes or AP. I put "honors" in scare quotes because, in my experience, "honors" classes in high school have mostly been classes with lots more homework added on but no bonus in learning. One of my sons got out of a nightmarish "honors" class and transferred into the regular class, which he found far more enjoyable, much less busywork, and actually about two weeks ahead of the "honors" class.
 
The original idea behind an "honors" class was that it would better prepare the student for more advanced (read: college) study. Not only did the classes fail to give preparation better than (or even as good as) the non-honors classes, but colleges and universities generally do not even look to see if honors classes were taken. So if you get anything less than an 'A' in the "honors" class, you have actually harmed your college/university prospects. And if you get the 'A', you have not really done yourself any favors, unless the class is truly exceptional in teaching you the subject (which, in my children's case, it was not). It's all really just a sort of ego trip, with no discernable payoff, unless you consider bragging to your high school friends about taking "honors" classes to qualify as a payoff.
 
I realize that some people have good "honors" class experience. That's great. Hasn't been that way for our family. My standard advice to my children is to avoid any class labeled "honors" and just do Running Start when they're ready.
 
The AP classes are college courses taught by high school teachers at more or less a high school level (which my children have found stultifying). With the availability of Running Start, AP classes seem redundant, unless the student actually prefers the high school classroom setting and pace. Again, YMMV, but for us it has been a waste of time.
 
In contrast, Running Start has been great. It has allowed my children to have actual college-level coursework in a more stimulating environment. It's more work, but the courses actually count for college credit, so it has been well worth the extra trouble  (driving or busing to the local college and back home, college-level expectations).

First off - I am not sure I agree with what engineers base salary is.   It as been over 25 years since I worked as an engineer at Boeing.  But using my son that graduated a year and a half ago with a software engineering degree and had an initial salary of $70,000 with a guarantee additional $10,000 for each certification obtained plus yearly merit raises.   Also after "proving" his work ethic over the first 6 months was allows to work at home as per his discretion.   Perhaps this is not average because he graduated in the top of his class.  As a consulting engineer - I do not think my current salary would have and measurable comparisons.  
 
But I will however, be very vocal about misappropriations of funds in our public education system and highlight that the highest paid professionals in our education system are specialists that do nothing more than oversee compliance with federal regulations in order to receive the most federal moneys.  I believe that teachers should be the highest paid professionals in our public educational system - including administers (principles etc.) and others in the system.  I believe teachers should be the highest paid - including state universities. 
 
But I have another pet peeve about university professors that do not teach but are research only professors.  I also think we should be more concerned with professors that require their own text for their classes - texts that are not used anywhere else in the world.

Nope but I would like to visit there one day!  I do however enjoy my paid holidays, free healthcare, my paid paternity leave, my paid sick leave and my state pension (when I eventually retire!).

Wow, makes me glad that I don't live in the US! 

I'm not sure what your post here has to do with my post that you quoted.
 
My post is just an observation of what formal resignations would mean in regards to actual membership numbers. From what I've read, quite a few members formally resigning have been inactive for a while and some for many years. They are not active members but are still counted as members. Official name removals would reflect more accurate membership numbers.
 
You don't agree with my observation?
 
M.

lagarthaaz, I appreciate your honest and open responses. I am going to try to respond to what you have written in the same spirit. But I am not sure when I will be able to do so.
 
There is a difference between a government protecting rights, a government defining responsibilities, and a government doing its duties. Rights have to do with allowable actions, exercise of conscience, and human interaction, never about possessions. In no case is health care a human right to be protected, any more than education is a "right" or property is a "right". We have a right to possess such things, but you have no right to demand that I give you such things.
 
A simple and pretty good way to test if something is a "right" is to ask: "Can I reasonably demand my neighbor to supply me with this?" If the answer is "yes", then the thing under consideration might be a right. If the answer is "no", then it is not a right. Examples: In general, can I reasonably demand that my neighbor give me:
My exercise of religion, without interference? Yes. An automobile? No. The freedom to speak my mind about politics, even if he doesn't like them? Yes. Health care insurance? No. So exercise of religion and freedom of political speech are true rights; cars and health insurance are not. If the UN doesn't understand that, that just goes to show that we should not take our legislative understanding from the UN.
 
A government has a few primary responsibilities. Foremost among those is defending the rights of its citizens.
 
What other things a government takes responsibility for is up to those who establish the government. In the case of US and western democracies, that means it's up to the people, since it is the people who establish the government. But people must then be wise about what they demand of their government, because government is a huge and immensely powerful tool. It is a genie that, once out of the bottle, won't go back. Americans have traditionally understood this, and many Americans have thus argued forcefully for a very limited government. Thus we have the apocryphal quote, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least."
 
If the people get together and decide they want their government to tax people and use the money to pave roads, then that becomes a duty of that government. But "paved roads" do not magically become a human right. There is no human right to paved roads, any more than there is a human right to automobiles or health care. Similarly, people might decide they want their government to tax everyone and use the proceeds to fund public health care. If they so decide and legislate -- and that is a foolish choice, in my estimation -- then that becomes a duty of the government. But never confuse that with a right. it is no right.
 
A good, righteous government might very well do away with publicly funded health care, publicly funded child support, publicly funded education, publicly funded welfare payments -- heck, even publicly funded roads. But by definition, a good, righteous government can never do away with defending the rights of its citizens.
 
I said I could not respond to you at this time, yet I have gone on and on. I will try to write a better response later.
 
[For the record: My children do make use of the public school system. But I have absolutely no delusions that such is any sort of "right". I -- not the government, but I, the parent -- have the duty to educate my children. I think it would be correct to say that my children have the right to demand education from me -- though not from the government. How I choose to fulfill that duty is my business. If I homeschool (which I do), that is one way of fulfilling that duty. If I buy tutors or pay for private school, that would also work. In our case, our government uses tax money to fund public schools, which are available for my use if I decide to go that route. So to some extent, I do take advantage of publicly funded, government-run schools to educate my children.]
 
[bUT PUBLIC EDUCATION IS NOT A RIGHT. That's the point.]

What I'm taking away from this thread, is a decision to start calling it a deathiversary.  I think my dad would appreciate the gallows humor. 

I am going to have to learn how to do the part-quote thing here... sorry for the weird quote to start the post. I'll just have to put your comments in italics for now. 
 
"Right" means nothing in the sense of access to vital services.
 
Thank you for sharing your definition of what  "Right" means. I come from a society where vital services are most definitely considered "rights", so obviously that has shaped my understanding.
 
 
Look at the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
 
Rights are liberties granted by God (or, if you prefer, natural, as opposed to something granted by the fiat of a king). The duty of any government is to protect such natural rights. So, for example:
You have a right to speak your mind, politically. The duty of the government is to insure that you can exercise that right, and that your neighbor doesn't shut you up because he doesn't like your politics. You have a right to religious expression. The government's duty is to protect your right to believe and worship as you choose, without the interference of others. You have the right to own property. Your property may not be seized by others without due process that establishes that you do not actually own the property, or that you have forfeited that ownership for some legitimate reason. Well, yes, that all seems logical. No problem there.
 
It is not the government's duty to procure you some health care, any more than it's the government's duty to feed you. How can it not be the government's duty to provide health care, food and shelter for people who cannot afford such things? Surely, as a signatory to various international agreements, the government is obligated to uphold certain principles underpinned by the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If I pay taxes, and I uphold the democratic (and in some cases socialistic) principles of my government which states that every person in the country has the right to access certain basic necessities - then it IS the government's responsibility to provide for it's citizens in this way.  Quality of life also depends on having friends. Do you suppose this means that the government is required to make friends for you?
 
Perhaps I should have specified that what I meant by quality of life, was related directly to basic healthcare issues such as infant mortality, etc. And yes, the government SHOULD be required by voters and taxpayers to uphold the basic rights of citizens as per its national and international agreements to uphold those rights.
 
"Freedom" means that we get to choose our own path. "Freedom" does not mean that we somehow get to choose the consequences of our free choices, or that the government exists to take care of us. That is what children need, not adults. The government exists to protect our rights, not to take other people's goods and give them to us.
 
To some extent I agree with you, but if as a society we agree to our taxes being used to help the most vulnerable, we form a safety net whereby we too can benefit should we some day become one of those vulnerable people. This isn't a 'taking' as it is a kind of reciprocal contribution to ensure that no person ever becomes completely destitute without access to food, shelter, basic education and healthcare.  
 
No, it does not. There is no such "right".Publicly funded health care may, or may not, be chosen by a society as a desirable thing. It may, or may not, work well. But it is in no way a right.
 
Not in the sense that you originally defined "right" as, but surely it is a right if it is set down in government legislation or international agreement?
 
I think of the wording contained in the Geneva Conventions or the UN Convention Against Torture  which use terms such as "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family...Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person...which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,".  This wording makes it clear that simply by virtue of our humanity alone, we are entitled to certain rights, and carries over to other documents that most civilized countries are signatories to with regard to the basic rights of human beings to food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.
 
Signatories to international agreements on human rights do imply that our governments agree with the wording on the documents they signed, so I'm not sure how we can say that 'no such rights' to healthcare and other basic human rights do not exist.