> Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food.
The same could be said of medical care. I don't see how that affects morality today.
> The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept.
I still don't see what history has to do with anything here. Is it a "late 20th century concept"? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't affect whether something is morally a fundamental right.
It sounds like you fit into the "different morality" bucket I mentioned above, so we should expect you to have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental (and that's okay). And if you have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental, than we should expect you to have differing opinions on what the government should do to guarantee them. Which you appear to (and that's okay).
The same could be said of medical care. I don't see how that affects morality today.
> The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept.
I still don't see what history has to do with anything here. Is it a "late 20th century concept"? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't affect whether something is morally a fundamental right.
It sounds like you fit into the "different morality" bucket I mentioned above, so we should expect you to have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental (and that's okay). And if you have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental, than we should expect you to have differing opinions on what the government should do to guarantee them. Which you appear to (and that's okay).