"My assumptions relating to the purpose of Government have their roots in the Declaration of Independence."
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember reading anything about having people pay for health care and education in the DOI. The document itself also makes at least one bare assertion itself that remains a controversial one, namely that a "creator" has given human beings certain rights. Which creator the document does not specify, but it makes an appeal to an absolute moral authority, which I believe is a big problem when it comes to substantiating ethics and morals. The document, and no other document that I know of, proves the existence of a "creator" I might add.
"It the most important document in the history of mankind. But it cannot just be read, it must be studied."
I respectfully disagree, for reasons already stated above. Also, simply calling a document "the most important" does not make it so. Many other nations run just fine without it. I don't understand why people treat a 200 year old document as though it were absolute and no progress could be made beyond it.
"And that study requires the study of Western Civilization all the way back to Aristotle."
I respectfully disagree, and this seems like an appeal to authority fallacy. Aristotle himself was mistake about some things, it's not like he and other authors of "Western Civilization" were perfect. Nor do I think that one ought to be required to study the large body of work that came before the DOI in order to debate it. That would be like someone saying that one require the study of English Literature all the way back to Beowulf in order to properly understand and evaluate say, the novel Frankenstein.
"For the State to provide those things in your post, it means that it will have to take away from some people and give it to others. "
False. If everyone chips into pay for something that literally everyone takes advantage of, it is not taking from one to another. If everyone gets health care and education, everyone benifits. Also, by making it possible for everyone to have a high quality of life, things like crime and violence go down. Then of course, it ensures that less gifted people are left out of living up to their potential. If a poor yet brilliant child that has the potential to become a doctor, which I hope we can agree is a job that is important to us all, is bogged down with medical bills and expensive tuitions, such a child has a slim to no chance of becoming a doctor.
Spare me any appeal to exceptions that prove the rule. Yes I know there are ghetto sucess stories out there, people that have everything working against them that make it. They are but a drop in the bucket of people that have a better life denied to them. If the American Dream really were available to everyone, more people would take advantage of it. It is a myth--a carrot on the end of a stick to get the donkey to continue its struggle.
"This is a moral issue. By right moral right does anyone have a claim on your life, or my life?"
I don't understand your question. I don't believe in objective morals. I think that humans, being social animals, it makes life easier on us all if people cooperate and not cause harm. As such, I think it is wrong for say, you to punch me in the face for no reason other than your own personal amusment.
But "claim on my life"? What do you mean? What makes things all the more confusing is that earlier you say that you want protection from criminals. This implies that you are alright with the government claiming the lives of certain criminals, as in the USA the death penalty is still around. This seems to contrandict the idea of no one having a claim on anyone's life. Even if you don't kill a criminal, you still suggest the government deal with them, which means taking away rights from them.
In order protect society in general, it would seem there is a need to seperate certain dangerous people from it, which means taking away rights. It also means taking away money, as jails and police men cost money.
In order to have a society that is healthy, it would seem there is a need to provide health care, which means taking away money--not rights--away from everyone. Which is fine by me, seeing as I cannot afford to buy my own x-ray machine or private surgeon.
In order to have a society that is educated--which in turn also deturs crime and makes it possible to produce more doctors and police, it should also be noted--it would seem there is a need to provide education. This again means taking away money, not rights.
There are of course other options. You could choose to live the life of a nomad and not contribute to society, but then of course society does not contribute to you, and you have to provide everything for yourself.