Why don't we have a basic right to food?

[Minor Axis]

I dislike when posts are made but no opinion is put forth by the OP, even when the OP has an agenda and is fishing for others to commit to a standard before he does. Yes I may be guilty, but I try to avoid it.

 

[Accountable]

Yes, we have food stamps, WIC, free school lunch programs and various other programs. You might go hungry here in the US, but you won't starve to death.

But that's not available to everybody, only those who qualify.

 

[All Else Failed]

idk, lets make everything a right while we're at it

 

[JanieDough]

Security must be provided by police for everyone, regardless of status.
Fire protection & rescue must be provided by the fire department for everyone, regardless of status.
Education must be provided to all children, regardless of status.
Healthcare must be provided to everyone, regardless of status.

Why isn't food provided by some governmental agency to everyone, regardless of status?

it's called food stamps

 

[Accountable]

it's called food stamps

But food stamps are not available to everybody, only to those who qualify.

I heard in the news that a bill is in the House that would give schoolkids free food for the weekend and over holiday breaks.

I found the news story:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/house-passes-titus-bill-on-weekend-meals-111545454.html?ref=454

 

[Tim]

I love the way you espouse liberty like it's the only thing that matters. You show such disdain to anything that doesn't fit into your view of what liberty is. You can see just how much it bothers you that we provide education, police protection, rescue, health care or any other service just the way your original post was phrased.
You see things like providing basic health care as an intrusion on your liberties and in a perfect world it could be. But that isn't the case here. Corporations have put a stranglehold on something that we should all have access to. In the name of profits at any cost, they have ruined lives. That is a much larger hit on our liberties that what this last bill did for us. When it makes available something that should have been available in the first place it's putting the power back into our hands. The way the system was headed, liberty in concerns to health care was available to only those who could afford it, and that's not what liberty is about.

Liberty isn't only about the ability to be free to do something. It's the ability of all to do that something, not just the well off. Too many of the "commons" are being sold off in the name of profit, and that is our biggest enemy when it comes to loss of liberty.

 

[edgray]

caring about your own liberty above someone else's wellbeing is one of the biggest hurdles mankind has to overcome.

 

[Tim]

caring about your own liberty above someone else's wellbeing is one of the biggest hurdles mankind has to overcome.

It's not even that...

My problem comes when the greed of others limits my liberty. I believe there are some things that should be protected from capitalism.

 

[edgray]

It's not even that...

My problem comes when the greed of others limits my liberty. I believe there are some things that should be protected from capitalism.

Liberty is a very complicated subject in itself, and the implications of it are far too detailed to go into right now. But the idea of "my" liberty is misguided in a community setting. You liberty ALWAYS infringes on someone else's, no matter what you do.

Liberty really is just an illusion anyhow. Modern society isn't so different from a prison for most of us, just the walls are a little farther apart... and the screws

 

[All Else Failed]

Liberty really is just an illusion anyhow. Modern society isn't so different from a prison for most of us, just the walls are a little farther apart... and the screws

see I agree with you here to a certain extent, but the reasons for what we claim to imprison us are different.

 

[Accountable]

And when he sees that his rationalization is crap, he changes the subject.

I love the way you espouse liberty like it's the only thing that matters.

Without liberty, what does the rest matter?

You show such disdain to anything that doesn't fit into your view of what liberty is. You can see just how much it bothers you that we provide education, police protection, rescue, health care or any other service just the way your original post was phrased.

That's crap, but don't let me mess up your little fantasy.

Liberty isn't only about the ability to be free to do something. It's the ability of all to do that something, not just the well off.

and, by extension, if we can't afford for everyone to do something, then no one should be allowed to do it?

Liberty is not only the freedom to do something. It has to come balanced with responsibility. If nothing comes with cost or consequence, liberty loses its value. When liberty has no value, people abuse it by taking stupid risk, expecting someone else to bail them out, or by becoming wasteful, expecting someone else to pay for everything.

You see things like providing basic health care as an intrusion on your liberties and in a perfect world it could be.

food. The subject is food.

But that isn't the case here. Corporations have put a stranglehold on something that we should all have access to. In the name of profits at any cost, they have ruined lives. That is a much larger hit on our liberties that what this last bill did for us. When it makes available something that should have been available in the first place it's putting the power back into our hands. The way the system was headed, liberty in concerns to health care was available to only those who could afford it, and that's not what liberty is about.

Shouldn't food have been available in the first place? Isn't food more important than an annual checkup?

 

[edgray]

Back on topic. We don't have a basic right to food for one simple reason - our economy is monetary based, which creates a wall between man and the resources that should rightfully be theirs.

A resource based economy would correct that problem.

 

[Accountable]

Back on topic. We don't have a basic right to food for one simple reason - our economy is monetary based, which creates a wall between man and the resources that should rightfully be theirs.

But you solved that with healthcare. Why not do the same with food? Why doesn't the most basic have the highest priority?

 

[edgray]

But you solved that with healthcare. Why not do the same with food? Why doesn't the most basic have the highest priority?

I would completely agree with you. However, that's something that the powers that be would have very little interest in. And the biggest problem to overcome would be the private ownership of land. I'm sure farmers would be quite reluctant with some kind of government scheme hanging over them.

Another factor of course would be that whilst healthcare is a simple principle, food certainly isn't. It varies of course from fresh produce, which should be what food consists of, but then the majority of food sold isn't in that form, it's pre-prepared, packaged up and made as unhealthy as possible.

I wonder how it could be done? I could see fresh food as do-able, but the rest?

 

[Tim]

And when he sees that his rationalization is crap, he changes the subject.
Without liberty, what does the rest matter?


That's crap, but don't let me mess up your little fantasy.

and, by extension, if we can't afford for everyone to do something, then no one should be allowed to do it?

Liberty is not only the freedom to do something. It has to come balanced with responsibility. If nothing comes with cost or consequence, liberty loses its value. When liberty has no value, people abuse it by taking stupid risk, expecting someone else to bail them out, or by becoming wasteful, expecting someone else to pay for everything.

food. The subject is food.Shouldn't food have been available in the first place? Isn't food more important than an annual checkup?

I'm sorry if I'm not responding the way you want me to, but your question can't be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions.

You are asking us to explain why food isn't considered a basic right and attempt to correlate them to 5 services provided not because they are deemed rights, but because it's the right thing to do.
I do consider the access to food to be a right. That does not mean that you must provide it for me, but it does mean that you cannot deny me access to it. Because I believe that food is a right, I believe the government should work towards ensuring that my access to food is not denied.
Show me one right that you have that requires someone else provide something to you. There is no such thing. Rights are not things to be given to you, they are something that cannot be taken away.

I have a right to clean air, that does not mean you must truck it in to my home. But it does mean that you cannot have a factory next to my home that poisons the air.
It's the same thing with food. My right to be able to feed myself doesn't mean you must supply it, but it does mean that you cannot impede my access to it.

Your examples in the OP are very poor ones in that they are not provided to us because someone deemed them as basic human rights. They are there because they are the right thing to do in a civilized society. There is a difference.

 

[Accountable]

I'm sorry if I'm not responding the way you want me to, but your question can't be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions.

You are asking us to explain why food isn't considered a basic right and attempt to correlate them to 5 services provided not because they are deemed rights, but because it's the right thing to do.
I do consider the access to food to be a right. That does not mean that you must provide it for me, but it does mean that you cannot deny me access to it. Because I believe that food is a right, I believe the government should work towards ensuring that my access to food is not denied.
Show me one right that you have that requires someone else provide something to you. There is no such thing. Rights are not things to be given to you, they are something that cannot be taken away.

I have a right to clean air, that does not mean you must truck it in to my home. But it does mean that you cannot have a factory next to my home that poisons the air.
It's the same thing with food. My right to be able to feed myself doesn't mean you must supply it, but it does mean that you cannot impede my access to it.

Your examples in the OP are very poor ones in that they are not provided to us because someone deemed them as basic human rights. They are there because they are the right thing to do in a civilized society. There is a difference.

Outstanding! :clap
Very well done. I agree with every syllable. Basic rights don't have to be provided, and providing something doesn't mean it is a right.

Let's bask in this glow of agreement a moment.

 

[BornReady]

If people have a right to food then it would fall in the class of socio-economic rights, not civil liberties. These rights might include things like the right to employment, an adequate standard of living and education for all citizens. There is general agreement on what our civil liberties are. But not so with socio-economic rights. Anyway, if people have the right to food then the government should provide it.

I have mixed feelings about free food. A minimal level of free food is a good thing if we can afford it. I don't want to see people starving even if they are lazy.