right to food?

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:14 am

i'm in Canada and as such, ( the same with most western countries ) we don't have a right to food.

should we have a right to food? why or why not? and what do you think a right to food means?

I am all for a right to food. It may even help, 'right to life' issues, as we need food to live. I mean what point is there to having a right to life, if you are not given the rights to sustain it?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51373

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:26 am

A person does not have the right to deliberately deny food to another person, and the government can enforce that with criminal penalties, but I don't see as how the government, who we usually entrust with protecting our rights, can guarentee to someone that they will have food. Then the question might become, "What kind of food?" The government might decide to provide everyone with a McDonalds hamburger every day, but someone might claim that that is not healthy enough food. So would we have the right just to food, or would it have to be healthy food, and then the government would be making very personal health issues for the people.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51375

Clueless · Post by **Clueless** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:52 am

what are you talking about? right to food? you dont have a right to food? i eat everyday! haha

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51376

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:48 am

A right to food. An interesting concept and on a local level it's something that I could see certain communities doing successfully. I certainly wouldn't advocate any major scale system in which a governmental body supplied us with food as a "right". If you can't get food.. I'm sorry to say this but, you’re really not trying. Some people may disagree with me there but, I'm not saying that it's laziness it's just a poor mindset that promotes a lack of drive.
Most people honestly believe that they just have it tough and nothing can be done no mater "how hard they try" when in truth they just don't KNOW how to go about trying. (In countries where it truly is impossible or nearly to survive of course this idea doesn't apply and I think that we should assist them in ideas and meaningful Agricultural reforms as much as possible)
Most people would much rather just be given food (or steal it) than have to think of a way to get the means to feed themselves.
I wouldn't promote this idea of a "right to food" mostly because I think we have plenty given to us already. The government isn't my savior nor will it be my nurse maid.

In conclusion I support the education of the world not the appeasement of it. Its cliché' but, that whole "Give a man a fish, Teach a man to fish" thing really is true.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51377

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:59 pm

We have the right to food, sure we have to work for it, but we still have it. Look at 3rd world countries. now THEY dont have the right to food, even if they want to work, there's no where to work and no education system, nothing. If one thing should happen, is countries with lot of money should give money to the poor countries so they can develop and economy and start somewhere. Open up a couple walmarts, grocery stores, if there's any natural resources to harvest, open up industries, etc. to give jobs, and products to buy.

But that will never happen.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51380

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:32 pm

Bookworm wrote: A person does not have the right to deliberately deny food to another person, I don't see as how the government, can guarentee to someone that they will have food.

"What kind of food?" would it have to be healthy food,

and then the government would be making very personal health issues for the people.

A person does not have the right to deliberately deny food to another person, I don't see as how the government, can guarentee to someone that they will have food.

at what point and what age can a parent say to their child - "you no longer abide by my rules, therefore you can no longer remain in this house" - this would be a 'deliberate' dening of food? - however this may go off topic. the deliberate deniing of food sounds like a discrimination issue, of couse we can't deny food to someone of a visual minority.

"What kind of food?" would it have to be healthy food,

this I believe would fall under 'jurisprudence' once the right has been adopted into the Charter. defining exactly what a right to food means will likely be a long process as Rosa Parks - would likely tell you
http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html

and then the government would be making very personal health issues for the people.

well I must admit 'any' food is better than 'no' food.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51382

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:37 pm

Clueless wrote: what are you talking about? right to food? you dont have a right to food? i eat everyday! haha

Neither of us have the right to food. It seems simple, however it can be really complicated. You say, "you eat everyday" Ask yourself, how is that possible?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51383

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:45 pm

FloodG8-9595 wrote: I certainly wouldn't advocate any major scale system in which a governmental body supplied us with food as a "right"

Most people would much rather just be given food (or steal it) than have to think of a way to get the means to feed themselves.

The supplying of food as a 'right' would only mean writing it on paper. I'm not talking about bags of potato's trucked out to every part of the country. "stealing" food would have to be redifined. Also it should never happen, if someone 'stole' food, I would make the assumption they were without it, if they did not have food, this would be a 'violation' of their rights and they would then be entitled to a 'remedy'

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51384

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:53 pm

Red Squirrel wrote: If one thing should happen, is countries with lot of money should give money to the poor countries

so they can develop and economy and start somewhere. Open up a couple walmarts, grocery stores, if there's any natural resources to harvest, open up industries, etc. to give jobs, and products to buy.

But that will never happen.

where would you give this money? to one person? to their government so they can charge an administration fee and drive their mercedes? what would the money be used for?

your gifts of charity are based on 'ideals' that we hold in the west. We can never give away food because we think that paying for a system that would promote democracy is far better money spent.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51385

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:57 pm

so far FloodG8-9595, seems to be the only brave soul to anwer the question.

If i'm not mistake he has said 'NO'

I would like to know what the rest of you think?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51386

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:39 pm

If one thing should happen, is countries with lot of money should give money to the poor countries so they can develop and economy and start somewhere.

I disagree with this statement. Blindly giving money to other countries and saying "now you use this to better yourself" has never worked and simply won't work until we educate them in how to do so, this has the unfortunate side effect of them telling us to f off and stop telling them how to spend their money (that we so coincidentally just gave them).

So we see that giving them money doesn't work, we have to make them understand HOW to care for themselves before we can give them a dollar or euro or any other form of currency.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51387

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:41 pm

scherzo wrote:
Red Squirrel wrote: If one thing should happen, is countries with lot of money should give money to the poor countries

so they can develop and economy and start somewhere. Open up a couple walmarts, grocery stores, if there's any natural resources to harvest, open up industries, etc. to give jobs, and products to buy.

But that will never happen.

where would you give this money? to one person? to their government so they can charge an administration fee and drive their mercedes? what would the money be used for?

your gifts of charity are based on 'ideals' that we hold in the west. We can never give away food because we think that paying for a system that would promote democracy is far better money spent.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51388

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:54 pm

scherzo wrote:
FloodG8-9595 wrote: I certainly wouldn't advocate any major scale system in which a governmental body supplied us with food as a "right"

Most people would much rather just be given food (or steal it) than have to think of a way to get the means to feed themselves.

The supplying of food as a 'right' would only mean writing it on paper. I'm not talking about bags of potato's trucked out to every part of the country. "stealing" food would have to be redifined. Also it should never happen, if someone 'stole' food, I would make the assumption they were without it, if they did not have food, this would be a 'violation' of their rights and they would then be entitled to a 'remedy'

If getting rights is only as simple as writing them on paper, them I have the right to take all of scherzo's money, because I just wrote on paper that I have the right to take it.

How can you redefine stealing without also redefining "personal property"? Do we want the government to take control of people's personal property? Sometimes people steal because they can sell the items they sold, so why do you assume people would steal food only because they were without it?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51405

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:19 pm

Bookworm wrote:
If getting rights is only as simple as writing them on paper, them I have the right to take all of scherzo's money, because I just wrote on paper that I have the right to take it.
How can you redefine stealing without also redefining "personal property"? Do we want the government to take control of people's personal property? Sometimes people steal because they can sell the items they sold, so why do you assume people would steal food only because they were without it?

actually that piece of paper signed by the right person would allow you to 'take' it.

'stealing for profit' - would have to be up for the courts, what I am asking is reconizing wether humans have the right to food, as we have the right to believe, and the other freedoms given to us from the Charter. It is a fundamental right (proposed) and thoroughgoing in effect to our own western ideals, structure and society.

History records the great depression exposed the inadequacies of state and local welfare programs and dramatized the need for federal participation in welfare assistance. However I am not talking about charity, but to reconize that humans have the right to food. The great depression is a canvas of subjectivity that destoys' 'stealing for profit' arguments. I am only talking about the most basic rights'

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51410

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:10 pm

scherzo wrote: 'stealing for profit' - would have to be up for the courts, what I am asking is reconizing wether humans have the right to food, as we have the right to believe, and the other freedoms given to us from the Charter. It is a fundamental right (proposed) and thoroughgoing in effect to our own western ideals, structure and society.

History records the great depression exposed the inadequacies of state and local welfare programs and dramatized the need for federal participation in welfare assistance. However I am not talking about charity, but to reconize that humans have the right to food. The great depression is a canvas of subjectivity that destoys' 'stealing for profit' arguments. I am only talking about the most basic rights'

I am still trying to figure out exactly what is involved in a "right to food." You say it would be similar to our right to believe. In what ways is it similar? The government cannot tell me what belief system I must have, so therefore the government cannot tell me what food I should have. I would agree with that. The government cannot order me to partake of any belief system at all if I choose not to. The government cannot order me to partake of any food at all if I choose not to. Well, if I choose not to partake of any food, I am essentially committing suicide, and I don't think the government has to allow me to commit suicide, especially by starvatiion. A pshychiatric order would probably be put in place allowing the authorities to install a feeding tube. So essentially, I already have the right to eat food, but not to purposely deny myself food. As I already said, if someone purposely denies me food so that I suffer the effects of starvation, then there would be criminal penalties involved.

You mentioned that you were not talking about charity in terms of the right to food. I take it that would include government welfare programs. We already have things like Food Stamps, so the government does provide food to those who qualify. How is a "right to food" different from what we already have?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51416

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:19 pm

Bookworm wrote: We already have things like Food Stamps, so the government does provide food to those who qualify. How is a "right to food" different from what we already have?

What we have now i.e. welfare is a privilage and not a right. I believe I don't need to explain the difference.

the similarities of a right to food and believe structure would be that they are rights. A pshychiatric order Is of course to narrow a window when concidering an entire population.

Perhaps the simplist way to expalian of what a right to food involves is to concider current welfare system a right and not a privilage. or you could just look at the bible

Leviticus 23:22
When you gather in the harvest 1 of your land, you must not completely harvest the corner of your field, 2 and you must not gather up the gleanings of your harvest. You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.’” 3

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51418

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 8:32 pm

I also forgot to mention there is the food bank, for people who can't afford food. They can go get canned food and such. Not sure exactly how the system works as I've never been on the receiving end, only giving end, but I'm guessing anyone can go in, and they simply hope it wont get abused, and I'm sure some may abuse it, but some benifit as well. Not sure if the states has a system like this or not though.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51419

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:16 pm

scherzo wrote:
Bookworm wrote: We already have things like Food Stamps, so the government does provide food to those who qualify. How is a "right to food" different from what we already have?

What we have now i.e. welfare is a privilage and not a right. . . . .
Perhaps the simplist way to expalian of what a right to food involves is to concider current welfare system a right and not a privilage.

If you want the current system to be right and not a priviledge, then you are going to have to explain the difference between a right and a priviledge, even though you don't want to. What exactly is involved in a "right to food?" How would we change the current system to make it a right rather than a priviledge?

or you could just look at the bible

Leviticus 23:22
When you gather in the harvest 1 of your land, you must not completely harvest the corner of your field, 2 and you must not gather up the gleanings of your harvest. You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.’” 3

Are you saying you would like our system of government to be a theocracy like it was during the time of Leviticus? I would much rather use a New Testament verse which says that if a man doesn't work, then neither should he eat. (II Thess 3:10)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51420

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:21 pm

Red Squirrel wrote: I also forgot to mention there is the food bank, for people who can't afford food. They can go get canned food and such. Not sure exactly how the system works as I've never been on the receiving end, only giving end, but I'm guessing anyone can go in, and they simply hope it wont get abused, and I'm sure some may abuse it, but some benifit as well. Not sure if the states has a system like this or not though.

yes we do have the food bank. However we don't have pages of legislation, jurisprudence which defines exactly what a right to food is. Countless hours is spent on tax legislation, but not a minute is spent on definning food? The govenor General of Canada has own personal flower designer, then of course there is the billion dollar boondoggle. There is no mistake these priorities represents our ideals. ideals of having personal flower designers over the right to food.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51421

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:44 pm

Bookworm wrote: If you want the current system to be right and not a priviledge, then you are going to have to explain the difference between a right and a priviledge,

Are you saying you would like our system of government to be a theocracy like it was during the time of Leviticus? I would much rather use a New Testament verse which says that if a man doesn't work, then neither should he eat. (II Thess 3:10)

The differnce between a right and a priviledge. A priviledge can be taken away.

The authorship of 2 Thessalonians is hotly debated, and I did need to blow the dust off the bible, however it only confirmed what i was thinking AND added another verse to the argument

The bible wasn't written in a void, in lev. God speaks to his people, the author is God (moses) however most importantly the audience is his people. He says leave the food for outsiders.

The new testement does not contradict this. It was written to a church and the 'man that doesn't work' is of the church and NOT the outsider.

also

2 thess 3 : 9

It wasn't that we didn't have the right to ask you to feed us.

MY quote of Lev also does not discriminate, You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner

the quote from 2 Thess is conditional. if a man doesn't work, then neither should he eat. The quote directly attaches itself to "man" but not women or children. If the man doesn't work, what of his wife and his child?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51422

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 10:53 pm

scherzo wrote: The bible wasn't written in a void, in lev. God speaks to his people, the author is God (moses) however most importantly the audience is his people. He says leave the food for outsiders.

Does he say to leave the food for those who are not his people? No. The poor and disadvantaged were still his people, but he didn't tell the farmers to gather up the grain and then just give it to the poor. The farmers had to just leave parts of the crop, and the poor still had to go out and do their own gathering to get it. So even in the Old Testament, the people had to work in order to eat.

The new testement does not contradict this. It was written to a church and the 'man that doesn't work' is of the church and NOT the outsider.

also

2 thess 3 : 9

It wasn't that we didn't have the right to ask you to feed us.

Well let's look at the passage in question so that the other people in the forum can see what we are talking about.

7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
Paul said that he had the right to ask them for food because he was a minister of the gospel, and as such, he had a right to be "paid" for the service that he did. But he didn't ask them for food because he wanted to be an example to them of how they should be acting. There were actually programs in the early church to provide food for the needy, but some people were taking the food even though they had the ability to be working themselves. They were just being busybodies, doing nothing except sponging off the church, and Paul was saying in these verses that that is not how people should be acting. He was not telling them that it was wrong for church people to sponge off the church, but it was okay for foreigners to sponge off the church. He was saying that NOBODY should expect to be getting food if they had the ability to work and were not doing it.

MY quote of Lev also does not discriminate, You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner

the quote from 2 Thess is conditional. if a man doesn't work, then neither should he eat. The quote directly attaches itself to "man" but not women or children. If the man doesn't work, what of his wife and his child?

The word "man" is the collective "man" meaning everbody, not just the male. Since work is a condition for getting food, then any right to food is conditional, not an absolute basic right.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51425

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:07 am

-> poor still had to go out and do their own gathering to get it. [/quote wrote:
Well I'm certainly glad you had ansered your previous questions

<!--QuoteBegin-Bookworm] How can you redefine stealing without also redefining "personal property"?

Well let's look at the passage in question so that the other people in the forum can see what we are talking about.

2 thess

and now, brothers and sisters, let us tell you about he coming again of our Lord Jesus Christ and how we will be gathered together to meet him. Please don't be so easily shaken and troubled by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun.

Sounds like the end of the world was near? Perhaps this is the reason for idleness?

Does he say to leave the food for those who are not his people? No. The poor and disadvantaged were still his people

Yes the poor and disadvantaged were still his people, but then so are we all beleiver and non believer alike.

leave it for the poor and the foreigners -new living translation

however 2 Thess deals stickly with the new church.

Paul said that he had the right to ask them for food

I will concede to this however not reluctantly, I am quick only because - it was a new verse, and I don't believe it has relievance to the discussion. Of course he has the right to ask, lol.

He was saying that NOBODY should expect to be getting food if they had the ability to work and were not doing it

2 thess 3 : 6 Stay away from any Christian who lives in ideness

NOBODY = Christian ?

The word "man" is the collective "man" meaning everbody, not just the male. Since work is a condition for getting food, then any right to food is conditional, not an absolute basic right.

good thing for the unborn babies of the world. No right to food, No right to life, as it is the mother who provides the food, and the babies don't work for it.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51426

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:18 am

good thing for the unborn babies of the world. No right to food, No right to life, as it is the mother who provides the food, and the babies don't work for it.

okay even I realize this is unfair. Modern arguments can have the right to life without the right to food. So I remove this and retract my statement.

I have left it, however because it took sometime before i came back, and someone may have alreday read it.

I remove the connection between right to life and food, however will continue

The word "man" is the collective "man" meaning everbody, not just the male. Since work is a condition for getting food, then any right to food is conditional, not an absolute basic right.

because you assisiate work with food, then what about the elderly and disabled, and of course children.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51427

scherzo · Post by **scherzo** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:00 am

Red Squirrel wrote: Look at 3rd world countries. now THEY dont have the right to food, even if they want to work, there's no where to work and no education system, n

Mariah Carey has looked at 3rd world countries and this is what she said.

Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that, but not with all those flies and death and stuff."

...Mariah Carey

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51431

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:49 am

I'd just like to add that. In the end what does it matter if the federal gov. says we have a right to food? Can they truly provide this right? I'd say certainly not within the boundries of effeciency and fairness.

We care for those who cannot care for themselves and already oftentimes for those who could very well care for themselves. Making it a right will just let those poor souls who are trapped thinking that the world owes them somthing have another excuse to fall back on when times get a little tough.

The elderly were mentioned earlier and I'd like to say that I know plenty of people over 80 who'd kick anyones butt for even insinuating that they couldn't or wouldn't work for what they got. now I assume you were talking about those who truly could not longer function and are in nursing progams or hospitals and of course they will be taken care of. If these people ARE starving it's because of a failure either on their part before they reached the point of invalidity or a failure of character in the family and friends of the subject.
Now that we've discussed the majority lets come to the point where we say "nothing is absolute" There are some few people who are put in circumstances completley and utterly beyond their control in which they cannot take care of themselves and there is no one to take care of them. In this case I think that it IS the sad burden of the state to help these people through the last years of their lives in whatever way possible but, people slip through the cracks of even the smallest and well put together organization just like for all the seatbelt laws people still die because they didn't wear one or luck would happen that theirs didn't hold.

Giving people a right to food just sounds pretty and nice but in reality it accomplishes nothing that I can see, other than making the already well off feel better about themselves.

Oh yeah and Mariah Carey is a twit.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:2893, old post ID:51432