Are people entitled to food?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent

The only other rights people have are negative; you have a negative right to life. A negative right to property. A negative right to education, healthcare, food etc. This means that nobody can unjustly take these rights away from you, but nobody is bound to provide them to you.

This makes absolutely no sense. You have a negative right to food but nobody is bound to give you food - so how are you meant to get that food if you have no money? Just pray other people will be nice enough to give you some?

Reply 21

chefdave

Original post by Redolent

If the government altered the rules of the game so that everybody had an entitlement to land - an essential prerequisite for food production- nobody would need to go hungry because we'd all enjoy the means to provide for ourselves. Without land you are indeed at the mercy of others.

Reply 22

TenOfThem

If people are entitled to food who is obligated to provide it

Who is obligated to feed starving children in 3rd world countries

Reply 23

chefdave

Original post by TenOfThem

If people are entitled to food who is obligated to provide it

Who is obligated to feed starving children in 3rd world countries

Well said. :smile:

Reply 24

Phoebus29

Original post by chefdave

If we get to a point where children are openly starving in the streets its an indication that something is going hideously wrong with the economy. Soup kitchens and charity etc aren't the answer, if anything they allow the source of the problem to continue unabated thus ensuring continued hardship in the long term. This is why I depise charity, we could (if we wanted to) do away with the sticking plasters and implement a permanent fix.

Just because you cant see it doesn't mean it inst happening anyway. To create a fix as you call it you have to make sure that there jobs for everybody so if you can find away of solving mass unemployment and make sure there are jobs for everybody then your nearly there but then you have to make sure everybody has the education to access these jobs and what happens if you lose your job or for any-other reason fall on hardship does that mean there worthless and starving even if it is in there own homes. And what about the children of parent who are to lazy to provide for them should they suffer because there parents are lazy?

Reply 25

Phoebus29

Original post by TenOfThem

If people are entitled to food who is obligated to provide it

Who is obligated to feed starving children in 3rd world countries

There governments and there people unfortionatly they are not in a position to do this . We shouldn't be comparing well off western countries with poverty stricken third world countries which are often helped by us ( western countries).

Reply 26

TenOfThem

Original post by social outcast

You have lost me

Either people have an entitlement to food or they don't

Having a government without money cannot remove an entitlement

Reply 27

chefdave

Original post by social outcast

Do you understand where jobs come from? Because your post betrays a fundamental economic misunderstanding. If people are starving it becomes their job is to provide themselves with food, jobs are there to satisfy our material desires, so all the time we need food/housing/energy etc there will always be jobs.

Of course if a cartel of state-backed landowners came along and hoovered up all the land leaving some people destitute they may experience difficulties in finding the resources necessary for survival. But the answer to this conundrum isn't charity, charity is a cruel substitute for real economic justice.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 28

Phoebus29

Original post by TenOfThem

You have lost me

Either people have an entitlement to food or they don't

Having a government without money cannot remove an entitlement

they are entitled but there isnt anyone to provide from them

Reply 29

chefdave

Original post by whyumadtho

People need basic resources like food, water and shelter before they can ameliorate their circumstances.

Do some people have an obligation to provide others with food though?

We all have needs, the important question is deciding who's job it is to satisfy those needs. I'm personally uncomfetable with the idea of the entitlement society because it suggests that some of us have to provide others with things at gunpoint (the state's).

Reply 30

Redolent

Original post by chefdave

It may be an essential prerequisite but it's not really enough, if something went wrong with your food production you would still face the same difficulty.

On a semi-related note, it would also be a lot more efficient if the food was mass produced and then divided out, a lot more could be produced at a much lower cost.

Reply 31

Land-based mammal

Original post by Otkem

Its when I hear things like this that really makes me question the governments authority, if you have such a problem with feeding the poor then stop passing the baton to each other and let the ordinary voter get a chance to lead the country, someone who isn't part of a secret old boys club or from an ancient family of in bred devils. Take your seedy hands out of those substantial coffers that were set up to feed the poor and the vulnerable, the money that has been bled from the working majority of this country to build a civilized society.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 32

noisy06

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent

No. Nobody is entitled to anything other than the provision of justice, police to protect from internal enemies and an armed forces to protect from external enemies.

The only other rights people have are negative; you have a negative right to life. A negative right to property. A negative right to education, healthcare, food etc. This means that nobody can unjustly take these rights away from you, but nobody is bound to provide them to you.

Nobody owes anyone else a living.

So it would be ok for people and their children to die of starvation on the road side? Or to die out of a lack of decent healthcare such as botched backstreet medicines and surgical procedures? Or for children to remain ignorant? These policies are a threat economically, not just morally.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 33

chefdave

Original post by Redolent

But nobody would bother to produce food if the government just came along at the end and confiscated it for the poor and needy, this is why communism will never, ever work.

I'm not suggesting that we all go back to the land like 16th century peasants, but I think if we strengthened the link between a state's people and the natural resources they own we might be able to end hardship without resorting to nonsense about entitlements.

Reply 34

chefdave

Original post by noisy06

Does this mean surgeons and farmers have an obligation to provide free medical care and vegetables/meat?

Try having a look at the other side of the coin for a change. If it was written into a farmer's contract that he had to provide the starving with food or face imprisonment nobody would bother to farm anymore, what would that do to annual food production?

Reply 35

Redolent

Original post by chefdave

But nobody would bother to produce food if the government just came along at the end and confiscated it for the poor and needy, this is why communism will never, ever work.

If the state were the ones growing it, they wouldn't need to confiscate it from anyone. Also, proper communism actually advocates doing away with the state altogether, once the centralisation is complete, not that I agree with that or communism in general.

Reply 36

TenOfThem

Original post by social outcast

they are entitled but there isnt anyone to provide from them

That is simply not true

There is adequate provision of food in the world

Reply 37

chefdave

Original post by Redolent

Wouldn't we be better off leaving farming to the experts: farmers? You're right though the state could take control of food production, but history demonstrates this rarely ends well. ~5-10 million people starved to death in Russia in the early 1930's for example when the government came up with the bright idea of collectivising grain production. It could play a small part in the economy I suppose, but its definitely a sub-optimal solution imo.

Reply 38

Redolent

Original post by chefdave

The farmers would be employed by the state in such a scenario, and the fact it's been done badly in practise doesn't automatically mean it's bad in principle. I don't know very much about the USSR but I do know they did just about everything very badly, which doesn't necessarily boil down to their principles (which as far as I know were mostly hollow)
And I don't think it's as sub-optimal as leaving it to the individuals themselves, which kind of flies in the face of established efficiency factors such as economies of scale.

Reply 39

username129099

The entire point of welfare is to be a safety net for people. People lose their jobs, suffer a natural disaster, can't get a house. The government will provide it for them. Not out of pure kindness, but because its in societies interests. Ultimately for every second someone is sitting on the street, is not in employment, is a second they aren't paying taxes, they aren't contributing to society and to our economy, they are dead weight. It in our interest to get them into a position in which they are contributing again. The problem many developed nations are facing is for various reasons these people are not contributing again. Whether that be because the industry they worked in no longer exists like manufacture, the education system didn't equip them for the world of work, they are just old and not dying soon enough (see Japan), or the most hated they are just a waste of space. That is what needs to be looked not just blaming people.

In many ways Mitt Romney is correct with his point, but the way he has read it is incorrect and shows he has no idea how to correct the problem. You need to ensure people are motivated, that is the basis of the American Dream, the idea that anyone can succeed. You also need to ensure you equip people with the tools and foster and environment in which this can happen.

From my own point of view, I believe if the government correctly equips the youth with the skills they need to be valuable in a global market, if they ensure our nation has the infrastructure, workforce, and conditions in which businesses can operate best, much of the problem will take care of itself. The rest unfortunately will need the mat pulled from under them. Certain people are incapable of motivating themselves, and so long as you provide an easy option they take it. But I don't believe that anywhere near 47% of the population fall into that category, more like <1%.

I think what Romney and the Republican's see in Obama as so dangerous is summed up in the famous death of democracy quote (in its various forms)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."

There are too many people who are voting for Obama, as it allows them to keep living the way they do. People who have no sense of personal responsibility love a more socialist government as they can leach off the productive populous. These people are never going to vote for a government who is going to expect them to stand on their own two feet. They will vote for the government who promises them the most, regardless of the viability. I think that is his view.