Are people entitled to food?

No its not. Its a human necessity.

I don't think so. Is the chip shop down the road denying me my human rights if they refuse to provide me with fish and chips for free?

When you say "food is human right" what exactly do you mean?

If someone is starving and cannot access or afford food. It is their right to be fed.

Would you say the same about water?

I believe that people should have a legal entitlement to nature, so if potable water is found naturally then yes I would consider it a human right. But the difference between water and food is that it takes a lot more human effort to produce food, so a right to food is a defacto right to the efforts of another, which is also known as theft. Does that make sense?

You make quite a good point but I disagree, it's not theft because people willingly produce this food, they know where it's going and they're not chained to an anvil! People are entitled to food, there are real people out there who can't do anything for themselves and the way I see it is how would I want to be treated if I was in that situation?

Government intervention causes the free market to fail. When people are taxed on their earnings for example it incentivises them to work less, when the government complicates the tax system it draws money out of the real economy and hands it to unproductive tax accountants, when the state taxes imports they effectively hand domestic companies a subsidy which in turn heightens inflation and erodes our standard of living (company bosses get rich of the back of this move however).

Yes the market often fails but this isn't because of some 'internal contradiction' as Marx would put it, it fails because the state doesn't know what its doing.

Your post still doesn't address the original question however. Do I have an obligation to feed those that are less well off than me?

While there are a few people in society incapable of providing for themselves I don't think we should allow their plight to cloud the reality of an entitlement to food. How does this entitlement manifest itself in the real world? Would it be ok if we forced farmers to hold back a % of their produce so it could be distributed amongst the poor and vulnerable? Would homeless people be able to waltz into restaurants and demand a 3 course meal for the sake of their human rights?

I'm not trying to be nasty about the situation, but just because somebody is a little bit poorer than me or you it doesn't automatically follow that they have an entitlement to our stuff. That principle would end in disaster if a nation-state tried to follow it.

This particular issue is purely subjective, I would regard it market failure if there are people dying of starvation for example as a result of failing to sustain themselves in the market, that's a market failure according to me, maybe not to you and I understand that.

But the interesting thing is you continue onwards and claim that govt intervention causes the market to fail. Any basic economics tells you that without govt intervention, you would have externality issues, the free rider problem, monopolies, unrestricted barriers to entry, collusion etc etc. There are endless problems associated with a lack of government intervention, So I don't understand how why you said what you did. Of course most of it is subjective but you'd be hard pressed to justify your position in light of what I see as nothing short of catastrophic consequences on many levels.

But how is this any different to a Christian wandering around and marvelling at how the presence of everything confirms the existence of God? If someone is starving in the streets this could indicate market failure, but it could equally be attributable to governmental failure. I prefer to keep an open mind, we just don't know until we trace the source of the problem back too it's root.

Economics is a poorly researched and much misunderstood science. Its difficult to make claims with 100% certainty, so I attempt to use my common sense. My common sense tells me that you'd be more likely to accept overtime at the rate of £20 per hour than you are at £10, so income taxes therefore disincentivise work. My commons sense also tells me that any additional complications in the tax code benefit accountants and larger businesses at the expense of small and medium sized enterprises, who have no choiuce but to play by the rules. All this problems you cite occur under the statist/socialist system of government too, I'm not sure who's taught you otherwise?

When you say a 3 course meal, I am in way way saying that the people who are incapable of living on their own should be given privileges food wise, what I mean is that they should be given necessities to keep them alive, not 3 course meals in restaurants.

I have never in my life heard a truer word. I believe that the sense of entitlement in Britain is worse than it is in the USA. I wouldn't mind particularly if non-income tapayers actually contributed towards society in order to get their food and housing, but most of them don't. I don't believe that if someone is not willing to contribute towards society, that they should still have food etc given to them. What are your thoughts?

Excuse me but I don't think you understood anything I've said. And let's leave theological analogies out of this if you don't mind. I'm not going to patronise you but your response is out of sync with my statements. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume a simple mishap, but unless you're willing to defend an unregulated free market from the things I highlighted, I don't see how your response will be beneficial for either of us.

I answered all your points directly and one by one. If you don't like the answers that's your problem I'm afraid. You said that starvation confirms in your mind the presence of market failure, then how do you explain the millions of people who died due to the famines directly attributable to Soviet collectivisation? Were these tragic deaths the result of a 'free' market in food? Do you not see the circular nature of you logic? Hardship = unable to compete in the market = market failure = hardship. There's no reasoning behind this position hence my remark about it being analogous to a relgious belief.


Do I support the "unregulated" free market? I don't know, if you could drop the unnecessary propaganda perhaps we could discuss whether capitalism is a force for good.

I never said anything about the Soviets. In fact, I said Govt intervention, not market centralisation, there's a profound difference. Without govt intervention, people would starve to death or be dependent upon the good will of the people for some loaves if bread. I've made my position clear on this matter.

You haven't addressed any of the problems associated with a lack of govt intervention such as the free rider problem, externalities etc. None whatsoever. And I don't expect you to because these things necessitate govt intervention, an unregulated free market also does not work, it's as simple as that.

On the one hand you highlight the "freerider" problem, yet on the other you champion the principle of taking food away from the productive and handing it over to the unproductive. How exactly am I supposed to analyse your points coherently when they contain such glaring contradictions?