right to food

1. 61

   Kevin Peterposted 10 years ago

   The right to food should be made a fundamental right in all countries. This can erase poverty from the whole world. Rich people are going on becoming richer and poor are still in the same old condition. what can be done practically? I would like to know your opinion about it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What do you mean by a "right to food?" Do you mean that we should hand it out to everyone, whether or not they are productive?
      
      I would be more apt to support a "right to WORK for food," in which the various govts. supplied food to those who could not afford it - in return for some type of work. From those able to work, of course, which is nearly everyone.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I believe everyone should have a right to food and clean water, making that possible is harder than saying it however.
      
      The wealth gap is quite easily solved, look for nations with smaller gaps that are staying the same or shrinking in the long term that are also successful. The obvious answer is the two richest major nations on earth per capita Norway and Switzerland and their social democratic model. This is not a puzzle or a brainteaser, the results are there and the methods are freely available. They have had stunning results for 50 years. We could be beating them instead of having been passed by them but unfortunately we are burdened with a group of poorly informed and backwards voters in this nation.
      
      (Switzerland and Norway also have the lowest unemployment in the first world, incredibly low crime rates, low debt, decent growth etc. etc.)

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, food and water.  And shelter and clothing.  And a cell phone.  And a free lunch at school because Mom doesn't want to make one.  And candy and junk food.  And medical care with no limit.  And an abortion.  And birth control pills.  And, judging from recent inmate surgeries, free sex changes.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Most of those things yes.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Totally agree.      
            And I think the current Administration should all get life...........eh.......I mean free toilet paper for life.......'cause that looks like the only way the cr_p they've done in the White House for the last 4 years will ever get wiped away..........

            replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think we should all get free semiautomatic weapons and bullets so we can hunt for food more easily.

      replyreport
2. 81

   Wayne Brownposted 10 years ago

   To speak of "rights" on a global basis is not practical other than to say that as human beings we should all feel the same emotions.  I know of no legal documents which define any "right" people have to basic survival other than to say that murder in some form is likely illegal in most places and to willingly deprive someone of food could be construed as a form of murder.   At the same time, if I elect to go sit in the middle of a sand dune in the Sahara, a place where I likely cannot grow and sustain any form of food, what "right" do I have to expect that someone should take responsiblity for my ignorance?  The best thing that I can cite here is the U.S. Constitution.  Under the Bill of Rights, citizens have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There is no mention of food and the question only arises in the case where someone is "willingly depriving" another of food by their actions.  Certainly we have the right to life but we also have to take some responsibility for that fact and follow some course of action to sustain our own lives.  To point to the wealthy and say that they are the reason that hunger, poverty, and  a lack of food exists is ludicrious.  When we do that, we are defining the potential for our own success to be limited by the success of others.  In other words, the pie only has eight pieces and I did not get one.  The socialist approach is to define the pie as limited and getting one's share always comes at the expense of others.  Therefore, if I have had success in feeding myself in life, it is only because someone else is going hungry...that is a false premise in a free country. ~WB

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport