It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would you consider Food and Water to be a Human Right?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:25 PM
In other words you believe that all humanity has a form of a social contract with which to adhere too?

Certain humans because of their actions (ie. work) are allowed to have access to food and water while others who lets say do not work are not entitled to food and water.

Or is it somewhere in between?

[edit on 16-7-2008 by whiteraven]

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by whiteraven

"Would you consider Food and Water to be a Human Right?"

I consider it a basic human, clothing and shelter...

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by toasted

On what basis can a person judge between a human need and a human right?

If I don't have any food or water the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, when taking Maslow's Heirarcy of Needs into the formula, take on a much lower priority.

Lack of food and water would be any goverments worst nightmare!

[edit on 16-7-2008 by whiteraven]

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:36 PM
Damn right I consider it a basic human right, along with fuel. I'll give you an example. Here in the Cayman Islands, same as in the U.S., if a Cuban person sets foot on land, they are arrested and reptriated. I know they are trying to get to the U.S. the long way home. The REALLY long way home. Just imagine going through Costa Rica for a chance to assimilate and work and build up the money for a chance to get to Mexico.........

I'm a born American who believes that the U.S. needs to protect every square in of their borders.

As a juxtaposition to that, if you've ever looked into the eyes of 3 generations of people crammed ass-to-elbow in a POS craft that I wouldn't try to go two miles in let alone 400+ miles on the open sea, and then deny them basic needs.......... well, I can't do it. I am obligated, when allowed to, to provide whatever I can. I often wonder how many make it; how many die on the open ocean, having made a choice where long-shot hope is better than the status quo.

I once saw a 60-year-old man weep when I gave him a compass.

Yes. There are basic needs IMO, which we are obligated to provide to anyone. I own seven pair of footwear. I am a king.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:17 PM
Food and water are not a right, they are nessesity to keep your own body alive. If YOU yourself cannot provide these basic needs for yourself, it is not up to others to provide it.

If you see a person starving, giving him food and water will last for only so long. However, if you teach him the basics of trapping,fishing, and safe water collection, that same person will never go hungry again. If every supermarket closes down, you should still know how to do these basic things so you can live. It does not take money or a job to keep oneself fed and dry from the weather.

If you need a goverment, or any orginization just to live, YOU HAVE FAILED LIFE!

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:29 PM
Food and water is definitely a human right as long as their contiues to be enough for every human. If there truly ceases to be enough to feed or drink for all humans, then something needs to give. I also think shelter and medical care are basic needs that should be provided. I think goverment should provide these services. If the goverment did this effectively, we could eliminate the need for charities, all together. This would also elimate the charitable giving tax deduction, which in the US would pay for half of the program from day one.

Of course rights given also mean rights given up. If you can't take care of yourself you can't have kids. If you have them and you can't provide for some length of time, say a year, then they get taken from you until you can provide for them, nothing permanent but it also inceases ones odds of getting back on their feet. If you are able to work, you either need to perform some task for the goverment or be willing to join a job placement or training program, for as long as you are recieving aid. Most everyone can do something productive, though that something may not allow them to earn a sufficent wage to support themselves.

If people are handicapped, disabled, sick, pyscho, drug addicts, etc, they would get the care they need to make them better and if they can't be made better then they recieve care which gives them a decent standard of living either at a home of some sort or under a relatives care if that is a safe option.

Everyone will also have the fredom to withdraw and grow their own food, live in the woods, etc. Might even make sense to put aside some land for these type folks. Those who can work, but choose not to, and wish to steal and cheat in order to support themselves, will be dealt with very severly as there will really be need for anyone to do so. We also need to get a grip on the population growth issue as well. At current rates of growth, population in 100 years will be in excess of 30 billion people.

It is unthinkable to me that humans go hungry when we have the capacity to feed everyone on earth. Or that some cannot find any permanent reasonable shelter when they seek it. We need to provide this as circumsatnces warrant and teach those need help, how to help themselves.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:12 PM
No, food and water are not human rights.

Here's why.

Suppose there were 10 people and only enough food to feed one person. Which person would have the RIGHT to the food?


Suppose somebody claims food as a RIGHT but does nothing to produce or acquire the food.

Then where will the food he eats come from? Will another person be FORCED to work to produce the food that the first person claims is a RIGHT to have?

If somebody else is forced to take action to give you something, that it can't be a RIGHT.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Johnmike

It is impossible for such things as food and water to be rights.

Why? Because, of course, they don't come from you. Look at what your true rights are. Free speech, exercise religion, bear arms (more on this)... They're all things contained within yourself when you are born.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by Johnmike]

JohnMike, I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree 100% with what you're saying.

To reiterate, no, food and shelter are not human rights. The rights to procure their own food and shelter are intrinsic to all humans, but food and shelter themselves are not rights. Happiness is not an intrinsic right, but the pursuit of it is.

As JohnMike said, the only rights that exist come from within a person because a person is his own responsibility. It's no one's responsibility to protect someone else, which is why everyone (unless he has waived that right) has the right to own a weapon. It's no one's responsibility to take care of another person simply because he exists, unless that person is a dependant such as offspring.

If you think everyone on earth has the right to food, who are you going to steal it from to give to those without, Robin Hood? Will you steal it from the farmer who grew it so that he is unable to sell it and make a living, or will you force others to become farmers so their produce can be stolen by the government to be redistributed and deny them their right to pursue happiness outside of an agrarian life?

If anything has to be produced by another person, anyone outside of that person has no right to it whatsoever without an equitable arrangement with the producer.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by whiteraven

Well I think that could depend on your political affiliation a bit.

Some might say" if your to lazy to work to earn food , then you shouldn't get any..."

Then you might say " well, then, the person will certainly die "

The response you will receive will be something like....

" There making a choice to die by not working"


" So what are we supposed to feed everyone?"


" you crazy communist liberals are all terrorists"


" Why should I pay to feed some lazy idiot?"


[edit on 16-7-2008 by mental modulator]

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:48 PM
reply to post by mental modulator

Oh they beat me to the punch-- Marbles!!!

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:01 AM
The fact that we do not let the severly handcapped/disabled starve to death in the west show that we as a society believe these things are human rights. Actions speak louder than words.

Those of you who claim it's not a right should petition your governments to let the severly disabled starve to death.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Vasilis Azoth]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:30 AM

Originally posted by whiteraven
In other words you believe that all humanity has a form of a social contract with which to adhere too?

Certain humans because of their actions (ie. work) are allowed to have access to food and water while others who lets say do not work are not entitled to food and water.

Or is it somewhere in between?

Well...that's not what I mean. I simply made a distinction between what is a right and what is an entitlement. Everyone, I mean everyone, in this thread who has said, "Yes, food and water are rights," are using the term, "rights," incorrectly and in a way that I actually find insulting.

I'm turning into a broken record, but simply, an entitlement is something you deserve to get. Whether food and water are entitlements are another issue. A right, on the other hand, is something you already have. Something no one can rightfully take away. So a right is like... free speech, while an entitlement is like... social security.

I'm taking from natural rights theory. Not really social contract theory here, though I half believe in it.

I do believe in charity though. Not in government-mandated charity, but real individual charity.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:44 AM
It's is your right to go and aquire food and water. It's not a right just to have them!! Go work for it like everyone else!
Sometimes it is not that simple, I know. Like drought times. Then humanity will step in and try to provide it, but still, it is not a right.
Thats another odd thing: if I had have been in Ethiopia during that drought, my ass would have been in Morrocco or Zimbabwe one week later! I'm not gonna sit there and starve to death.
"Move away from the drought! You can go back when it starts raining again, if you really want too!"
Seems pretty sensible to me.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:37 AM
im confused tho,

why should i have to bust my a## all day, doing a job i would hate, living a worthless life of a petty slave

Just to be "allowed" to drink water and eat food?

I dont know about you, but id rather starve.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth
The fact that we do not let the severly handcapped/disabled starve to death in the west show that we as a society believe these things are human rights. Actions speak louder than words.

Those of you who claim it's not a right should petition your governments to let the severly disabled starve to death..[edit on 17-7-2008 by Vasilis Azoth]

Excellent point. And of course what about children and the elderly, do they not have a basic right to food, water and shelter?

Much has been made in this thread about how it is not the government's responsibility to provide food, water and shelter, and the OP says they think people should provide for themselves. But, you see there is a major flaw in that kind of thinking of yours, as people have had their basic right to live free taken from them. Can you, just decide that a piece of land is yours? That you will build shelter on made from materials that you find? That you can grow whatever food you want on that land? Keep whatever animals you want on that land? Slaughter them for food on that land? Can you can tap into a deep ground water supply? The simple answer is no. Because a very long time ago land, water and resources were snapped up by the leaders with the biggest thugs (armies) in tow and claimed it for their own.

For example in the UK you have to apply for permission and a licence to dig a well for water. Any so called common land belongs to Her Majesty the Queen. So, exactly how does the average person just set themselves up to live free with food, water and shelter? Or is the truth that you will have to work within their systems to earn a wage (mostly underpaid) and then hand it back to the Queen's government in taxes to thank them for being your masters and pay to keep her son Prince Charles on £40 million a year pocket money (current year figures)

Can Africans who have little or no resources decide to trek across Europe en masse and settle in Kent? Why should they suffer just because of the location they were born in?

It's all very well going on about the ethics and theory about rights to food and water but that is far removed from the realities of everyday life and the debate being carried on in this thread is far too simplistic. Until you take SOCIETY and the development of societies into consideration you can’t even begin to debate rights to water, food and shelter.

The obligation of government to provide goes hand in hand with the power it takes from the people to run the country.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by UFOpsychiczebra]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:02 PM
If food and water is an entitlement,,,,

I still contain within myself the ability to harvest these resources in a natural environment if one can still be found. The destruction and limitation of these resources by anyone is impeding my right to exercise my ability to acquire them.

They built concrete where food and water were, denying access. The laws of land ownership limits me from finding an unused spot in the wilderness and growing food. I think land being declared national parks is a scam to an extent, by creating large tracts of natural earth habitat, in which it's illegal for natural earth inhabitants to inhabit, because other supposedly equal people decide to rule over others.

Is it my right to lord over another man? Then how do our rulers get away with it? Do they have rights i do not, like the right to inhabit natural earth?

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by whiteraven

food and water are necessities in life. a better question would be what makes anyone think they own the water? what gives them a right to own water, food on the other hand can be owned, but there is nothing to say you cant grow your own food, right? of course food and water are human rights, as its hard for me to see what makes anyone think they own the earth more than someone else? is it a matter of " i was here first so its mine " that would be ridiculous don't ya think?

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:44 PM
I believe that we are approaching a place in time in which food and water may be scarce. There are many now who are on the verge of starvation. Add that number to the numbers of those who they expect will step into the above category and we have a royal mess on our hands.

Feed a man, or allow a man to feed himself and he will be quelled.
If a man or woman faces starvation for themselves and their families then we have a hot situation.

It seems if you look at WHO and UN stats that we are on the brink of world famine. SOme links:

Row as G8 leaders discuss world famine problem over eight-course banquet

The UN estimated that at the current rate of warming, Central and South Asia’s crop yields could fall by 30% by 2050, stressing the need for research and development on new staple crop seeds that are resistant to drought, heat and floods as well as cheap enough for the poor to buy.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:45 PM
People talk about it being your own responsibility to provide yourself food water and shelter, but the problem lies in the fact the general population doesn't have access to that food and housing because the resources are monopolised and kept artificially scarce, in order to exploit the population for profit (just like what is happening with oil right now). Profit on something that you can't do without, you can't choose not to eat or drink.

If the general population had access to provide their own food, or build their own shelter, then you would have an argument. But the way the system is set up only those at the top of the pyramid scheme have access to the machinery, technology, and wealth to create their own food and shelter.

We at the bottom are forced to 'purchase' our food and shelter, and the control of that supply is out of our hands. What is wrong is private individuals exploiting our basic need, survival.

Is survival a right for all? Should our survival be at the whim of those that control the system that monopolises our food, water and shelter?

Most people don't seem to realise that we have enough resources to feed the world over, but some go hungry because someone else feels they have the 'right' to exploit your basic needs. Your right to survival is taken away from you, and then sold back to you at a price, that's exploitation at it's worst imo.

I'm not saying we should be given free food and shelter, but we need to change the system to one that doesn't exploit but actually benefits all of us.
The means of production and resources should not be in the hands of private individuals, they belong to all of us, and no one has a right to take them away from you.

Capitalism! Profit! Serfdom! Exploitation!

It is the poverty of millions of people who cannot afford to buy food that causes starvation. This conclusion has been reached by Vaclav Smil in a recent study entitled Feeding the World(29). An F.A.O. study by Nikos Alexandratos confirms this point. He writes

Food availabilities for the world as a whole are today equivalent to some 2700 kilocalories per person per day …., up from 2300 calories 30 years ago.(28)


20% of the world's population consumes over 70% of its material resources, and owns over 80% of its wealth although this global elite includes people in almost every country, it is mainly concentrated in the Westernised, consumerist nations: the US. Canada, Western Europe, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Japan...
The USA alone, with only 6% of the world's population, consumes 30% of its resources.

There is enough food to feed everyone on this planet 2,500 calories per day, which is not including fruit, groundnuts or root vegetables.

The world has enough resources to feed its growing population if political leaders can get past "short-term interests", the head of the UN's food agency says.


There can be little doubt that the world at present has enough (physical) resources to produce enough food at affordable prices for all. The additional food needed to eradicate hunger would represent only a very small increment to present day production. Even food needed in the foreseeable future (taking into account population growth and improvements in diets) probably will not face major global production constraints.

Does the world have enough resources to eradicate hunger? (PDF)

There is no doubt the capitalist system is exploitative and not good for the majority of the world population, in fact many of the worlds population are dying as a direct result of it. But I don't really expect anyone to care, the system has conditioned you all to only care about your own survival at the expense of others. Real Christian values eh?

[edit on 17/7/2008 by ANOK]

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:52 PM
Probably a better way of wording this question is:-

''Should having ACCESS to Food and Water be a basic human right''

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in