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

If we consider a 'right' (human or otherwise) to be something inherently inalienable, i.e. not granted by a larger outside entity; than those things which render life viable MUST be included or we are born and are destined to be slaves to the need to support life at it's most basic level.

Does everyone have a right to breathe? Since the process of living requires biological metabolism, you cannot exclude air, water, and nutrients as some kind of 'benefit'. Or entitlement.

What this really boils down to is can someone claim controlling ownership of food and water? The notion of "you can't have any because of the decisions you've made in life" won't fly.

Unless we are considering something a little more social, like you have no rights but those you have been granted. In which case, you have no rights is the understood starting point.

Originally posted by Kronik98

No one should be denied access to the basic necessities of life for any reason.

all those serial killers that were found out, and admittantly bragged on killing 20-30-40-50- people...have squandered their 'right' to be provided those essential & primal necessities !!!


i sure ain't gonna 'turn-the-other-cheek' for those animals who sorta 'look' human....... if you wanna give 'em the benefit of the doubt,
i'll fight you at the ballot box

Another point to ponder...

Who has the right to tell you what your rights should be?

Who are we allowing to make those decisions?

Who is writing the rules and to what end?

Shouldn't all of us be allowed to make the decisions that effect our lives? What makes those in power any wise than you?

Only you know what you need. There's no authority but yourself.

I've lifted spring water (I will not drink the tap, which is not something I think is contradictory to my point and morale) many times before when I literally don't have a dime left and only the gas in my car, and felt no regret. I do believe the water is mine to have, especially since I live where it comes from (Florida), and if they poison my tap, I'm still going to get my necessity from somewhere.

Originally posted by Orion Crystal Ice
I've lifted spring water (I will not drink the tap, which is not something I think is contradictory to my point and morale) many times before when I literally don't have a dime left and only the gas in my car, and felt no regret. I do believe the water is mine to have, especially since I live where it comes from (Florida), and if they poison my tap, I'm still going to get my necessity from somewhere.

That is a courageous act, if I understand and accept your conviction as its source.

But the law of the land is decidedly disinterested in that as a factor in a charge of petty theft. Unless you get a jury trial and convince them that the state of the public water is below acceptable standards or toxic. Unfortunately, that would invoke liability on the part of the water authority, so I suspect you would never get a jury trial.

Be careful, I hope you never need make that decision again.

There was a documentary on some chimpanzee sanctuary in which they had escaped and mauled to death some guy that was a driver. I would assume that they revolted because they were not able to fend for themselves by their own choosing. I think providing food to third world countries may just support many of the wrong people such as these rogue militaries.

Self reliance is a human right in order to sustain themselves by basic needs of food and water. Many are forced to choose what's available in these camps until the supply is cut off by some rogue terrorist type of military.

When I hear about some prisons who now serve the cheapest way possible to support all of the inmate population with no other choices, it makes me wonder what were all in for.


[edit on 18-7-2008 by aleon1018]

Originally posted by Orion Crystal Ice
I've lifted spring water (I will not drink the tap, which is not something I think is contradictory to my point and morale) many times before when I literally don't have a dime left and only the gas in my car, and felt no regret. I do believe the water is mine to have, especially since I live where it comes from (Florida), and if they poison my tap, I'm still going to get my necessity from somewhere.

So...you stole...bottled tap water, most likely, by spending dollars on something you can get for a fraction of a cent.

So you're both really silly (I could have said stupid, or idiotic, but that's too mean), and you're a thief. Okay. And you believe that it's your right to steal water that someone else spent money bottling, so that silly (I'm not saying moronic, or retarded) people can feel that the water they're drinking is "cleaner" or "better" than tap water, even though bottled water does not have to be held to the same standards that tap water must be.

I guess so. It wasn't bottled though. It was the gallons you can get from the super wal-mart. I stuck $0.64 to the man and I lived to tell the tale.

reply to post by Johnmike


This is just plain insanity to think like that. I firmly believe that food and water are most certainly a human right. You say the right to bear arms is a human right ... and I quote ...

A right comes from within yourself; an entitlement is something you deserve from someone else.

So I have the basic human right to make a spear and keep it for the purpose of defense, but I do not have the right to procure food and water by means of my own labor?

I am only entitled to food and water if someone else deemed me worthy enough for such? That is just ludicrous and inhuman. Perhaps the issue at hand isn't whether is is a right or not, but more of an issue of how greedy people can truly be to make such statements.

Food and water are a human right. We are not able to procure weaponry for defense at our time of birth, so the statement that the right to bear arms comes from within is a statement born of hypocrisy. The right to procure sustenance also does not come from within at time of birth, but just as the ability to create weaponry grows with age, so does the ability to provide sustenance. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Well, let's try something. Let's look at the rights in the US Constitution and see what they have in common:

Right to free speech does not include a right to threaten, of course, nor does it include the right to cause a riot or other danger to public safety. It also does not include the right to post on an Internet site or speak on a radio or TV. It means you can freely speak your opinion. That's all.
Right to peaceable assembly does not mean you can assemble on private property not your own. It means you can assemble with others, in a peaceable manner, on your own property or (supposedly) on public property.
Right to freedom of the press does not mean the right to have printing presses. It simply means if you have the ability to print, you may print whatever you wish as long as it does not cause a danger to the public, slander or threaten others, or violate private intellectual property rights of others.
Right to keep/bear arms does not include the right to obtain arms. You must still create/purchase them.
Freedom of religion does not give any rights to have a specific building in a specific location, and it cannot violate the peace or the sanctity of the laws. You have a right to freely worship, but you do not have the right to take from others to do so.
Freedom to petition the government allows one to complain without danger of prosecution when they believe the government has acted illegally. This can be considered an extension of the freedom of speech, and subject to the same restrictions.
Freedom from unreasonable search/seizure means the government cannot take your property or search your property without just cause and due process of law.

I see two things in common here. First, all of these rights require nothing from others in society to maintain. No one is required to do anything for you or to furnish you with anything. Second, all of these rights are limited by the selfsame rights of others.

Now, if you consider the right to breathe, yes, that could be considered a right. The right to breathe clean air would not, since someone would then be required to clean the air to your standards. The right to food cannot be a right, since someone must grow/produce the food. The same with water. The same with a job. That would require someone to pay you.

Food, water, and clean air are needs, yes, but not rights. They cannot be rights unless the rights of others are taken away. And in any society where the rights of even one citizen can be taken away for the benefit of another, the recipient can just as easily become the donor. You want the right to food? Fine, but then you give up your right to not work. Don't like the pay? Tough, you wanted the 'right', therefore you will be required to produce in exchange for it.

Johnmike is absolutely correct. Food and water are human needs, not rights. Even access to food and water would not work, because that would turn into fights over a certain type of food when it became scarce.

Now, to the issue of letting the elderly starve, that is ludicrous. The United States is the single most charitable nation on earth, giving more than any other, both in total and per capita from both the government and private citizens/organizations. We want no one to starve, because for most of us at least, it behooves us to care for those less fortunate. That is not a right we are extending, but rather compassion. And, of course, our reward is to hear all the allegations of what cruel people we are because we do not go along with some doomed social experiment.

We are all individuals, all with talents and abilities. The way we use these abilities determines our position in a capitalistic system. Oh, yes, and remember that the USA is the single largest exporter of food in the world. We became that by being a capitalistic society. Now go ahead and complain about how we are killing everyone while you enjoy your Campbell's Soup or Planters Nuts or Green Giant veggies. Go ahead, we can take it. We're used to it.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I see two things in common here. First, all of these rights require nothing from others in society to maintain. No one is required to do anything for you or to furnish you with anything. Second, all of these rights are limited by the selfsame rights of others.

There we go. That's what makes it a right and not an entitlement, and why I loathe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The right to freely seek food and water is a basic human right.
A simple definition of when something is a basic human right follows.
If something is a basic human right then to be denied this right will result in your death. You can tell it is a "basic" human right because when you are denied it, you will have only a simple choice of options remaining, you can choose to fight or you can choose to die.

You have no right to sit there and demand that food and water is provided for you. The US Constitution does NOT guarantee free beer and pizza deliverys. You do have the right to plead for help.

You need to be precise in your statements.

Is food and water a basic human right? No. They are basic human needs.

You also have a contractual right to water if you pay a monthly water bill. However that contract is no guarantee of future delivery, on either side.




[edit on 28-7-2008 by Cyberbian]

The human body can survive only a few hours in extreme cold, only a few days without water, and only a few weeks without food.

I am going to take away everyone's ability here to build their own shelter, collect their own water, and grow and farm their own food. I will only allow you to have these things on one condition, you do something for me.

That my friends is slavery.

I understand nothing in this world is free, I really do, but to tell me I am not allowed the basic necessities to keep my own body in top health from my own bare hands is to tell me I must be a slave to you, to society, to consumerism. This planet has no natural borders. Was formed without drawn in property lines. Has been here for billions of years before human greed came along to rape it to no end. The reason we pay others for our own survival, and the only reason is human greed. We allow our lives to be dictated by only a few people who say they have that power to take away your ability to live if you refuse to play their game.

Does this disgust no one? Does this not anger anyone? You are not allowed the right to live if you do not do what you are told to do by some stranger who doesn't even know of your existence. Not a single one of us were asked if we would like to be brought into this world. We had no choice, but now that we are here, we are told we also, again, have no choice. No right to live, unless we participate and do as we are told. The penalty for refusal is the inability to provide shelter and sustenance for yourself.

This is a sick world if everyone thinks this is perfectly acceptable, and I am having a very hard time finding like minded people. I almost feel if I am the only person on this forsaken planet who truly understands that it is only greed that runs the world. Not compassion, not understanding, not tolerance. Just pure greed.

I agree, I have no right to DEMAND someone feed and shelter me, but do I not have the right to demand that I shelter and feed myself with my own two hands? Someone said that we have the right to bear arms. That a right comes from within, and an entitlement is something we deserve from someone else. Think about that statement. Think really hard. When you are born, you do not have the ability to obtain and bear arms. That so called right only comes about when you are of age and ability to obtain or create your own weaponry. That right is most certainly not from within at time of birth. If I am allowed that human right only at such an age that I am able to exercise that right, then why am I not allowed the right to feed and shelter myself, which coincidently occurs at roughly the same time as my right to bear arms? Such a statement and thinking is born of hypocrisy. You can't have your cake and eat it to and then label it an entitlement.

Does no one else see here that it is pure greed? I can shoot you for attempting to do me harm, but I can't feed and shelter myself unless I pay someone. Taking away my ability to sustain life is an attempt to harm me. If the constitution allows me the right to self defense from those who wish to do me physical harm, then does it also allow me the right to self defense from those who wish to take away my ability to live for refusal to participate in a greedy consumerist slavery world? Again, I was never consulted as to what my choice was prior to birth, and yet I am forced to be a slave to strangers in a greedy messed up world. If I we are allowed the right to self defense from bodily harm, then we are allowed the right to self defense from ALL forms of bodily harm, including taking away our ability to sustain ourselves. To say this is not true is to say "Hey look, I am an hypocrite and a slave!"

[edit on 29-7-2008 by sirnex]

[edit on 29-7-2008 by sirnex]

I am going to take away everyone's ability here to build their own shelter, collect their own water, and grow and farm their own food. I will only allow you to have these things on one condition, you do something for me.

reply to post by sirnex


That is slavery.

What would the opposite of slavery be?

Freedom.

Therefore, freedom, would be the ability to have food, water, shelter and "then do as the will of" in whichever social group you find yourself in.

So, if we do not have food, water, shelter at our fingertips, would you view that as slavery, if one must work, in order to procure your needs?

reply to post by whiteraven


Are you currently allowed to hunt and gather your own food right now? The answer is no. We can't go into state parks to pick the flora, we can't hunt without paying for a permit. So are we able to freely obtain our own food? I suppose we are, so long as we participate and follow someone else's rules and pay them for it despite the ability that we can obtain it ourselves.

There's a difference between working for someone else to feed yourself compare to doing the work yourself. If we can provide for ourselves then we do not need to work for someone else to obtain the same end result. Where my body requires food and water and shelter, no one should have the right to tell me that I can't freely acquire those things through my own time and effort. No one should force me to use my time and effort to provide worthless paper to someone else so they feel important.

reply to post by sirnex
Actually, yes I can. There is no permit required to hunt on one's own land here (provided you adhere to the other hunting laws), and I have plenty of room to grow a garden, fruit trees, nut trees, berries, etc.

I agree with you that there should be some way to allow people to hunt/gather on public lands, but with the population being so large (and greedy) it would no doubt turn them into barren wastelands overnight.

TheRedneck

Not only would I - and, I presume, any thinking human being - consider it a basic human right, they already ARE listed, along with clothing, housing, etc. in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Now, this is a document that was signed by the UN Assembly, no less, sixty years ago.

WHY, then, people fail to invoke it?
Why do journalists fail to remind politicians (and their voters) about it?

Have they even read it?

And if they haven't - or if it's somehow assumed to be nothing but fluff... what does that say about UN resolutions and activities in general?

I think that's the question that absolutely needs to be asked.





[edit on 3-8-2008 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by Vanitas

And if they haven't - or if it's somehow assumed to be nothing but fluff... what does that say about UN resolutions and activities in general?

I think that's the question that absolutely needs to be asked.





[edit on 3-8-2008 by Vanitas]

I think it's pretty obvious that UN resolutions are worth about one (1) Zimbabwe dollar. Less, really, because at least the ZD is worth the paper it's printed on.

reply to post by whiteraven


ahhh humanity

YES it is a human right to have water and food available to people in 'developing' countries.

most here are from the richest country in the world so find some compassion and look outside your little boxes once in awhile. there is a wide world out their and many people on it are dying of starvation amongst other unecessary means.

Originally posted by whiteraven
Now this smacks of socialism.

Yet it does raise a question of fundemental importance concerning the times we now live in.

Would you consider Food and Water a Human right in line with say, the Right to Bear arms?

Or in line with the Right to Pursue Happiness?

Can a person have the right of the pursuit of happyness if he is hungery and thirsty?

The problem with this question is that there is no such thing as a guaranteed natural human right, and we're much better off as a species because of this. Sure, some nations may grant their citizens certain rights (and, in doing so, I say that they are admitting that they are withholding our natural freedoms by setting limits - but that's a different subject), but nothing is universal.

Remember, everything has to come from somewhere. These resources are not unlimited. Would you give up your valuable supplies in order to feed someone who did not work to earn their own? If a person, for whatever reason, happens to live in a place where food or water is not attainable and they do not possess the wealth, or mental or physical capacity to obtain these goods, they deserve to die. Human beings are the only creatures on the planet foolish enough to even attempt to preserve their weakest and least adaptable members and allow them to breed. In the long run, this will prove to be our downfall.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by EverythingYouDespise]