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

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EverythingYouDespise

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]


deserve to die? do you thank your creator every day for where you born?




posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
My creator? Who, my parents?


Anyway, you've got to make the most of the advantages that you are born with and try to overcome those you are not. Nobody who lives to be old enough to be able to consider their situation was born into an utterly hopeless life. It's only when one compares his lot to that of others that he even gets the idea to feel sorry for himself. We'd be doing those in the poverty-stricken parts of the world a huge favor if we just left them all to their own devices and didn't even make our existence known to them. They wouldn't know any better and would appreciate their lives for what they are.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by enlighten2012

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.


Find some compassion?

I am assuming you mean the USA. If so, I think we have, as a society, have proven our compassion and caring many times over. Our society is filled with charities and programs to help others, both here at home and in the most poverty-stricken areas of the planet.

When there is a disaster, who comes to the aid of those suffering? I remember the tsunami a couple of years back, where Bush quickly pledged money and manpower aid to those in need. And even before that, the Red Cross and other charities across the nation were assembling food, water, and cash to help those afflicted. A few other countries did make similar pledges, but all paled in comparison with what the US government gave, and that paled in comparison to what the people of the US gave.

Food and water can never be a right. It simply won't work that way. Rights cannot be at the expense of others, or the others will stop supplying the 'rights'. Charity is great; I give a lot through my church and through other donations. But I will not allow others to take from me. That is a different matter.

I once remarked on a survival forum thread that someone trying to steal from my garden would likely get a nice quick overdose of lead poisoning. But I also said that someone coming to my door hungry would probably get a meal. I think that says it all. When you force someone to give up what they have worked for, it is not charity; it is theft. When you ask someone for help and accept what is freely offered, that, my friend, is charity.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by EverythingYouDespise
 


no your creator is the higherpower, or whomever you beleive, who decided where you where to be born and to who.

to leave them alone or let them die, which one is it?



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


you are a very patriotic person!......and yes i mean the U.S

firstly, i dont want to turn this into a slag off Bush session though do you really think giving assistance so quickly to the tsunami was heroic of him? what about to the katrina victims? still heroic?

bush=compassion. dont think so. and in regards to the U.S giving as much as other countries...


this thread is about poor, starving people in a third world country. the U.S is not a 3rd world country so you cant make comparisons.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by enlighten2012

firstly, i dont want to turn this into a slag off Bush session though do you really think giving assistance so quickly to the tsunami was heroic of him? what about to the katrina victims? still heroic?

Firstly, I am not talking about any single individual. I am especially not talking about George W. Bush. You are. I understand that he is making a mess, believe me, but is your hatred for one man so fiery that you would condemn an entire nation over him? If so, we have nothing more to debate. My name is not Bush, and yet I am an American.


bush=compassion. dont think so. and in regards to the U.S giving as much as other countries...

this thread is about poor, starving people in a third world country. the U.S is not a 3rd world country so you cant make comparisons.

This thread about whether or not human needs should be human rights.

You brought up the fact that the USA is the richest country in the world, in a context that indicated that citizens of said country should be more concerned about 3rd world countries. My response is that this richest nation is also the most giving nation to those 3rd world countries.

It appears that you hate one individual so much that you would ignore 200+ years of generosity and benevolence. How sad. You have my pity.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Food and water are controlled commodities for the most part.
People have a right to them ... if they can earn them.
That's the way the world is.
If a person wants it differently, then the entire planet must
come under ONE WORLD ORDER and everyone work for the
collective.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mad_Hatter
Do you consider the air you breathe a human right?


Sure, but no one else is compelled to give it to you free. We have decided we have the "right to free speech," but that doesn't compel anyone else to listen to you. When you say "I have a right to food and water," then sure! Go ahead, but I am not therefore required to expend my energy getting it for you. I'm not required to give you a job either.

When the Founding Fathers declared that "God" gave men certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." that did not include food and shelter. Otherwise "God" would have furnished those things, too, but instead, he put us on the Earth naked, expecting us to exert some effort--not just have stuff handed to us.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Yeppers..

Food water shelter and clothing should all be human rights and all should be 100% FREE

Some folks who think that's bad cus it hurts those who wish to make money - I say, screw em - I'd get rid of money altogether.



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
Food water shelter and clothing should all be human rights and all should be 100% FREE

You have to pay someone to make the clothing and to grow the food and make the shelter. Otherwise, those people are working for nothing and are slaves.

Either that, or we have to have one big ONE WORLD ORDER collective.

Your choice. Which is better?



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The American line of reasoning is programmed into them through their third most prized possession.

First most prized: House, Second: Car, Third: Great big stupid TV.

I have an old RV and an old car, my dog is my most prized possession, my bicycle is second.

I don't own a TV, and I can toss this computer out without too terrible of withdrawal symptoms, well... maybe not...

Socialism is a good thing but it's an all encompassing evil according to what all of the bags of hot air say on the TV and everywhere else here.

Anyway....

Whatever....

a reply to: Wotan



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Two thirds of my post evaporated when I posted it so I will delete the entire thing.
Gee,THANKS!
BYE

edit on 31-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: lklkl
edit on 31-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: why does my post only show about half of what I wrote?
edit on 31-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: bye



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Food and water are controlled commodities for the most part.
People have a right to them ... if they can earn them.
That's the way the world is.
If a person wants it differently, then the entire planet must
come under ONE WORLD ORDER and everyone work for the
collective.

Is a picture worth a thousand words? Here's one...



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Is a picture worth a thousand words? Here's one...

Actually .. it doesn't answer the question at all.
Try again.

Are food and water a human right?
Right now they are commodities. But should they be a right?
And if they are a 'right' ... then how is that achieved?



posted on May, 31 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Is a picture worth a thousand words? Here's one...

Actually .. it doesn't answer the question at all.
Try again.

Are food and water a human right?
Right now they are commodities. But should they be a right?
And if they are a 'right' ... then how is that achieved?

Any need for further explanation simply proves my point.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
Food water shelter and clothing should all be human rights and all should be 100% FREE

You have to pay someone to make the clothing and to grow the food and make the shelter. Otherwise, those people are working for nothing and are slaves.

Either that, or we have to have one big ONE WORLD ORDER collective.

Your choice. Which is better?


No you don't HAVE to pay anyone. That's just silly. It's not working for nothing. In cultures where these things were shared with the community they didn't use money, they used trade. Sometimes it was a direct trade this for that or sometimes it was voluntary to help the community. Many peoples jobs were to help provide for the community and they didn't use money at all. They will in tun be taken care of by the community so they still do get a return on their investment. Getting paid money for goods and services is a silly old fashioned idea that has proven to be the cause of ruin more often then not. I say it's time to do away with it.
edit on 1-6-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnPhoenix

How do you convince someone to build you a house for free? In today's world? Oh I can trade you????? That's not going to work!! IA it is a "silly" concept but it is what what have right now ........

I do think that food and water should be a human right, but who grows the food? and how are they paid for their service? Who gets the water for the people, how are they paid?



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   
How strange, to be taking up a conversation that took place in 2008!

To me, the question is simple. Each grouping of humans (society) decides upon a structure of rights and responsibilities that is specific to them, for their members.

Morality is born of social behavior and instincts.

(see Evolution of Morality , Sociobiology

What is the reason for joining a group? Increasing your chances of survival.
Sharing and exchange of food, water, shelter, protection and mating rights.

For a group to be effective, the benefits of being part of the group must outweigh those of being solitary.

What is funny with humans is that we forget we can be discerning and choose to change groups if the one we are born in does not offer enough benefits (rights) to it's members to make it beneficial to their own survival.

There are no rights that are universal- rights are a human construct, social rules.
You choose the group which has rules and rights that you feel okay with.

I am used to the idea we americans say, that if food and shelter were a right, no one would bother working anymore.
I live in country where not only those are considered a human right within it's limits, but medical care also, and the people still work. They pay taxes, and without complaining too! They (as a majority) have decided they want to live in such a grouping, and those rights are worth the responsibility that goes with them.

That is neither better or worse, good or bad... it is a choice, one of many possibilities.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Any need for further explanation simply proves my point.

No .. you are just trying to take an off topic jab at conservatives. Try actually answering the question instead of political trolling.

Is it a right.
And if so ... how do people get it when it's treated like a commodity.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
No you don't HAVE to pay anyone. That's just silly.

That's what I said .... in order for it to be a right for everyone no matter their status, you'd have to have a giant new world order COLLECTIVE. Otherwise, you have to pay people to get the water and the food to you. Economics.






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join