U.N. vote on the "right to food" and guess the ONLY body to vote against it?

[Toothlessjoe]

UN General Assembly press release:

Draft resolution XX on the right to food, approved on 24 November by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, would have the Assembly reaffirm that hunger constitutes an outrage and a violation of human dignity, requiring the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international level, for its elimination.

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 184 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstain: None.

Absent: Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Uganda.

Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/12/20/212722/43/694/675613

__________________________________________________ __________

Another striking example of American opposition to progressive global social movements but for what end? I don't know how anyone could possibly defend this althoguh I'm sure many will cite the current economic crisis as a factor. So indulge me. I want to know how anyone could justify this stance in this day and age.

[LuKaZz420]

Do you remember that South Park episodes where the boys go to Canada, and over there no one seems to understand all the idiotic decisions being made by the PM, then at the end of the episode they find out that the PM is actually Saddam Hussein?

[Toothlessjoe]

Do you remember that South Park episodes where the boys go to Canada, and over there no one seems to understand all the idiotic decisions being made by the PM, then at the end of the episode they find out that the PM is actually Saddam Hussein?

I think you are posting in the wrong forum.

[vazilizaitsev89]

Who cares? Its a stupid UN resolution, it would amount to nothing. its like saying "Everyone has a right to eat" well, they do. but what is the UN going to do? Ask for American foodstuffs to feed the people in half of those signatory nation-states

[ArgonPlasma2000]

Another striking example of American opposition to progressive global social movements but for what end? I don't know how anyone could possibly defend this althoguh I'm sure many will cite the current economic crisis as a factor. So indulge me. I want to know how anyone could justify this stance in this day and age.

Fine. YOU feed all the savages in Africa.

[Toothlessjoe]

Fine. YOU feed all the savages in Africa.

You've not addressed my post at all.

This isn't about me. I want reasons as to why America can be justified as being one of the only faces on the planet to oppose it.

[Iehovah]

You've not addressed my post at all.

This isn't about me. I want reasons as to why America can be justified as being one of the only faces on the planet to oppose it.

Sounds to me like it answered your question sufficiently. As the one nation likely to bear the brunt of the cost, it makes perfect sense for the USA to not sign off on a program that will basically require them to do it. The money to pay for that shit isn't coming from nowhere, and in case you hadn't noticed, the USA is a bit fucked right now as far as money goes.

Honestly, the whole thing sounds like a bullshit feel-good resolution. Everyone can talk about what amazingly humanitarian nations they are for giving people the "right to food" while someone else foots the bill.

[Toothlessjoe]

Sounds to me like it answered your question sufficiently. As the one nation likely to bear the brunt of the cost, it makes perfect sense for the USA to not sign off on a program that will basically require them to do it. The money to pay for that shit isn't coming from nowhere, and in case you hadn't noticed, the USA is a bit fucked right now as far as money goes.

Honestly, the whole thing sounds like a bullshit feel-good resolution. Everyone can talk about what amazingly humanitarian nations they are for giving people the "right to food" while someone else foots the bill.

What bill?

This is a talk about reforming it, not a food program :rolleyes:. If we do assume it concerns a food program than why not? America often shouts about it's economical greatness among other great qualities so why not meet the reponsibility to help others?

A beacon of democracy and freedom my ass.

[Iehovah]

What bill?

This is a talk about reforming it, not a food program :rolleyes:. If we do assume it concerns a food program than why not? America often shouts about it's economical greatness among other great qualities so why not meet the reponsibility to help others?

A beacon of democracy and freedom my ass.

Don't be dense. Quoting you:

"would have the Assembly reaffirm that hunger constitutes an outrage and a violation of human dignity, requiring the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international level, for its elimination."

It's clearly step one in a multi-step process. Anyone that signs off on a reform claiming something is an outrage and MUST IMMEDIATELY FIX it.... then doesn't do so? Is just lying filth. It's basically setting up an obligation and then forcing people to follow through on what they've signed on to.

After that bit of ignorance about America's economic greatness, I have to question whether you've been living in a hole in the ground. We aren't economically great, as anyone who has picked up a newspaper or seen a single blurb on the TV knows. We are fucked.

Your pretense that we are anything other than that is nothing more than a bitch-fit over America's previous arrogance. Strip away the bullshit, please.

[Lewcifer]

The Draft (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/634/73/PDF/N0863473.pdf?OpenElement)

The sheer level of beurocracy within the UN baffles me. The ammendment in question starts on page 77, and I can't for the life of me work out how it is different from any of the other ammendments in there, or why the US would specifically disagree with it.

[PirateJoe]

After that bit of ignorance about America's economic greatness, I have to question whether you've been living in a hole in the ground. We aren't economically great, as anyone who has picked up a newspaper or seen a single blurb on the TV knows. We are fucked.

Your pretense that we are anything other than that is nothing more than a bitch-fit over America's previous arrogance. Strip away the bullshit, please.

Not only that, but America is already #1 in world for humanitarian aid contributions.


#
America is a key donor to U.N. relief organizations. The United States is a major donor to international relief organizations, including the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which Egelund oversees, to which the U.S. is second largest donor (nearly 14 percent in 2003).[7] America is the largest contributor to the U.N. budget at 22 percent, or $317 million, in 2004. It gives over 56 percent of the World Food Program budget and $72 million and $94 million to the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization, respectively.[8]


http://www.heritage.org/research/tradeandforeignaid/wm630.cfm

[Iehovah]

The Draft (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/634/73/PDF/N0863473.pdf?OpenElement)

The sheer level of beurocracy within the UN baffles me. The ammendment in question starts on page 77, and I can't for the life of me work out how it is different from any of the other ammendments in there, or why the US would specifically disagree with it.

I'm not sure if this is the same one or not, but here's a good link:

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9?Opendocument

Summarized - Holy fucking power-grab, UN.

No wonder the USA doesn't want in. Here's a fine example of how far this "right to food" really extends...

"26. The strategy should give particular attention to the need to prevent discrimination in access to food or resources for food. This should include: guarantees of full and equal access to economic resources, particularly for women, including the right to inheritance and the ownership of land and other property, credit, natural resources and appropriate technology; measures to respect and protect self-employment and work which provides a remuneration ensuring a decent living for wage earners and their families (as stipulated in article 7 (a) (ii) of the Covenant); maintaining registries on rights in land (including forests)."

This gives the UN the direct right to interfere in any member or non-member state's country it chooses, with far-reaching powers. Furthermore, as provided elsewhere in the document, any state failing to live up to "expectations" in achieving the goal, is considered guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who is a "victim" of these failures will have the UN-backed power to sue for compensation, resitution, satisfaction, or guarantees of non-repitition. Since the latter can't be satisified, this effectively means giant-sized handouts.

Fucking hell. I don't understand why so many countries signed on for that bullshit. Wtf.

[ArgonPlasma2000]

You've not addressed my post at all.

This isn't about me. I want reasons as to why America can be justified as being one of the only faces on the planet to oppose it.

Why should we support it? Of what justification says we should? A person does not have an intrinsic right to food. You do not open your mouth and food hops in. Food does not work that way. You go out, kill something, and you eat it.

We are fucked.

No, we are FUCKED. There is no turning back and there is no dodging the shit that's already coming down the pipe. There's going to be a lot of whining and crying soon and no amount of banding-together feel-good kumbaya communist bullshit is going to solve it.

[vazilizaitsev89]

all I'm gonna say is "Food for Oil"

[Chimro]

Absent: Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Uganda.

LOL, these dumb niggers want free food, but they're so lazy they can't even show up to vote for it.

[Chimro]

You've not addressed my post at all.

This isn't about me. I want reasons as to why America can be justified as being one of the only faces on the planet to oppose it.

He did address your post, you stupid Daily Kos reading faggot. America has no obligation to free third-world savages. If you and your communist boyfriends want it done, do it yourselves.

[Toothlessjoe]

It's clearly step one in a multi-step process. Anyone that signs off on a reform claiming something is an outrage and MUST IMMEDIATELY FIX it.... then doesn't do so? Is just lying filth. It's basically setting up an obligation and then forcing people to follow through on what they've signed on to.

One step in a multi-step process? That's like saying talks to deter the production of deadly weapons are one step in a multi-step process to war because they might not go anywhere. Of course it will be that way if you are already presuming it so! You're setting yourself up for it.

America has made many claims and signed many acts to help its people and the country and hasn't acted on it from what I see.

Food does not work that way. You go out, kill something, and you eat it.

I go to a store and buy my food. Food working the way you speak of is obselete and a false argument. We have every resource and capability to produce enough food for everyone as illustrated on countless shows and reports about the gross wastage of food by our populations.

It's not my fault it won't prosper your government financially and it's not my fault you choose opposition to it because you're too lazy to try being progressive.

[ArgonPlasma2000]

Food working the way you speak of is obselete and a false argument.

REALLY? I was under the impression that an animal is killed and it's remains divied out and sold. The same with plants being torn alive and sold.

To show you how much I care about being progressive I'll shout into a box and mail it to you.

[hami696]

wow just wow...... no one has a right to food. u have a right to go out and work for food. i don't even remember what i was going to say so il leave u with this
Tanalstaf-There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

[Verybigboy18]

Not to mention if we start giving them all enough to eat they will greatly increase in numbers since they breed like rabbits which is causing their food problems in the first place. So we would end up making the situation worse. It like when they don't allow hunting deer in a certain area, the deer get to numerous, then they start to starve to death, which is a far worse way to go then being shot, thus showing the stupid PETA people for the morons they are.

[Chimro]

We should send the niggers, Cubans, North Koreans, and whoever else leeches off the West a bunch of poisoned food, that'll solve the problem permanently.

[Parallax]

Not to mention if we start giving them all enough to eat they will greatly increase in numbers since they breed like rabbits which is causing their food problems in the first place. So we would end up making the situation worse. It like when they don't allow hunting deer in a certain area, the deer get to numerous, then they start to starve to death, which is a far worse way to go then being shot, thus showing the stupid PETA people for the morons they are.

+1

The problem is one of overpopulation, as usual.

There is no right to food. Rights are things like:

1. Freedom of/from religion
2. Right to keep and bear arms etc.

Food is a commodity to be bought and sold, just like housing, medical care, etc.

[Martian Luger King]

LOL, no one is born with a right to food you idiots.

First it was a right to free health care now it's a right to free food, no surprise all of the shitty ass fucking liberal nations voted for it. Next it will be right to television, right to sexual gratification, right to massage, etc. There ought to be no fucking aid but AIDS for Africa, do any of you idiots really believe that continent has any potential? They should die out and that landmass should be colonized by nations adept enough to build and maintain civilization upon it.

[redjoker]

Fuck the UN. All they want is power. They will bide their time but over the years, little by little, they will grow until they pretty much run the world. Classic power grab. Their little resolutions and laws start off weak, small, and (more importantly) vague giving them a foothold into countries. Then over the years it grows like the mold on your toilet when you don't clean it. If you're lazy you won't notice it until its scratching your ass every time you sit down to take a shit.

[Iehovah]

One step in a multi-step process? That's like saying talks to deter the production of deadly weapons are one step in a multi-step process to war because they might not go anywhere. Of course it will be that way if you are already presuming it so! You're setting yourself up for it.

And if they don't go anywhere AFTER signing on for it?

America has made many claims and signed many acts to help its people and the country and hasn't acted on it from what I see.

... then everyone will respect those signatories about as much as the respect the USA. Which is .... uh yeah, lol. It's intende to be a process, and if they talk all that shit, like the shit you're talking without following through, then they must be every bit as bad as you say the USA is, right?

Either the intent is there and they are all fools, or the intent is not and they are dishonest pricks. Take your pick.

[FunkyZombie]

Personally I think the very concept of "rights" is ridiculous and a relic of the Enlightenment. Rights aren't inevitabilities but artificial and somewhat arbitrary rules made to establish order upon an uncaring world.

[satanicbusdriver]

I'm pretty glad the U.S. didn't vote for it. The bill sounds stupid as shit and the government needs to focus on it's own needs before it goes around giving all our shit to countries who contribute nothing in the first place.

[anon99989]

I too believe in a right to starve

[republic]

-You will have a "right" to food when you put a seed in the ground and raise the food yourself.

-The only "responsibility" that the United States government has, is to ensure the safety of its citizens. If the OP is truly as sympathetic as he postures himself to be, he can devote his OWN private resources to increased food aid, and make every effort possible to rally others to his cause. He can start his own coalition and NPO, and raise fucking trillions of private dollars if he so desires. Of course, he will never bother doing this, because he expects government to solve all problems, and he is only raising this issue out of self-righteousness.

What he may not realize, is that the only way for government to give X to one group of people, is to take X from another group against their will.

It is counterproductive to reflexively assume that it is incumbent upon government to extend help to others at the expense of our own people.

-The US has no need for further UN entanglements. Today, we already supply most of the food aid in Africa. And there are people in our own country who can't buy anything to eat. Fuck the UN.

There is nothing "progressive" about it.

tl/dr: Humans helping humans is absolutely beautiful. But government coercion is not an appropriate means to this end. If you want to help a group of people, do it yourself. Don't whine to your leaders to sign a new declaration, pass a new mandate, or set up a new bureaucracy. It does not work that way.

[Spiphel Rike]

You've not addressed my post at all.

This isn't about me. I want reasons as to why America can be justified as being one of the only faces on the planet to oppose it.

They might be the only one with the nuts to say "it can't be done". The UN dreams up a lot of fucking worthless pipe dream bullshit ideas. You can't have a right to something that takes considerable resources to make. That's just not something that can work.

The rest of the world (including my country) might agree to some silly ideal that they'll never put in for, but that doesn't mean it's magically possible or the right idea.

[reggie_love]

I don't know what to make of that. I've never been a fan of the UN, simply because it's unelected world government, but I think it says something about our country that we're the ONLY one to vote against it.

I've also come to realize that no other government that doesn't provide healthcare for its citizens would be considered legitimate. I'm not saying anything about whether we should have socialized healthcare, I'm just saying our government is a very unique one compared to the rest of the world.

Maybe we're just the last country in the world with right-of-center economic views.

[WritingANovel]

T You can't have a right to something that takes considerable resources to make.
.

Actually, I don't think taking lots of resources to make is a criterion for what constitutes a right or not.

I believe (and I could be wrong), that this thing known as "right/s" arose as a concept as to solve, or decrease, or prevent conflict between humans in their interactions with one another. For example, we have this thing called right to life. We make sure everybody not only know about it, but also acknowledge it. That way, in their (potential) future dealings with us, we know with a reasonable amount of certainty that they will not kill us. But I am digressing. My point is, rights have to do with human interactions. They don't really apply to non-human entities such as food.

Besides, the concept of "right to food" just sounds ridiculous if you think about it. What does it even mean? Does it mean that when I am lacking in food, I can go out there to some random person and demand food, or what? This concept (IF it can be called that) is so fucking nonsensical I actually don't know what to make of it. To illustrate my point (and to lighten up the mood in this forum a little), suppose I like white boys. Can I now go to UN and demand a "right to grope white boys"?

[WritingANovel]

We have every resource and capability to produce enough food for everyone as illustrated on countless shows and reports about the gross wastage of food by our populations.

So what? Are you saying that just because someone (in this case, the United States) has a lot of food, he is now morally obligated to share it with someone else?


It's not my fault it won't prosper your government financially and it's not my fault you choose opposition to it because you're too lazy to try being progressive.

1. Nobody is saying it's your fault.
2. You sound very cuntish and annoying.
3. People are not morally obligated to be "progressive", if they don't want to. Stop trying to make people feel bad just because you personally are engaged in something that could arguably be considered "good", such as being "progressive".
4. Some people actually don't care to be progressive. Believe it or not. And we don't feel about it either.

[WritingANovel]

Personally I think the very concept of "rights" is ridiculous and a relic of the Enlightenment. Rights aren't inevitabilities but artificial and somewhat arbitrary rules made to establish order upon an uncaring world.


Rights have their functions in a society. Furthermore, nobody said anything about rights being "inevitabilities" so I don't know what you are on about. And yes, rights are artificial in the sense that they are man-made and do not exist in the physical, tangible world, however that being said it does not diminish their importance any. A lot of things have no physical substance yet we treasure them nevertheless. As for your accusation of "arbitrary", I think what you meant to say was that rights are subjective? If this is true, I personally don't see what the big deal is. Like I stated earlier, rights exist to decrease conflict between people and possibly to facilitate human interactions. They are concepts people make/made to achieve certain aims, and as such they are invariably subjective by nature, because what people want to achieve, what people desire..etc are subjective by nature. So really I don't see what the problem is with rights being subjective, or as you put it, arbitrary. Human desires and wants ARE pretty arbitrary by nature.

[Zay]

-You will have a "right" to food when you put a seed in the ground and raise the food yourself.

-The only "responsibility" that the United States government has, is to ensure the safety of its citizens. If the OP is truly as sympathetic as he postures himself to be, he can devote his OWN private resources to increased food aid, and make every effort possible to rally others to his cause. He can start his own coalition and NPO, and raise fucking trillions of private dollars if he so desires. Of course, he will never bother doing this, because he expects government to solve all problems, and he is only raising this issue out of self-righteousness.

What he may not realize, is that the only way for government to give X to one group of people, is to take X from another group against their will.

It is counterproductive to reflexively assume that it is incumbent upon government to extend help to others at the expense of our own people.

-The US has no need for further UN entanglements. Today, we already supply most of the food aid in Africa. And there are people in our own country who can't buy anything to eat. Fuck the UN.

There is nothing "progressive" about it.

tl/dr: Humans helping humans is absolutely beautiful. But government coercion is not an appropriate means to this end. If you want to help a group of people, do it yourself. Don't whine to your leaders to sign a new declaration, pass a new mandate, or set up a new bureaucracy. It does not work that way.

That brings up an interesting moral dilemma. Democracy is supposed to be the will of the people, and if it is the will of the people to give out free food, then we don't need those laws to exist. The US already voluntarily gives out more charity than britain, france, germany, etc.
So what does this UN bill do? Is it the ethical conclusion that people are too greedy to be altruistic without men with guns forcing them to give up food? All UN nations already have tax, so what about this bill ISN'T an unnecessary redundancy? Oh, right, if we simply raise taxes to give out food, it doesn't have the same propaganda effect as a bunch of fat-ass useless bureaucrats saying "we signed the right to food into law, candidate/country X voted against giving starving africans food!"
This bill is me deciding whether I should give a homeless man a sandwhich, and then telling a cop he has the right to make me give up my sandwich. Yes, it's meant to sound ridiculous because that's really what's happening here.

[cant b bothered]

+1

The problem is one of overpopulation, as usual.

There is no right to food. Rights are things like:

1. Freedom of/from religion
2. Right to keep and bear arms etc.

Food is a commodity to be bought and sold, just like housing, medical care, etc.


Article 11
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger[b], shall take, individually and [b]through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;

(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.


Oh damn, you've already signed that food, housing and medical care (article 12) are basic rights. What a surprise that 33 years later, it still hasn't been ratified, but either way, it's been acknowlegded as a right there.

[AnotherN00b]

your 'rights' are what ever your government tells you they are. so now the UN has given everyone the right to food, call them and demand a pizza.

this is another example of stupid liberals trying to fix the worlds problems by throwing money at them.

if you want to solve 'hunger' in places like Africa, then find some way to get rid of the corrupt governments. stop the pointless genocidal tribal wars. stop them breading like vermin. stop them raping virgins to cure aids. stop the pointless racism.

if you did all this then Africans wouldn't need a 'Right' to food. if you did all this everywhere, then no one would need it. but.......wait, then how could the UN justify taking all that tax money?

[nshanin]

Fuck this country.

[redjoker]

Fuck this country.

I say fuck this government.

[Ron Smythberg]

+1

The problem is one of overpopulation, as usual.

There is no right to food. Rights are things like:

1. Freedom of/from religion
2. Right to keep and bear arms etc.

Food is a commodity to be bought and sold, just like housing, medical care, etc.

I would have to agree with the above (minus the right to own guns).

Unfortunately, we do not live in some Disneyland. Food doesn't just fall from the sky, you must work for your sustenence.

[t3hpope]

(minus the right to own guns).

Why shouldn't law abiding adults be allowed to own whatever they can afford?

[nshanin]

All of today's social problems (poverty, health care, starvation, etc.) can be solved by spending 30% of the amount currently spent by the military. To say that the country is economically fucked is pretty ignorant.

Why shouldn't law abiding adults be allowed to own whatever they can afford?

Wrong thread.

[Garibaldi]

That's right; gut the military, cut defense spending by a third while Russia and especially China spend more and more every year on their militaries. That's surely a plan to secure a safe and bright future...

[nshanin]

That's right; gut the military, cut defense spending by a third while Russia and especially China spend more and more every year on their militaries. That's surely a plan to secure a safe and bright future...

Starting a war is beneficial for nobody. No country would do it; especially not China.

[vazilizaitsev89]

Starting a war is beneficial for nobody. No country would do it; especially not China.

China will go to war for tibet and taiwan, they have stated this as bluntly as possible.

[nshanin]

China will go to war for tibet and taiwan, they have stated this as bluntly as possible.

We have colonial holdings in Tibet and Taiwan?:confused:

[vazilizaitsev89]

We have colonial holdings in Tibet and Taiwan?:confused:

no, but we do have one of our fleets very close to taiwan. and should either of those two nation-states declare independence, china will invade them.

[nshanin]

no, but we do have one of our fleets very close to taiwan.
facepalm.jpg
and should either of those two nation-states declare independence, china will invade them.

...and your point is?

[Spiphel Rike]

Actually, I don't think taking lots of resources to make is a criterion for what constitutes a right or not.

I believe (and I could be wrong), that this thing known as "right/s" arose as a concept as to solve, or decrease, or prevent conflict between humans in their interactions with one another. For example, we have this thing called right to life. We make sure everybody not only know about it, but also acknowledge it. That way, in their (potential) future dealings with us, we know with a reasonable amount of certainty that they will not kill us. But I am digressing. My point is, rights have to do with human interactions. They don't really apply to non-human entities such as food.

Besides, the concept of "right to food" just sounds ridiculous if you think about it. What does it even mean? Does it mean that when I am lacking in food, I can go out there to some random person and demand food, or what? This concept (IF it can be called that) is so fucking nonsensical I actually don't know what to make of it. To illustrate my point (and to lighten up the mood in this forum a little), suppose I like white boys. Can I now go to UN and demand a "right to grope white boys"?

the last paragraph just there is more what I'm getting at ;) The whole idea of saying "you have a right to food" is ludicrous. It's sad to see that only one country understands this and that everyone else is happy enough to stamp their name on a bullshit declaration to try make themselves feel better.

[nshanin]

the last paragraph just there is more what I'm getting at ;) The whole idea of saying "you have a right to food" is ludicrous. It's sad to see that only one country understands this and that everyone else is happy enough to stamp their name on a bullshit declaration to try make themselves feel better.

What could be less ludicrous than the right to life?

[welshopiumeater]

Doesn't generally agreeing that people have a 'right to life' necessitate that people have a 'right to food,' since food is required to live?

[Spiphel Rike]

What could be less ludicrous than the right to life?

Living is just that.

Food is usually something that's been harvested, processed and transported by other people. If food was something you had a 'right' to then wouldn't all of the people in those industries have to work for nothing?

What other material goods should people have the right to? I don't mean the right to own, I mean the way this food thing has been presented.

[nshanin]

Living is just that.
If only. Living mandates some necessities, of which food is one.

Food is usually something that's been harvested, processed and transported by other people. If food was something you had a 'right' to then wouldn't all of the people in those industries have to work for nothing?
No, they would be subsidized by the state (or similar). When lives are in danger, all issues of morality go out the window, so yes you do have the right to violently take what is necessary for your survival if it is not given to you in a peaceful manner.

What other material goods should people have the right to? I don't mean the right to own, I mean the way this food thing has been presented.

The UN says food and health care. I think it also says shelter, but I'm not entirely sure; go check the Declaration of Human Rights.

[WritingANovel]

What could be less ludicrous than the right to life?

This is not really urgent however I just like to remind people/mention to people:

A question is NOT a proper response/rebuttal to someone's argument. For one thing, it's rude and cuntish. Of
course I am allowing for the possibility that people (and by that I mean you, nshanin) don't particularly care
about appearing cuntish and rude to others. Secondly, and more importantly, it is NOT a proper rebuttal (as I
stated above).

What you should have done was this:

"The right to food is not ludicrous. Because it is tied into the right of life, which I am pretty sure you agree
is one of the most basic, and widely acknowledged rights".

Of course I realize I might be wasting my breath, because you don't seem to care. I already told you once but
you still keep on doing the same thing. Keep up your cuntish ways, I only hope that you have sufficient
charm/insight to carry you through.

If only. Living mandates some necessities, of which food is one.

The right to life merely means people shouldn't kill other people (correct me if I am wrong/if you disagree).
It doesn't mean people literally are entitled to lives/living. If the latter is what you are thinking of, you
obviously do not grasp that rights are mere concepts (meant to decrease inter-human conflicts and/or faciliate
inter-human interactions) made by men, and meant for men. It's almost like you are crying to the
heavens/Nature: "but we people deserve to live!!!"

Now that you understand (I hope) what right to life really means, It should now become apparent to you that the
so-called "right to food" is not a legitimate concept as you would like to believe.


No, they would be subsidized by the state (or similar). When lives are in danger, all issues of morality go out
the window, so yes you do have the right to violently take what is necessary for your survival if it is not given
to you in a peaceful manner.

1. Define what exactly is "necessary" (for survival).
2. If people cannot come to an agreement over what constitutes "necessary for survival", what then? For example,
I think meat is necessary for my survival but you dont. Keep in mind this is just a (hastily thought up) example,
it's not meant to be scrutinized. In other words, please try and focus on my argument, which is that people can
have different interpretations of what's necessary for survival, instead of my example.
3. Are you saying that violence/force are allowed, if the ends justify it? Note I am not necessarily disagreeing
with you, I just want to see your reasoning.
4. Assuming the answer to number 4 is yes, what will we do when people have "ends" that are not universally agreed upon? Example: I think animal torturers are evil and should be stopped with deadly force, if need be. Now, are you gonna agree with me in that my "end", which is to stop animal torture, should justify my means, namely the use of deadly force/violence to kill people? Assuming that you are neutral on the issue of animal torture. Again, please focus on my argument, not the example.
5. There is no such a thing as "right to violently take/do whatever". What you meant to say was that under
certain circumstances, it is conceivable, understandable, and maybe even legal to use force/violence.
6. You are assuming that just because people want something badly enough (in this case, wishing to stay alive),
they get to infringe upon others' right to property (as in you are advocating people just take food from others
with force). Is this what you are saying?
7. You seem to imply that people owe it to others to make sure that they survive (seeing as how you are advocating
the righteousness of taking food from others by force). Is this true?
8. I just wish to point out to you that sometimes people starve not because supposedly food is being "withheld"
from them by others. It could be that they are just lazy, or that it was caused by hardships due to non-human
factors (such as having experieced drought/famine etc). My point is, it is not someone else' fault that some
people starve. As such, the former (usually the ones with food) is not obligated to share their food with the
starving latter.
9. There is something about your post I can't quite put my finger on, but which bothers me to no end. I am guessing
it has to do with the "slippery-slopeness" of it. You understand how easily your argument could be used as
justification for all kinds of unlawful behaviours, right?

[nshanin]

This is not really urgent however I just like to remind people/mention to people:

A question is NOT a proper response/rebuttal to someone's argument. For one thing, it's rude and cuntish. Of
course I am allowing for the possibility that people (and by that I mean you, nshanin) don't particularly care
about appearing cuntish and rude to others. Secondly, and more importantly, it is NOT a proper rebuttal (as I
stated above).

What you should have done was this:

"The right to food is not ludicrous. Because it is tied into the right of life, which I am pretty sure you agree
is one of the most basic, and widely acknowledged rights".

Of course I realize I might be wasting my breath, because you don't seem to care. I already told you once but
you still keep on doing the same thing. Keep up your cuntish ways, I only hope that you have sufficient
charm/insight to carry you through.
This is not really urgent however I just like to remind people/mention to people:

An ad hominem is NOT a proper response/rebuttal to someone's argument.

1a. Define what exactly is "cuntish".
2a. If people cannot come to an agreement over what constitutes "cuntish", what then? For example,
I think asking rhetorical questions is necessary for getting the point across but you dont.
1b. Define what exactly is "a proper reubttal".
2b. If people cannot come to an agreement over what constitutes "a proper rebuttal", what then? For example,
I think asking rhetorical questions is a proper rebuttal but you dont.
1c. Define what exactly is "rude".
2c. If people cannot come to an agreement over what constitutes "rude", what then? For example,
I think asking rhetorical questions is necessary for getting the point across but you dont.
3. Are you saying that rhetorical questions are not allowed in proper debate? But what if the ends justify it? Note I am totally disagreeing with you and fail to see your reasoning.
4. There is no such a thing as a "cuntish" rebuttal. What you meant to say was that under no circumstances, is it conceivable, understandable, and maybe even legal to use rhetorical questions in reasoned discussion.
5. There is something about your post I can completely put my finger on, and which bothers me to no end. I am guessing it has to do with the "bitchiness" of it. You understand how easily regulatory concerns can turn into bitchiness, right?

Finally, and more importantly, your post is NOT a proper regulatory concern.

What you should have done was this:

"Asking rhetorical questions is an improper method of debate and should be avoided".

Of course I realize I might be wasting my breath, because you don't seem to care. I already told you once that rhetoric doesn't make you look intelligent but you still keep on doing the same thing. Keep up your cuntish ways, I only hope that you have sufficient charm/insight to carry you through.


The right to life merely means people shouldn't kill other people (correct me if I am wrong/if you disagree).
I disagree, and since this is the base of most of your reasoning I won't be responding to most of the rest of your post. There is no difference between having your life taken away by a killer (what you're proposing) and losing your life because of indifference on the part of others (starvation, lack of medical care, etc.)

It doesn't mean people literally are entitled to lives/living.
Yes it does; it's in our nature.

If the latter is what you are thinking of, you obviously do not grasp that rights are mere concepts (meant to decrease inter-human conflicts and/or faciliate inter-human interactions) made by men, and meant for men. It's almost like you are crying to the heavens/Nature: "but we people deserve to live!!!"
Rights as understood by say, the founding fathers were constructs, but the right to life (sustenance, continued existence, etc.) is inherent in the nature of man (and plant and animal and protist...). Property, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and virtually any other right conceivable is a construct; these are "made by men [sic] for men [sic]", but don't obligate humankind to anything; whereas the right to life does if nature refuses to fulfill the demands of humanity.

1. Define what exactly is "necessary" (for survival).
Whatever is required for the continuation of the properties of life (as defined by biology) of the human organism.

3. Are you saying that violence/force are allowed, if the ends justify it? Note I am not necessarily disagreeing
with you, I just want to see your reasoning.
When lives are in danger, all issues of morality go out the window.

4. Assuming the answer to number 4 is yes, what will we do when people have "ends" that are not universally agreed upon? Example: I think animal torturers are evil and should be stopped with deadly force, if need be. Now, are you gonna agree with me in that my "end", which is to stop animal torture, should justify my means, namely the use of deadly force/violence to kill people? Assuming that you are neutral on the issue of animal torture. Again, please focus on my argument, not the example.
Not just any ends; just life.

5. There is no such a thing as "right to violently take/do whatever". What you meant to say was that under
certain circumstances, it is conceivable, understandable, and maybe even legal to use force/violence.
Okay, that's what I meant. Not like it detracts from the argument.
6. You are assuming that just because people want something badly enough (in this case, wishing to stay alive), they get to infringe upon others' right to property (as in you are advocating people just take food from others
with force). Is this what you are saying?
No, I am saying that if lives are at risk then any means necessary are required to save them. "want something badly enough" is your phrase.
7. You seem to imply that people owe it to others to make sure that they survive (seeing as how you are advocating
the righteousness of taking food from others by force). Is this true?
"Owe" makes no sense without somebody to possess property. Are others obligated to ensure that all stay alive? Yes.
8. I just wish to point out to you that sometimes people starve not because supposedly food is being "withheld"
from them by others. It could be that they are just lazy, or that it was caused by hardships due to non-human
factors (such as having experieced drought/famine etc). My point is, it is not someone else' fault that some
people starve. As such, the former (usually the ones with food) is not obligated to share their food with the
starving latter.
"Fault" is not the only determinator of obligation.
You understand how easily your argument could be used as
justification for all kinds of unlawful behaviours, right?
"Law" is bullshit. Nobody would steal if life was mandated.

[Spiphel Rike]

If only. Living mandates some necessities, of which food is one.

No, they would be subsidized by the state (or similar). When lives are in danger, all issues of morality go out the window, so yes you do have the right to violently take what is necessary for your survival if it is not given to you in a peaceful manner.

The UN says food and health care. I think it also says shelter, but I'm not entirely sure; go check the Declaration of Human Rights.

Morality's still important, even when you're under duress. What's to say that your 'rightful' theft of food won't justify your killing either by the authorities or the better nourished guy you're trying to steal from?

Also, how much food should be subsidised, should the free food be perfect super duper nutritional stuff or just the bare essentials?

[nshanin]

Morality's still important, even when you're under duress.
There can be no greater duress than loss of life. It's the highest ethical value and thus must be preserved over any other value. If you'd like to try to argue that the right to property trumps the right to life, I can do that, but otherwise you'll have to concede this point.

What's to say that your 'rightful' theft of food won't justify your killing either by the authorities or the better nourished guy you're trying to steal from?
What authorities? If the right to do whatever necessary to maintain life was law, then responding to someone trying to preserve their life by killing them would obviously be criminal. It's a cruel world, even (actually, especially) in a libertarian utopia. If you want to speak in practical terms, then you should probably acknowledge that, at least in the West, few starve to death because charity largely prevents the theft of essentials; but the right to take what's necessary is still there--in theory.

Also, how much food should be subsidised, should the free food be perfect super duper nutritional stuff or just the bare essentials?

Obviously just the bare essentials; I think I mentioned this in my response to wan.

[SurahAhriman]

There can be no greater duress than loss of life. It's the highest ethical value and thus must be preserved over any other value. If you'd like to try to argue that the right to property trumps the right to life, I can do that, but otherwise you'll have to concede this point.

I'll argue the point. What precisely makes "life" the highest ethical value? Plus, you're setting yourself up for a mere addition paradox. A "right" to violently acquire a needed commodity is ridiculous. The basic necessity of life is the honest, rational effort spent to acquire those needed commodities. Someone willing to use violence to get around that basic fact does not just not deserve to be part of civilization: they're not.


A right is a negative obligation, i.e. a right not to be killed, or to not be prevented from speaking one's mind. A right to food, or any such positive right, must necessarily violate the rights of those from whom it takes food. The right to life is a right not to be killed, not to have the needs of your life provided for you by the efforts of others. Such a right destroys the impulse to work to sustain your own life; it is antithetical to life.

[Lewcifer]

There can be no greater duress than loss of life. It's the highest ethical value and thus must be preserved over any other value. If you'd like to try to argue that the right to property trumps the right to life, I can do that, but otherwise you'll have to concede this point.

How about quality of life? What happens to quality of life when the world population swells even more rapidly than it has been doing?

This is a standard ecological population curve:

http://zoology.muohio.edu/oris/ZOO121/notes/graphics/ch06/fig6_06.gif

I have no idea if the human population has passed the carrying capacity of the planet, but at some point it will. And when that time comes the natural progression is for millions to die from starvation and disease. Should we sacrifice quality of life to delay this process?

[Big Steamers]

Does anyone know where food comes from?

[nshanin]

I'll argue the point. What precisely makes "life" the highest ethical value?
Because without it, one has nothing. Life is the highest value because ultimately all material (i.e. proprietary) things must be submitted to the organic (life) because ethics is a human matter.

Plus, you're setting yourself up for a mere addition paradox. A "right" to violently acquire a needed commodity is ridiculous. The basic necessity of life is the honest, rational effort spent to acquire those needed commodities.
Where is this in the nature of humankind? The basic necessities are the bare minimum needed to keep one alive; and these are not necessarily achieved through effort. Charity, for example, is an alternative.
Someone willing to use violence to get around that basic fact does not just not deserve to be part of civilization: they're not.
You'll need more justification than that... after you answer that effort isn't the only way to receive basic sustenance.

A right is a negative obligation, i.e. a right not to be killed, or to not be prevented from speaking one's mind.
No, all rights can be stated as negative or positive and there's no reason why negative obligations have any more validity than positive ones. If it suits you, I can restate "all have the right to basic sustenance" with "all have the right to be free from basic want", which is (IIRC) the exact phrase that the UN uses.
A right to food, or any such positive right, must necessarily violate the rights of those from whom it takes food.
When lives are at stake, all issues of morality go out the window.

The right to life is a right not to be killed, not to have the needs of your life provided for you by the efforts of others. Such a right destroys the impulse to work to sustain your own life; it is antithetical to life.
Work=/=life. The only purpose of work is to sustain life, but it does not entail life. You may as well claim that thieves in today's society destroy the impulse to work and are thus antithetical to life for the same reasons. Regardless of whether or not others have the right to basic sustenance, they will take it anyway; and on a practical level, you'd lose much less "impulse to work to sustain your own life" through an acknowledged right to sustain oneself.