US votes against human right to food...again

[Roger Ramjets]

if people have a "right to a TV set", what does that imply?

It simply means that they must not be prevented from owning one. Here's another 'right':-

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

What does that imply? Does the government have to provide Arms to the people? If the Government restricts the manufacture, transport or sale of Arms, does that constitute infringement?

While it is easy to think of food as "just growing", that is not really true. It takes work

People will grow their own food if they have access to the required resources. It's not really that hard - a few seeds, soil, water - and it does pretty much 'just grow'.

"We don't have enough food--so someone must give us some." It is a ridiculous concept

Damn Right! Let them eat straw

 

[geni]

What's so special about North Korea that the inhabitants of that country couldn't be fed as well?

The goverment of north korea is likely to object and can flattern Seoul if we try to overule it.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

If one takes MT as being million tons, then that is more food than there is in the whole world (& also very cheap at the quoted prices). So, the MT must therefore be metric tonnes, which are each 1,000 Kgs (about 1 ton).
Note: deleted table (as detected as URL) from your quote, as unable to post reply with it included, due to <15 limit.
As I now have more than 15 posts, I should now be able to include your original post that I was resoponding to details:

D'OH!! (_8(|)

I suppose that if I'd been awake, I would have figured that out. I was going to go verity the number this morning, as it did sound suspicious to me... after I'd gotten into bed... but your version makes a lot more sense.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Dear SkeptiGirl:

<<... lots of sensible stuff ...>>

MK

Another thing I was thinking about last night after I got into bed... exactly whose food they all have a right to!

Thank you, Mis_kitt, for that excellent breakdown.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

It simply means that they must not be prevented from owning one. Here's another 'right':-

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

What does that imply? Does the government have to provide Arms to the people? If the Government restricts the manufacture, transport or sale of Arms, does that constitute infringement?

First, a right to keep and bear arms is a right to keep and bear, not a right to the arms themselves. I'd think there were a large-ish difference. If it were a, "right to arms," as is the proposed, "right to food," then yes, I'd think the government would be required to provide the arms.

Second, all rights are subject to reasonable control. The question is just what constitutes reasonability. That's a subject on which I can't expand without a total theradjack, so I'll leave it at that.

People will grow their own food if they have access to the required resources. It's not really that hard - a few seeds, soil, water - and it does pretty much 'just grow'.

Mmm... I can see you haven't spent much time in a garden or a farm.

Ok - lets take this to its furthest limit: What happens when all the farmers insist on their right to food? What then?

Also, I can't help but wonder about North Korea... they have manpower and resources. They have seed, soil, and water. They have farmers. Why are they in such dire straits?

Damn Right! Let them eat straw

Actually, until I can find the actual wording of the thing, I'd say that, "I don't have any food. Give me some," is as reasonable an interpretation as any for a, "right to food."

The same with, "a right to housing," and, "a right to not have anyone say anything bad-sounding about religion." (Both of those are seriously under consideration, by the way.)

 

[Pardalis]

I notice Zimbabwe has signed on for the right to food.

Does anyone see a problem with simply declaring rights to whatever while demanding nothing of the governments most responsible for causing the shortages in the first place?

Yeah, Zimbabwe and NK singing that resolution is like Nazi Germany singing a resolution against racism, it renders the whole thing moot.

It looks like the United States are the only ones who actually read the thing and thought it through and considered the possible implications. It's nice to sign a thing like that, it makes you feel better, but what it actually means is another thing...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What, exactly, is declaring such a right supposed to accomplish and how will it be expected to accomplish it?

Why do you hate the world?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Dear SkeptiGirl:

The problem is that in order for someone to have a "right" to a tangible good, there would then be a moral and legal obligation for someone else to provide it....

Excellent analysis!

This is one of those issues that the hippie-dippie crowd can get all riled up about and then pat themselves on the back for "taking action" as they sit around drinking their shade-grown coffee and eating their organic muffin. Having taken public transportation to get there, of course.

Expecting that this post will be completely misunderstood...

It's guaranteed.

 

[geni]

It is not an oversimplification to say that a "right" to food implies the "right" to force others to raise that food for you. I do not believe the Confederacy was correct in saying that one human has the right to force another to produce food for them. I do not think the UN is right to say so, either.

The problem with that kind of argument is that it appeals to a right not to be forced to do anything which realisticaly doesn't exist.

I am glad that the US did not agree to a political document that translates, "We don't have enough food--so someone must give us some."

No it doesn't. For example you could not demand food from anyone who didn't have a surplus (since that would violate their right to food).

It is a ridiculous concept, and an unjust one. It ignores reality, and treats food (or useable water) as being as available as air. Air, like freedom, is something that you will have just by living, unless someone works to deprive you of it. (In both cases, of course, a volcano or a landslide could deprive you, but those are not controlled by UN Treaty.)

There are however rather a lot of rights that only exist because other work to provide them. Property rights for example.

I have become convinced that there are no positive rights except for the limited ones that may be granted to specific individuals through agreement.

Close. There are acutaly no "rights" whatsoever (in the conventional sense anyway you have the right to attempt to fight to the death but pretty meaningless) except for the limited ones that may be granted to specific individuals through agreement

I have the right to my dinner from a restaurant if I pay for it, due to the trade agreement the owner made by opening his eatery.

What agreement would that be? Now under certian laws there may be some reasons he is not allowed to use not to serve you but there are still plenty of legal ones.

None of the above should be read to mean that I think it's somehow a bad idea for all people to have a supply of food and potable water. I even think it's a goal to work towards, and I contribute money towards those goals. I think it's a good idea for some of my taxes to support action toward those goals. But...it's not a right.

Would you consider any of the following actions legitimate and if so which:

Country A is fighting a war with Country B. Country A is able to maintain a blockade around country B but doesn't want to risk it's troups advanceing into Country B. Instead it drops herbcide on country B's crops leaveing it to stave to death.

Country A has an anoying political group. To deal with it the goverment removes all food from the area where the group is based and refuses to return any untill the leaders of the political group are turned over.

Country A Develops a set of viruses that will wipe out every strain of every major food crop on the planet except some specialy resistant ones they have engineered. They they issues a declaration of war on the rest of the planet and release their virus. They refuse to release their resistant strains without reciveing an unconditional surrender.

Country A has enough food to feed it's citizens but refuses to move it to an area where famine is takeing place because it doesn't want to interfere with the free market.

 

[Normal Dude]

Country A is fighting a war with Country B. Country A is able to maintain a blockade around country B but doesn't want to risk it's troups advanceing into Country B. Instead it drops herbcide on country B's crops leaveing it to stave to death.

Country A has an anoying political group. To deal with it the goverment removes all food from the area where the group is based and refuses to return any untill the leaders of the political group are turned over.

Country A Develops a set of viruses that will wipe out every strain of every major food crop on the planet except some specialy resistant ones they have engineered. They they issues a declaration of war on the rest of the planet and release their virus. They refuse to release their resistant strains without reciveing an unconditional surrender.

Country A has enough food to feed it's citizens but refuses to move it to an area where famine is takeing place because it doesn't want to interfere with the free market.

And to think that that UN resolution could have thwarted them! Drats!!!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Would you consider any of the following actions legitimate and if so which:

None of them sounded legitimate to me.
Now, how would the U.S. having signed off on the the resolution mentioned in the OP, have prevented or affected those actions?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, Zimbabwe and NK singing that resolution is like Nazi Germany singing a resolution against racism, it renders the whole thing moot.

Really? So if, say, the right to an attorney was on the drawing board and North Korea and Nazi Germany voted against, it'd render the right to an attorney moot?

The fact that "thou shalt not kill" is found in the Torah, a book full of encouragement of brutal mass murder, reflects poorly on the Torah. It does not mean, however, that "thou shalt not kill" is a bad piece of law.

The US refusal to sign the Mine Ban Treaty is a more concrete example of strategic decisions trumping idealism. Like it or not, we Americans live in a country that values realism.

This is new to me.

 

[bigred]

I have finally been convinced that I live in the most horrible country in the world.

How are things on the west coast?

lol @ this thread

 

[Darth Rotor]

US votes against human right to food...again

Good. "The right to food" is an idiotic misuse of the concept of what a "right" is.

DR

 

[Fnord]

Sure, and it's just as easy to vote in favor of a resolution when you stand to be one of its beneficiaries as it is to vote against it when you stand to be the sole provider, distributor, and enforcer of the benefits.

Just look at some of the third-world countries voting for the resolution, each one expecting the Good Old U. S. of A. to provide them with yet another handout. May as well have Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors set the terms for their handouts ... er ... bailouts.

 

[Pardalis]

Really? So if, say, the right to an attorney was on the drawing board and North Korea and Nazi Germany voted against, it'd render the right to an attorney moot?

I'm not sure I understand your analogy, but what I was saying is that both of these countries, Zimbabwe and NK, do not feed their own citizens (they even steal food that is sent to the hungry, alot of it sent by the US, and diverge it toward the black market and for the ruling elite), so for them to have ratified the proposal gives the proposal less weight and credibility, IMO.

The fact that "thou shalt not kill" is found in the Torah, a book full of encouragement of brutal mass murder, reflects poorly on the Torah. It does not mean, however, that "thou shalt not kill" is a bad piece of law.

Yes, the Torah here being the UN resolution. "The right for food" is a nice idea, but if the signataries don't even respect that idea, it amplifies that the idea just that, an "idea", something floating in the air that has no real practical meaning.

Anybody can just sign on an idea, it's what you make of it that matters.

What Skeptigirl completely missed, and should have been appalled by, is not the US not singing it, but NK singing it. It's an insult to the idea.

 

[Sefarst]

The fact that "thou shalt not kill" is found in the Torah, a book full of encouragement of brutal mass murder, reflects poorly on the Torah. It does not mean, however, that "thou shalt not kill" is a bad piece of law.

I don't think anyone is arguing that people getting the food they need is a bad idea either. The US state department isn't even arguing that as they said in 2003 when they first voted against these resolutions:

Mr. Chairman,

Although the United States government agrees with much that is stated in this resolution and, by its actions, has proven its profound commitment to promoting food security around the world, it cannot support this resolution as drafted.

As delegations are aware, the United States has consistently taken the position that the attainment of any "right to adequate food" or "right to be free from hunger" is a goal or aspiration to be realized progressively that does not give rise to any international obligations or diminish the responsibilities of national governments to their citizens.

In light of this long-standing view, the current resolution contains numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of the underlying right, and unduly positive references both to General Comment 12, released in May 1999 by the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and to certain actions by the Special Rapporteur.

We hope in future years that the sponsors of the resolution will accommodate our proposed suggestions so that we can join in the adoption of a resolution on this tremendously important subject.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/2003/44383.htm

 

[gtc]

I'm not sure I understand your analogy, but what I was saying is that both of these countries, Zimbabwe and NK, do not feed their own citizens (they even steal food that is sent to the hungry, alot of it sent by the US, and diverge it toward the black market and for the ruling elite), so for them to have ratified the proposal gives the proposal less weight and credibility, IMO.

Yes. It is thanks to the leadership of these countries that so many of their people lack access to food. It is hypocritical of them to suggest that people have a right to access food when they are denying their own people that right.

Wanting to hand over the responsibility to feed their people to other nations while enriching themselves, their cronies and their millitary is also wrong but is a seperate issue (in my opinion).

I am using the right to access food here in the same way that I would talk about the right to access plasma screen tvs. Our governments haven't banned plasma tvs and haven't stopped people handing out plasma screent tvs to those without access to plasma tvs and are at least trying to create the economic conditions in which more people can afford thoe tvs.

 

[Sefarst]

I am using the right to access food here in the same way that I would talk about the right to access plasma screen tvs. Our governments haven't banned plasma tvs and haven't stopped people handing out plasma screent tvs to those without access to plasma tvs and are at least trying to create the economic conditions in which more people can afford thoe tvs.

You don't really have a right to plasma TVs just because they haven't been banned. The government could ban them tomorrow if they wanted to.

In the case of legal rights such as we're talking about in the UN, I think the US' fear is that the right to food is going to be the equivalent to the right to an attorney here in the US. Having the right to an attorney doesn't just mean that you can get one if you want, it means, if you want one, the government is obligated to provide you with one. If the same were extended to food, the signatories would have a legal responsibility to provide food to anyone that wanted it. Because of our unique position in the world, that responsibility is likely going to fall to us.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not sure I understand your analogy, but what I was saying is that both of these countries, Zimbabwe and NK, do not feed their own citizens (they even steal food that is sent to the hungry, alot of it sent by the US, and diverge it toward the black market and for the ruling elite), so for them to have ratified the proposal gives the proposal less weight and credibility, IMO.

Logical fallacy.