-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
US votes against human right to food...again
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
I was taking that into account. I'd be happy to use a different term for what I was talking about. Can you suggest one?
The right to bear arms would be an example of a right that gives the government the responsibility not to overly curtail access to guns but doesn't give them the responsibility to give you a gun. Even that kind of a 'right to food' could be problematic I think.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Which one?
Whichever one covers, "Hitler agreed with Evolution, ergo evolution is evil and discredited!" I don't memorize a bunch of latin, but it certainly seems like a fallacy to me.
X supporting Y does not make Y a bad argument or proposition.
I'm rather surprised, myself, that you'd make such an argument. But it seems par for the course in these kinds of debates.
No, I'm not even sure what you meant in that example.
The right to bear arms means that the government cannot ban guns. I don't think the "right to food" is being used in the same way because it would mean that the government can't ban food, or can't ban it for certain people. Essentially, you'd just be saying that governments can't starve their citizens to death. Seems like a good law, but it's all ready well covered by other legislation. If you grow food or have food by some other means and I come take it from you, that's all ready considered stealing. So why this new legislation? My interpretation would be that they don't mean "right" in the sense of what we mean in "the right to bear arms" and instead mean it in the way we mean the "right to an attorney."
Well, I'm not claiming the idea behind the proposition is bad, I'm just saying its implications become moot if these rogue countries are going to ratify it without respecting it. It makes the proposition teethless, and therefore meaningless (because the whole idea behind making resolutions is to make something happen). In other words, I'm not saying the idea is bad, but the the idea of making a resolution out of it is made moot by some of the signatories. What's the point of making people sing it if they're going to blatantly ignore it as these countries do? It's only a piece of paper if you're not going to respect it.
Last edited:
Policenaut
Infidel Defiler
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 2,191
The UN in a nutshell.
This is the US. That bastion of rights for people. Until it is about rights for non-Americans: E.g., Americans have a right to guns, but Americans don't want other people to have a right to food.
It is hilarious to see how this is (attempted) justified, though. Absolutely hilarious.
It is hilarious to see how this is (attempted) justified, though. Absolutely hilarious.
Roger -- Let me clarify. Please look at the Amendment cited above. It does not say that the people have a "right to Arms", it says they have the "right to keep and bear Arms". That means the government cannot take their weapons away, nor legislate that the people cannot use them. Having a "right to Arms" would imply that every citizen was entitled to, somehow, receive one.
No one who advocates a "right to healthcare" is arguing that the government is preventing people from getting healthcare! And, presumably, the UN proposed "right to food" does mean that everyone is entitled to their daily bread (rice, beans, maize, plantains, whatever).
--MK
ETA -- I see others have already clarified this point, sorry for the repeat. But at least now you know that I meant it that way as well.
Special to Pardalis: The word you want is "signing", not "singing." The first is writing a signature in agreement to a treaty or other document; the second is making music with your voice. Though I admit I find the idea of UN ambassadors singing their preferred documents charming...
Last edited:
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Hi
We do not have a, "right to guns," as outlined above.
We have a right to keep and bear guns.
If it were a right to keep their own food, thus prohibiting (as much as the UN can prohibit anything) poisoning food crops and other similar starvation-directed jackassulation, I'd be totally Ok with it, but it's not. It's a, "right to food."
I'm also Ok with it as long it's YOUR food, too.
What's going to happen when everyone around you stops growing food and demands a part of your surplus? What happens when everyone stops growing food because they have a right to whatever food's available?
I has happened.
Here in the US, as a matter of fact... although it wasn't the US at the time.
The first wave of pilgrims had a communal living arrangement where everyone had a right to use all the community's property, and, apparently, everyone figured that everyone ELSE was going to grow the food and chop the firewood.
(This is what's wrong with Communism. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need," has everyone deciding that what they really need is to eat some cheese, drink some wine, and catch some rays, and that their real ability is getting a really, really good sun tan!)
ANYHOW!
From the time they landed in December of 1620 until the spring of 1623, they had problem with starvation... not because they didn't know how to farm - Squanto had clued them in on that - but because they had no incentive to do better. They all figured that everyone else would cover them for food and firewood.
In 1623, though, The governor of the teh colony, William Bradfored by name I think, ordered that the land be parceled out and issued to families. Each family, then, could grow their own food, or cut their own firewood, or whatever else they wanted to do, and sell their surplus at market.
They could keep all they grew and dispose of it as they saw fit, but they were responsible for feeding themselves.
Folks buckled down and got a move on. They planted a LOT more corn than they had before.
They never starved again. Who'd guess?
North Korea has a lot of arable land and trained farmers, yet they produce less per acre than the South. Why is that?
Nigeria used to be the #1 food-exporting country in Africa, now they're starving and have a Godzillion-percent inflation rate. Why is that?
In Communist Russia, for a long time, the most productive part of the economy was all the little garden patches the government allowed the grandfathers and grandmothers to have, and whose proceeds were the property of said old folks. Why is that?
Ok, says I, give help to the starving, but don't go communal on the food! We've already seen what happens with that!
The "right to food," should be the, "right to keep the food you grow." Let the government of all those starving countries turn loose of their manpower and let them grow and keep their own food, and sell the surplus.
I'll bet there'd be enough food pretty quick.
We do not have a, "right to guns," as outlined above.
We have a right to keep and bear guns.
If it were a right to keep their own food, thus prohibiting (as much as the UN can prohibit anything) poisoning food crops and other similar starvation-directed jackassulation, I'd be totally Ok with it, but it's not. It's a, "right to food."
I'm also Ok with it as long it's YOUR food, too.
What's going to happen when everyone around you stops growing food and demands a part of your surplus? What happens when everyone stops growing food because they have a right to whatever food's available?
I has happened.
Here in the US, as a matter of fact... although it wasn't the US at the time.
The first wave of pilgrims had a communal living arrangement where everyone had a right to use all the community's property, and, apparently, everyone figured that everyone ELSE was going to grow the food and chop the firewood.
(This is what's wrong with Communism. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need," has everyone deciding that what they really need is to eat some cheese, drink some wine, and catch some rays, and that their real ability is getting a really, really good sun tan!)
ANYHOW!
From the time they landed in December of 1620 until the spring of 1623, they had problem with starvation... not because they didn't know how to farm - Squanto had clued them in on that - but because they had no incentive to do better. They all figured that everyone else would cover them for food and firewood.
In 1623, though, The governor of the teh colony, William Bradfored by name I think, ordered that the land be parceled out and issued to families. Each family, then, could grow their own food, or cut their own firewood, or whatever else they wanted to do, and sell their surplus at market.
They could keep all they grew and dispose of it as they saw fit, but they were responsible for feeding themselves.
Folks buckled down and got a move on. They planted a LOT more corn than they had before.
They never starved again. Who'd guess?
North Korea has a lot of arable land and trained farmers, yet they produce less per acre than the South. Why is that?
Nigeria used to be the #1 food-exporting country in Africa, now they're starving and have a Godzillion-percent inflation rate. Why is that?
In Communist Russia, for a long time, the most productive part of the economy was all the little garden patches the government allowed the grandfathers and grandmothers to have, and whose proceeds were the property of said old folks. Why is that?
Ok, says I, give help to the starving, but don't go communal on the food! We've already seen what happens with that!
The "right to food," should be the, "right to keep the food you grow." Let the government of all those starving countries turn loose of their manpower and let them grow and keep their own food, and sell the surplus.
I'll bet there'd be enough food pretty quick.
Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Hi
...but nonetheless true... well... in the historical bits, anyhow.
How much food aid does your nation already contribute?
...but nonetheless true... well... in the historical bits, anyhow.
How much food aid does your nation already contribute?
North Korea signed it, so what does that leave us with?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Why not?
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
if it atleast was out of protest against North Korea.
but nobody gives a **** about North Korea's People.
and if all would have such a broken thinking like you, most countrys would never sign anything that the USA signed.....
I guess you think the Geneva Convention is crap also, Iran signed it.
What are you doing to ensure that people can exercise the right to food that you think they possess or should possess?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Does that include private aid, or only government aid?