In that context, those words mean the right to one’s own life (not to be killed capriciously) and the right to freedom, as opposed to slavery*. They aren’t rights to tangible goods like food or clothes or medicines. I’m sure the founders would cringe at the idea that people had a “right” to be supoprted by the state.
Now, you might want to make a modern case for these rights, but invoking the founders to support a right to food isn’t going to work.
*with the usual caveat that they were talking mostly about white males.
I wasn’t arguing that food is necessarily a right. I was rebutting this statement:
Rights are not necessarily actions. Being “free” is not an action, it is a state of being, yet is still explicitly labeled as an inalienable right in the DoI by the founding fathers.
Actually, i think he was riffing on the famous Anatole France quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
I agree.
Also, i think it’s worth looking at the specific situation that raised the ire of the OP in this thread. If we look beyond the sign claiming that food is a right, we see that this story is not, in fact, about asking people to give food unwillingly. There are people and organizations perfectly willing, with no coercion or state imposition whatsoever, to give food to the homeless in Orlando.
The problem is that local businesses don’t like those shopper-discouraging homeless people hanging around the city, and are asking the state to intercede on their behalf to effectively ban this charitable giving. If there’s anyone here who feels that the world owes them a living, it’s the people who are protesting against the food distribution.
Read the post from John Mace to which I was responding. He defines “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as “freedom from slavery.” My point was, even using that interpretation, my first post in this thread still stands. Not all rights are defined in terms of actions one is allowed to undertake.
Okay, then I maintain that “food is a right,” in so far as the government may not take an action that prevents people from feeding other people.
No, there is no inalienable human right for food. There’s no human right for oxygen, either. We just have an excess of both in this country. No homeless person ever starved to death in this country, unless they’re too proud to dumpster-dive, or are hopelessly mentally ill. Other countries, yeah, starvation is a problem. But it’s not a human right.
Keep in mind, these so-called “human rights” are a purely American conceit. We’re rich enough, and socially liberal enough, to extend such “rights” to all American citizens. (And “citizen” is the key word here…think of Camp X-Ray, for instance!)
As for the Florida measure itself, it’s NOT about denying food to homeless at all, it’s just that they’re not allowed to do it in public parks anymore. Basically, it’s your typical Red State tactic appealing to rich, white, Christian people, enticing them to vote Republican again this November. Pure politics, kinda sleazy, but I ain’t losing sleep over it.
If the homeless don’t like it, move to Venice Beach, CA. It’s the Transient Shangri-La here!!
Speaking as a Christian, I’d say that yes, food is a right. We live in the richest society in the world. The least we can do is make sure that people aren’t starving to death on our own streets. From a legal standpoint, I’d say that interfering with the distribution of charitable aid does qualify as infringing on the right to life.
Let’s not delude ourselves as to why this law was passed. They want to make the homeless people less visible. From one of the linked articles:
The “proper venues” are, of course, anywhere where the homeless people will be out of sight and out of mind.
In a civilized country, yes. To the extent it can be afforded.
Survival is a right, and you need food to survive. I’d say not only is food a right, but if you have no other legal means of getting it you have the right to take it, by force if neccessary. And as a practical matter, what are you going to threaten someone who’s starving with ?
If you don’t like that position, too bad. If the life of a poor man doesn’t matter to you, why should yours to him ?
Don’t we already? Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment for life-threatening conditions. They can do the bare minimum and send you on your way ASAP but they can’t turn you away, whether you can pay or not. Doesn’t that constitute free medical treatment?
Not many people choose to be poor. Don’t you think they deserve a shot at the prize like the one you have? Is a poor person likely to intentionally cause severe injury to himself for laughs, or is it out of his hands? Should we turn someone away because of bad luck?
We can get into a discussion about the ethics of such a policy, but I think you’d find it hard to argue that “freeloading” is unethical when we’re talking about homeless kids or down-on-their luck indigent people.
Jesus Christ, what am I saying? When did I turn into a socialist?
In my book, yes. But then, I’m a damned British commie.
In all seriousness, there is a school of thought that says that we have obligations to our fellow humans (or to society, if you prefer) as well as rights- and in this case, it is an obligation for the wealthier members of society to provide subsistence-level noursihment to the homeless. IMO.
Well, back just before World War II, we defined the ideals we stood for as a country, the Four Freedoms. But of course this only appealed to noted Commies and other radical left-wingers like FDR, the U.S. Congress, Norman Rockwell, the majority of Americans of the day, etc. Good thing we’ve learned better over the years, and have a stalwart leader like GWB to clarify to us what’s really morally important. :rolleyes:
Woah. Freedom from hunger or starvation is not a basic human right? Wow.
On a strictly practical note-feeding the hungry and homeless keeps these folks somewhat nourished and able to ward off disease. Starving people are meccas for pathogens. One of the basic tenets of nursing is hygiene–decent nutrition, an intact skin and adequate cleanliness are excellent barriers to infection.
I am somewhat appalled at the callous attitude of some of these posts. We are the only Western country that does not consider basic health care a right–and our overburdened emergency rooms and the high cost of any medical care reflects that.
What are we here for–if not to help one another? We are social animals–and belonging to society incurs certain responsibilities. Who would not feed a crying baby? Does that kid have a “right” to milk? What kind of question is that? Of course a child has a right to food. So why not adults? We kicked most of the mentally ill into the streets–shall we let them starve as well?
If I lived in Orlando, I would (well, first I would shoot myself for living in an area that is innudated with tourists year round)–not frequent the businesses that support this ruling. Are we back to Victorian times? Haven’t we grown as people or a society at all?
I don’t know about rights, but the fact that a government has an obligation to prevent its citizens from starving to death is pretty much a no-brainer. This isn’t an American thing, nor is it a modern thing - it applies to any government, anywhere, at any period in history. A government that can’t do that has no right to govern.
