So if no one volunteers to feed the hungry, they should starve to death?
This is hyperbole. The law was restricting giving food to the hungry in a public park, not giving food to the hungry period. A park is meant to be used by everyone. If handing out food there is creating a situation that makes the park unusable or undesirable to anyone BUT the homeless, then there is a problem that needs to be solved. I would argue that people do not have a right to food, but even if they did, I don’t see how you can argue that they have a right to be fed in a public park. Maybe they need to set up some kind of facility where people can go to get the food.
I think the point of food being a basic human right, is that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all its citizen’s receive food, just as it is the individual’s responsibility to feed themselves and their family.
Whether that is through ensuring there is food on the shelves of the shops, providing food stamps, subsidised food for those on social welfare, or having whomping big soup kitchens for the homeless, it doesn’t matter- everyone who lives in a country has a right to food, and if they cannot provide it for themselves, it should be provided for them.
Update: Florida just passed a law allowing local jurisdictions to decide if dogs can be served by restaurants (in outdoor venues.)
So it will soon be legal to feed your dog in Eola Park but not a human.
**Will Repair **, I was wondering if the park has any ducks or pigeons, and if it was still legal to throw them breadcrumbs…
Okay, Stupid Head. Come to San Francisco and look at the homeless. Some of them are able-bodied and can carry on an intelligent conversation. They can work. They choose to panhandle instead. One guy travels from The Haight to Pacific Heights every day because he knows he’ll get more from the denizens there than he will from the hippies in The Haight.
Sure. I just missed the part where you would think that I’d give a shit what a petulant little mental midget like you might think about which topics are worthy of debate and which aren’t.
Good for you. I’m sure that if that was your only food and you had two hungry kids, they’d understand.
[QUOTE=irishgirl]
I think the point of food being a basic human right, is that it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that all its citizen’s receive food, just as it is the individual’s responsibility to feed themselves and their family.
I would change this slightly: the government has the responsibility to ensure that people have the ability to get food. Meaning that food has to be on the shelves, and jobs—the means by which they will be able to procure the food—have to be available.
Oops. If a mod could fix the coding in my last post it would be appreciated.
Are you aware that panhandling is, in fact, doing something to get food? Your scenario involved someone who just sat there and waited for someone to decide to bring him food. And why do these people bother you so much, anyway? There are millions and millions of helplessly hungry people in this world, why are you hyperfocused on the very few who you have decided, in your righteous wisdom, are just willfully bucking the system?
Are you from some other dimension? There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone in it, and there has been for quite some time.
Yes. It is begging. It is an appeal to our sense of mercy, and our ability to empathize. People do it because there is no right to food. If there were, they could just walk into a restaurant and start taking food off your plate or help themselves to the supermarket shelves without reprisal.
And right here you demonstrate why you should stay away from philosophical discussions. But I’ll write down your observation and pass it on to the next hungry homeless person I see sitting on the sidewalk with his hat out.
magellan01- or, you know, I could tell you about one of my patients who is homeless.
He was born to a single mother in Ireland in the 1940s, and grew up in orphanages and industrial schools, where he was subjected to horrific sexual, physical and emotional abuse on a daily basis. I’ve seen the scars from his beatings, and there is nothing “alleged” about it- he had probably the worst childhood it is possible to have in a developed country.
He received a substandard education and his medical care was so poor he contracted polio as a child, as a result of which, he is paralysed from the waist down.
At 16 he was sent to a half-way house for criminals and the homeless, with no skills, no prospects, no friends or family, and the beginnings of a severe mental illness. Unsurprisingly, in the half-way house he developed a problem with alcohol and drugs as well as severe psychotic episodes. Within a year or two he was in prison, and on his release, found himself on the streets. That cycle continued for the next 40 years.
Now he moves between the psychiatric unit and the hepatology unit of a major Dublin hospital (he has Hepatitis C) and the streets, as none of the state, church or private homeless hostels and shelters will take him, due to the level of care he requires.
His is a violent, bitter, angry and desperately unhappy man, but looking back on his life there were signs from the outset that he was going to end up in his current situation. Something could have been done then, now, we have to deal with the consequences of other people’s fuck-ups.
People are homeless for lots and lots of reasons, sometimes through their own actions and choices, sometimes not. Still, someone should be out there making sure that they’re fed.
Oh, you’re an idiot. It all makes sense now. Carry on.
I hesitate to make a sweeping statement, because I acknowledge that some city may have some particularized circumstances that make such a law advisable… but as a strong general princple, I think such laws are nightmarishly foolish and those that promote them utterly without compassion.
I agree with you. And I will gladly pay to help. I still do not think it raises the issue to a right. Now, the case you mentioned brings in other variables, namely mental illness (and our failure in dealing with it) the inability of some to feed themselves. If someone is truly unable to feed themselves, I do think we have much more of an obligation to provide for them. That still, I believe, does rise to the level of a “right” the way it’s being discussed. I think the social contract comes into play here. If I am a productive member of society and something happens to me that renders me incapable of providing food for myself (car accident resulting in permanent hospitalization, mental illness) I think I am entitled to be taken care of, just as I helped provide for those in need when I was healthy.
I think this may be where some of us are not agreeing. Rhere are three way “rights” can be meant. One is those codified by the state: the right to vote for instance. Another is the Natural Law sense of the word (D of I) that I, Sarahfeena, Bricker, and others have pointed to. The third is those that we unerstand to be rights due to the social contract we have in the society in which we live. While their might not be a Natural Law right to emergency medical care, there is one in our society due to the social contract, and that my or may not be codified into statute.
As it applies here. There is no right to food in the NL sense. Also, there is no right to food by way of statute (as far as I know). There may or not be a right according to the social contract. I think it depends on the case. I think we’d all be happy to extend a right to food to the infirm, but only some would extend that “right” to those who are able but choose to not do what is necessary to obtain their own food. I certainly would not.
As said, that’s not “doing nothing”. Frankly, it’s capitalism in action; if they can make a better living begging, begging is the capitalistic thing to do !
< waves flag >
And if you were starving to death, I expect you’d bash the guy on the head and take his sandwich, just like most people.
No, they do it because it’s either easier than getting a socially approved job, or because it’s safer than going in and taking the food. If food was not otherwise available to them, they would barge into restaurants and supermarkets, armed, and take what they needed. And they would be right to do so; society has no right to murder the poor.
How do you know that all of them are okay? Someone could be mentally ill and you wouldn’t realize it, oh wise one.
Now who is waxing hyperbolic? Feeding the hungry does not create a problem. Urinating in public, aggressive panhandling, thievery and public drunkenness create problems. All are contrary to the public good, and we have laws against those activities for that reason. If someone breaks the law, punish them. But categorically banning the feeding of the poor in public parks is overly broad that punishes the sheep with the goats. Governments could easily identify people as the root of all antisocial behavior, and ban everyone from parks. That would solve the problems described above, but it would be neither thoughtful nor just.
We do see that quite often in our society, no? Something that is done as an act of good will or compassion, when done enough, will become an “entitlement” in the eyes of some people.
The phrase “enforcable interest” is particularly useful in describing this situtation. Rights are enforcable by means of law—or other means. Can the law force an individual to give to charity? Should it be able to?
I said, “some of them” are fine. Are you of the opinion that all homeless have mental problems and are unable to work?
Good for them. So they’re making money and the question of them being able to provide for their own food is moot. If they’re not good enough at their current “job” (panhandling) to do that, they need to get another job.
Ah, but which flag?
I don’t know what I’d do, but I doubt it would be that. I’d probably look for work sweeping up in a garage after hours or something. Maybe even panhandle. I would not sit down on my ass and whine about some imaginary right I have for other people to feed me.
There you go frothing into insane land again. Back it up a little DT. No one is murdering anyone. And if they barge into a restaurant they will run the risk of beatings or jail, or both. And if they get to jail the problem of them being fed is solved.