If there is a better way to accomplish this objective, them I’m all for it.
Is it unreasonable to expect the congress critter to present such an alternative without stumbling around and sounding like he’s trying to find a comfortable spot between a rock and a hard place?
Because it’s not a fact. It’s an opinion.
Yes.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France
Sometimes theft is perfectly justified. Less often, though, when things are provided by taxation.
I agree with all you said, ThelmaLou. But I admit I’m not 100% sure about where Tea party/Freedom Caucus people stand on keeping the gummint out of individual lives in all cases. Do they believe that women have the right to decide on whether or not to give birth? Do they believe that adults have the right to decide who to marry regardless of gender? Somehow I think not, but I could be wrong.
Personally, I rewrite the original question from “Do people have a right to food?” to “Do we as a society have the obligation to assure that all people have access to nutritious food regardless of whether they can afford to buy it?” My answer to that is a resounding YES, just as I say we have an obligation to assure that all people have access to healthcare regardless of whether they can afford to buy it.
Which is why we tend to have the leadership we deserve.
I have no idea what goes on in Haiti, although AFAIK the concept of “food stamps” is US-centric; most countries just provide some form of guaranteed income or welfare payments. If Haiti isn’t doing so and letting its people starve or otherwise lack the essentials set out in that statement, then yes, it’s in violation.
If you’re trying to make the argument that food stamps or whatever the official designation is for a payment system that can only be used for food is not the only way to provide subsistence essentials to the needy, then I agree. But I think it’s fair to assume that if the plan was to cut or eliminate food stamps and replace them with a more flexible and more generous social support system, our Republican friend cited in the OP would have been happy to answer “yes” to “is food a right?” and then explain how the new plan supported that principle even better. Do you really think that’s what Trump and the Republicans are doing? Or is screwing the poor more their style, like they did with the health care bill? Why was Smith so shamefully and desperately evading a very simple question?
John, that’s just a ridiculous misinterpretation of what I’m saying. It didn’t occur to me until I saw some later responses that some folks, as I mentioned later, were using a legalistic Bill of Rights definition of what a “right” is. I don’t give a flying fig about whose definition prevails – I just want to communicate a principle. If you or other folks want “right” to mean “something that’s explicitly enumerated in the US Bill of Rights”, I’m fine with that and happy to call the principle in Article 25 of the UN UDHR something else. Let’s call it “a mandatory collective obligation that is incumbent on a civilized society to provide for all its citizens”.
The key word there is “mandatory”. It’s not charity, generosity, or luck. It’s a mandatory obligation on society and a basic entitlement of every needy citizen. This means that those sufficiently well off to pay taxes don’t get to claim that they don’t want to pay their share of this collective obligation. This is one of several such obligations that I believe are incumbent on any civilized society. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t care what you call it.
Sounds great, until there are shortages. Then how do you deal with that? Should society have the right to force production?
Perhaps he had one idea about what a “right,” is and was convinced his questioner had anotherm but believed an in-depth explanation would not be possible with a hostile audience.
What if I believe in a different view? What if I say it IS charity, and should come from the states, but not the federal government?
What if my neighbor across the street says that he’s fine with ‘mandatory,’ and federal funding but we should have the pauper’s oath: if you take money for food stamps you can’t vote that year? After all, he says, if I’m paying your food bill, why should you have an equal voice in steering government?
What if my next-door neighbor disagrees with both those views, and says that charity, to be meaningful, must come from the heart, not mandatory taxes, and resists both state and federal solutions?
How should we reconcile these opposing views?
I’m sure you already know how this will be answered.
I believe everyone participating in this thread, and Simon, and Smith, and maybe even Trump have this same position, but just arrive at it using different means and different language. For example, Bone might reject the UN’s contribution to how Americans define a right, but it doesn’t mean he thinks it’s ok for people to starve. Bricker, XT, and John Mace want to discuss legalistic rights, but it doesn’t mean they believe it’s ok for people to starve. You and ThelmaLou clearly support the notion that people shouldn’t have to be concerned about starvation and we should enshrine it in our Constitution, or just accept the UN as a standard for our laws.
Regardless of how we get there, we all want to be in the same place. This is not a controversial topic. Republicans and conservatives have differing views on how to get there from someone like me or you. I think massive arguments over “how” to be ridiculous because it still costs the same in the end, but perhaps if I actually heard the Republican proposal I would learn there are better ways.
I usually think of myself as a liberal, but even I think that Smith was trying to avoid the very obvious verbal and rhetorical traps that were being laid for him. Simon was very obviously trying to get him to make statements that could be easily interpreted as saying “Yes, the food stamp system as it currently exists is perfect and I am extremely immoral for wanting to stop it.”
Now, myself, I’d be inclined to answer the question with “Define ‘entitled’, you asshole - by whom, and to what degree? Am I entitled to rob your pantry? What are you trying to say? Please be as disingenuous as possible.”
I don’t think I would make a good politician.
If you reach the point where there is mass starvation I would say yes. Arguing over technicalities of the extent of the commerce clause when there are people falling over dead from hunger is a luxury you can ill afford. Just ask Louis the sixteenth how that turned out.
Fortunately we are no where near this state of affairs.
FYI: if anyone is interested in an unedited transcript of the interview you can find it here.
Overall I don’t think Rep. Smith comes off quite as bad as the Mr. Milbank makes him out to be.
It sure seemed like Dana Milbank, of all people, would be fair.
I don’t want to get into a pissing contest with you on this, but my response to you would only be “ridiculous” if I were to assume you didn’t bother to read the short post of mine that you responded to. That post explicitly laid out the dichotomy some of us have been discussing about the different definitions of rights. It was there in black and white. You didn’t need to see it “later”. Here it is again:
Anyway, that’s the last word I’ll have on that issue. I just wanted to set the record straight.
Geez Louise. :smack: The notion that society should see to it that people in a First World country (like we were a few months ago) shouldn’t starve whether by charity or by taxation, doesn’t need to be “enshrined” anywhere. It’s common human decency. This discussion is nuts. I’m outta here.
Hope everyone here enjoys his/her dinner.
You’ll have to take that issue up with the OP. Did you read the title of this thread? It’s asking if food is a right. It’s not asking us about human decency. If it is a right, it needs to be in the constitution or needs to declared so by the Court, or it needs to be taken up by the states. That’s the way the system in the US works, when you’re talking about rights.
I don’t see anyone in this thread saying they are OK with having people in the US starve. But I might have to add: provided they are unable to take care of themselves. Some folks might very well have a problem with a healthy adult who refuses to work even when jobs are available, and who expects others to provide for his material needs. There might not be too many folks like that, but some folks might be OK with setting some limits on the largess of the community. And that would make it not a right.
Given that the discussion involves the right to food and use if food stamps, why are we working with alternative methods of providing food. The government used to directly provide cheese and a few other basic items to the poor and elderly. We currently have farmers receive subsidies to not produce. Why not have the food made and given to the poor.
I have serious doubts that the problem is an insufficiency of food. I strongly suspect that the problem is distribution, and the fact that some politicians think that starving to death gives people character.
Though to be fair to the government, farm subsidies ARE government cheese. For the farmers.
What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. I’m sure those politicians only want folks to starve a little bit.