Should it be a human right to have food, shelter, and clothing?

Question

In our technologically advanced society could we not take care of everyones minimal needs? Why is this not an aspiration in our culture. I think to heal the so called "lazy unproductive people" we must stop the cycle by allowing their children to have less stress in their childhoods. Then educate their children on how the world works, something they are incapable of doing.

Poor people can not teach what they do not have. Our current education system just beats these kids down more with excessive competition.

I religions built homes rather than so many damn churches i could accept that. Within 1 mile of me there are over 50 churches.

Answer 1

I almost said, "Sure, as long as I don't have to pay so that someone else can enjoy those rights." The principle behind that remark would have been the same as that behind the freedom of speech. You may speak, of course, but you have to provide the means yourself, either by its creation or by trading to get it. No newspaper publisher is under any obligation to print an editorial you write. If you offer it, he may print it, or he may reject it, depending on its quality and the price you ask. Likewise, one man's "right" to food should not be construed as another man's obligation to provide that food.

However, I realized that that reply would not be adequate. For one thing, it is improper to speak of an entitlement as if it were a right. You don't have a RIGHT to get anything. Your life was a gift, but its maintenance must be earned, by your own labor and skills or by someone else's labor and skills. And you do steal when you force someone else to work so that you can live, just as much as you steal when you force someone else to work so that you can gain.

Again, it is improper to speak of an immunity as if it were a freedom. There's no such thing as FREEDOM from poverty, from hunger, or from the possibility of disease; these are immunities, not freedoms. Freedom is the absence of restraint. If your hands are tied, you are not free. If you are hungry or otherwise uncomfortable, you might yet be free nonetheless.

Even if it were possible to feed all the hungry of the world, this should not be done. Being saved from starvation, they will breed their next generation at the first and at every subsequent opportunity, which will raise the numbers of hungry people and multiply the burden of feeding them again. Population increase ALWAYS outruns productivity increases because of easily understood mathematical laws. You will never win the war on hunger by feeding the hungry, any more than you will ever douse a fire by continuing to throw gasoline on it (no matter what color you choose to paint the bucket).

It is stupid to pursue policies that won't work. Not to mention expensive, wasteful, and futile.

To follow is a quote from "Reducing Population in Step with Oil Depletion," by William Stanton. Read it and correct the defectiveness of your own worldview.

"Probably the greatest obstacle to the scenario with the best chance of success (in my opinion) is the Western world's unintelligent devotion to political correctness, human rights and the sanctity of human life. In the Darwinian world that preceded and will follow the fossil fuel era, these concepts were and will be meaningless. Survival in a Darwinian resource-poor world depends on the ruthless elimination of rivals, not the acquisition of moral kudos by cherishing them when they are weak. In fact, human civilization in the fossil fuel era has been totally anomalous, fueled by the unthinking exploitation and exhaustion of all the world's resources, not just fossil fuels. Sir Fred Hoyle pointed out, decades ago, that Western civilization was a 'one-shot affair,' for this reason (Duncan 1997).

"So the population reduction scenario with the best chance of success has to be Darwinian in all its aspects, with none of the sentimentality that shrouded the second half of the 20th Century in a dense fog of political correctness (Stanton 2003 page 193). It is best examined at the nation-state scale. The United Kingdom will serve as the model.

"To those sentimentalists who cannot understand the need to reduce UK population from sixty million to about two million over 150 years, and who are outraged at the proposed replacement of human rights by cold logic, I would say 'You have had your day, in which your woolly thinking has messed up not just the Western world but the whole planet, which could, if Homo sapiens had been truly intelligent, have supported a small population enjoying a wonderful quality of life almost for ever. You have thrown away that opportunity.'

"The Darwinian approach, in this planned population reduction scenario, is to maximize the well-being of the UK as a nation-state. Individual citizens, and aliens, must expect to be seriously inconvenienced by the single-minded drive to reduce population ahead of resource shortage. The consolation is that the alternative, letting Nature take its course, would be so much worse."

Answer 2

Another good question. Our culture is built on self-interest, not community. Taking care of people's minimum needs means fewer private profit venues for the various industries that benefit from these needs. The business elite will always minimize this state interference, unless we have another depression.
If everyone knew how the world worked, wouldn't it probably be the end of society as we know it..? Makes you wonder about public education...isn't the movement to privatize the system driven by a fear that it has been infected by an ideology hostile to the status quo? Look what corporate control has done to the media, just think what the schools would look like..?
IMO, lazy, unproductive and ignorant people are *necessities* for the capitalist system and I doubt the decision-makers have any interest in changing it. But I agree with your original question...I would even extend it to include the needs of healthcare, education and public transportation. After that, then let all the economic swine play their 'money game.'

Answer 3

Yes, because it is so necessary to me I look at the world and understand what brings the most of this over the long haul. A market allows the highest amount of goods at the highest quality. Governments all over the world restrict the free economy causing shortages, price increases, a reduction in quality leading to a lower product. There is one thing that is for sure. France, Sweden and other countries that have switched over to government run plans including Canada have loans that cannot be paid back without economic devastation. Canada at one point outlawed private healthcare completely creating a crisis unmatched by any other country. Not long after they had to back out of that legislation and resort more on the private market to bring the best product possible in the real world. There is no such thing as this dream world. The government gives back little to the people because the cost of force is expensive. To take this money we have to build a Gestapo IRS service that embreaches on civil liberties everyday. Then there is the cost of the administration that must administer the cash not to mention the rip off price the government gets charged through the bs contracts the lobbyist taking politicians take. This is not conspiracy, this is real crap. You limit the market to try to help but today most wives have to find work because their dollar doesn't go as far as it would in a true market. The answer is yes and until the day I die I will defend personal libetires, economic freedom, and the free market in order for the people to truly get the most from their countrymen.



P.S. Go Ron Paul, thanks for being a real American, not a neo-con republican or a stupid *** socialist democrat!

Answer 4

Former President Jimmy Carter, once US Naval Officer, now turned big time Socialist, did an interview with big time Commie Amy Goodman. Carter said that Shelter was a *Human* Right, while also stating that the freedom of religion was a *political* right. To me, this is bizarre, and against the very basis of our government expressed in our Constitution. Freedom of religion is a basic Human Right. Shelter is a Human need, which the government, in an effort to promote the general welfare, (and gain votes for Dems) has incorrectly labeled a Human Right. Good to see you back, Thor Girl.

Answer 5

Yes, and we can do it without welfare and without religion. Religion is big business when it comes to non-profit programs they don't cut the mustard. Welfare is government at its worse.
We have to begin with education and that is where the RIGHT comes in to play. Every American child should have the right to more than a twelve year education. We need to level the playing field. The only thing between me and a big paycheck and good job is a college degree. My parents were blue collar with four children. There was no way in the world that they could have ever provided a college education for us all. We all took jobs in the blue collar arena and you all know that means we will never make the money that college educated people make and so we will never be able to send our children to college. It is a vicious cycle. They don't have to be smarter or work harder but that degree gets them in and up. Now, you all know that if we can as a nation afford to send our young men and women to war at the tune of millions and billions, we can also send them to college at least for an Associate degree to be able to access the better jobs with better pay so we can afford to buy that Bachelors and even Masters degree. We aren't lazy unproductive people, most of us work two jobs and have two wage earners in the household just to stay afloat.
THE HUMAN RIGHT SHOULD BE FOR AN EDUCATION SO WE CAN GET A BETTER PAYING JOB SO WE CAN BUY OUR OWN FOOD, SHELTER AND CLOTHING.

Answer 6

Yes, as these things are vital to survival, health, and employment. There are many homeless people who would like to work but they need a permanent address to put on an application (in some cases the address of a mission, shelter, will not cut it). Also, a permanent residence allows an individual to have a phone, take a bath, and keep a wardrobe; all essentials for a person seeking or interested in keeping employment. Clothing is essential because the law requires a person to wear clothes in public. Food is definitely important because it is impossible to ask an individual who is sick from non eating or not eating properly to find employment.
I also read something interesting in USA Today last week about many sex offenders being homeless because of the fact that housing is denied to them because they can't live in areas where children congregate. A lot of experts believe that this is really putting our country in danger by giving them the freedom to roam and set up camp wherever in addition to isolating them from the treatment they need.

Answer 7

Absolutely... well one thing... in an industrialized nation, yes. I say that because I think if a country in itself is a 3rd world nation or less, there is no means to provide this; but, if a country is a superpower and wealthy, then yes of course. After all, it is the working class that has made the rich, rich.

Your question hit on an idea I came up with last year; but, to grasp it, first you have to be open-minded then you have to be willing to concede that if you gain wealth in this great nation, you have to be willing to give something back. After all, it is this system that ppl fuss about having to pay for the less fortunate that provides the wealthy their wealthy.

Anyways, my idea is that upon birth each individual be given a plot of land that is theirs for life. They can not sell it but they can trade it for a different location. No matter what happens this land is that person's until their death. The land location would be determined by where the person was born, etc... guidelines would have to be worked out of course.

Answer 8

Yes absolutely. A hungry and homeless person or a starving child has no energy to learn, a person must first have a place and enough food and proper clothing to even function minimally. then after those needs are met, the road to being self sufficient is much easier than if someone has to do that with nothing.

Answer 9

Good point. I agree with you about helping the children to get educated and end the cycle. Now Has any one ever died in US bcoz of hunger? Not 100% sure but I don't think so, no matter which party in charge, the Gov. alwayas has some programs for the poor.
I like to ask a question from people who oppose, would you folks stand and watch an American die bcoz of hunger??!


My Regards.

Answer 10

I agree but with conditions. I think those who are able should have to work. They should be provided with training, job placement assistance, and childcare if needed. If they do not follow the guidelines, their benefits get cut but with ample warning and effort on the part of the gov't. Gee! Sounds like President Clinton had the right idea after all!!

Answer 11

Why when some are not willing to work to achieve all of these? Why continue to support those that are unwilling to support themselves. Isn't that just going to perpetuate a useless lifestyle. Oh wait a minute, we already tried that, its called welfare and it did perpetuate a useless lifestyle, that's why there were generations of families unwilling to get jobs and live off the government dime.