U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

L

luiscute13

Member
Explain how you guarantee this “right” to food.
If I’m hungry do I knock on your door and say “I know you have food in there and I want some and it’s my right to have it”. Do I call the cops when my steak isn’t as big as it should be because I know you went to the market today and you gave me the smaller steak and keep the bigger one for yourself?
 
J

JEANJ

Member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

it's a right that's impossible to adhere to. As someone stated earlier in the thread yuo send end to some of these countrys and the rebels get it, or the corrupt governments keep it. I understand why they say its a right but they dont seem to have thought it through.
 
M

Malignant_Tribes

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

Yes that is a problem. It's also one that could be easily fixed if for example British troops distributed British food aid directly to the people that need it.

Some people on the thread are approaching the issue from the perspective that the US would have to guarantee food aid for Africans for example. The way I see it is that the ruling government of a nation should be the ones held responsible and this should be a basic human right implemented in law at a national level.

So while the "US government" would have a legal obligation to provide for US citizens living in the USA. The US government would be obliged to provide for Africa. African governments would take up that mantle.

This works in principle on both the national and international levels because at the national level the government has a legal obligation to provide. So when international aid is being given out, food security should automatically be at the top of the list as opposed to new tanks and bombs and guns.

It also means rich countries like the US and the UK can't ignore their own poor in favour of build a new weapons platform.
 
D

dchoudhtry

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

They don't now. Both countries have hefty welfare system. Not only won't you starve on it, you'll get fat. Some people even make it their profession of choice.
 
A

atlstl88

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

We don't ignore our own poor. As stated: we have a very abused...I mean...extensive welfare program.

This is all really useless bickering without knowing what the "right for food" does anyways. Like I said before, I agree with voting no IF it would require that we provide food for other nations.
 
D

Dashawn

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

So why then are there millions of people falling through the safety net of the welfare state? Other than the system being abused, something is very wrong with the way it works.
 
X

Xavia

Member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

because it sucks. that's why. But...it's still WAY better then other systems (and that's kinda scarey)! Not all other systems...but most.

No system is perfect. There will always be people that fall through the cracks.
 
K

kel_see_duh

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

The last I heard the US consumed 38% of the produced resources in the world and only had 6% of the population of the world. As CNN news surveys and the like have proved numerous of the US public are pretty much completely ignorant of the rest of the world around them and totally disinterested in anything like sustainability, pollution - ie. disposing of it or general free will and gift giving.

Human choice is based almost entirely on perspective - how do you expect the leader of the single most ignorant body of people on the planet to vote otherwise?
 
M

momwithabat

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

Name three people who starved to death in the US last year because they couldn't afford food and were still rejected by welfare programs. If it's happening to millions of people, then you should be able to name three off the top of your head.
 
C

CaroleH

Member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

I don't believe in welfare systems, it's a load of rubbish. Half of all welfare goes to private companies remember.

Welfare is a good way to influence peoples behaviour too, if you think it's about the state looking after everyone like some surrogate father, you're being foolish.

Increasing immigration, encouraging single parent families... welfare has an effect on many things. Not least it means communities fail to help eachother, people think its the governments job!

Can i also chip in and say "AMERICA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EVIL IN THE WORLD!!!!", take a look at what the UK does around the world. Thats before we get into the fact that most NATO foreign policy is from the RIIA in London, it reaches the CFR in New York afterwards. You also need to remember that the economic interests that influence policy decisions in ALL countries, are transnational, they owe allegiance to NO country, least of all america, which is being destroyed from within as we speak.
 
N

neverendingstory

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

I do hope you're being ironic? Not everyone living on the streets is there because they can't be bothered to contribute to society. That sort of sweeping generalisation really annoys me.
 
S

sweet16yiskah

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

What a stupid sweeping generalisation. America has it's problems and many portions of its populance may be rather ignorant about the world outside America however they are certainly not alone in this nor are "the most ignorant body of people on the planet".
 
W

woaht

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

I did mean to say Zimbabwe by the way - I had just finished reading a bunch of stuff about Zaire and PRCong and it was stuck in my head.
 
R

ReallyCool

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

I'm sorry SiAz,but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
This is typicly the ignorent statement without realising what's behind the idea.
Europeans are very proud on thair welfaire system,and whe wouldent change it for a more selfish system.
Whe are not perfect,no system is,but at least we try to care for those who have less or need medical help.
Thats why we have a medical system with state intervention,to make shure thate the less well of can pay thair doctors bills,and believe me,there's nothing wrong with that.
I can't understand your anger about Britain and Nato.
Nato foreign policy ????
Nato headquarters is still in Brussels,not London,and nowone forces us to do anything whatsoever if we don't like it.
And yes,whe cooperate with the UK whenever thair's need for that,but we don't tell them what to do,and they don't tell us what to do,it dusen't work like that.
As for EVEL AMERICA,it's time to realise that it's only the president and his administration who can be controversial,not the American peaple and it's beautifull country !!!
 
T

teenahbeeah

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

I can't say I read thru every post in this thread, but what I did see amazed me. All I could think of was what sheep so many westerners have become at the hands of the welfare state. Incredible really.

A 'right to food'? How can so many of you be so completely blind to what something like that means? Sure, on the surface, it's hard to disagree with the idea that no one should be left hungry. But what does it mean from a policy standpoint? Who exactly determines how much food is provided to each individual? And if the gov't is providing the food, does that then give the gov't the right to determine what it provides? So much for beef; the gov't has decided red meat is unhealthy, so you can't have it; here's a nice salad instead. Fish-n-chips: nope; fried food is bad for you so to protect your 'rights' we've banned it and will now ration out nice cans of tuna instead. Hey Mr. Bureaucrat, I'm still hungry; how about 2nd's? Nope, that would exceed your gov't provided, allowable portions for the fullfillment of your 'right'. Thanks but no thanks; I don't think I'm in favor of a 'right to food' either.

Food is not a right to give, or conversely, be taken away by a gov't. The last thing we need is gov't telling us what and how much we can eat. How can so many of you be so willing to ceed control of something so basic to the whims of your gov't? Have we really become such sheep that we're not just willing to give up control of what we feed our bodies, we're actually outraged that someone would have the audacity to oppose that kind of control?

I for one am not a sheep and I for darn sure don't want the gov't enforcing my 'right' to food. Thanks but no; I'll make sure my family eats on my own.
 
T

TheSidekick

New member
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

Money talks and things with legs walks.



And it always will be. Money is what makes the world go around mate.
 
Top