The poverty threshold is itself based on a dollar value of calorie intake, though its a crappy method. It does, however, establish a benchmark - a more generous foodbasket and consequently a higher quality food budget set at a more sensible multiplier would make a better poverty line.
I give-up when the argument gets bogged down by claims of common sense or the claims that somethings are silly and idle. A guaranteed income program may well be preferable but implicit is that food and other basic needs are to be met and that gov't is obligated to provide for that.
So expressing things in terms of rights guarantees nothing. Who cares. Rights are only as useful as those applying or enforcing the obligation.
Dennis Breslin
----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: Re: Food Is *Clearly* Not a Human Right
>
> > But it's misleading to put it that way. You can say sensibly that people
> > have a right to means to live, and that can be realized by ensuring that
> > they get what they need to get those means. No problem there. But if you
> > say, a right to food, you raise the question, what food and how much?
>What
> > do I have a right to if I have a right to food? And were are my lobster
> > tails?
>
>I can't see the distinction you're drawing nor how one is any less
>difficult
>or prone to problems than the other. How do you avoid the same question
>you pose to the right to food? What means? What wage? What amount
>in the form of a direct grant? There's difficulty in resolving any of
>these.
Oh come now. Money is fungible. You can buy what you need with it without having to make tricky determinations. It's not hard to set amounts of money that are required to live a decent life. That's what our inadequate attempt a poverty line is supposed to do. So, what "wage" (an expression I avoided, I disapprove of wage labor)? Well, an hourly amount that at a reasonable working week, say four days a week, six hours a day, would be more than poverty, set at a reasonable figure, say equivalent to $35,000 a year for a family offour in the US. That would be tight, but as a bottom, it would probably be OK. Direct grant, same per capita. What means? Well, we could get into the market socialist debate gain, but I'd rather not. Say that by one of various means it has at its disposal, the govt ensures the gcreation of jobs that give people who can work the rumuneration indicated, and pays money directly to the rest via transfer payments.
>But I still can't figure out why its sensible to oppose social rights in
>the
>form of rights to food, shelter, health ... all the usual suspects already
>contained in various declarations of this or that.
Because they're idle and silly. Health is different: the govt can provide taht directly. But food and shelter should be provided for by giving people the financial means to attain them.
>
>As for your claim on lobster tails, well goodness knows laborers in
>early New England society were fed largely lobster. Had to crack
>'em open themselves, though.
>
So, where's mine? I'll crack 'em if you give 'em to me.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com