Food Is *Clearly* Not a Human Right "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> Subject: RE:
I don't agree with dlawbaily's libertarian sentiments, but I don't think food is human right. Enough wealth or income to buy enough food, that's a human right, but that's not the same thing.
^^^^^
CB: The most fundamental human right is the right to live ("right to life" has been stolen and warped by the rightwing in the U.S., but internationally that would be the correct term). Food is necessary to live, so there is a human right to enough food to live.
^^^^^
Sorry to wax philosophical here, but for once the apparatus is actually practically useful.
The difference is this: a right to something is roughly a claim to that thing that can't be taken away from you without violating justice. But "food" is perishable and the needs for are very varied. Do my kids have a right to all the pizza and ice cream they can eat? Or just to enough tofu and rice to sustain life?
^^^^^
CB: The latter. They have a human right to enough food to live. To deprive them of it violates justice.
^^^^^^^
You have to be able to say what the right is _to_, you see, or the claim that there is a right is empty. By contrast, if we say that everyone has a right to enough money to live a decent life, whether in the formof a job that pays reasonable remuneration or direct grants, we have something that we can actually sensibly guarantee and provide. If you have a right to a job or a subsidy, and you don;t have it, you can make a demand for something specific and get it. If you claim a right to "food," what are you claiming? Me, I claim a right to lobster tails, truffles, and caviar. Give it to me.
^^^^^^^
CB: I am saying every human has a right to enough nutrition to survive. I also say , given a job or money is necessary to get what you need in our society, there is a right to a job or income. If someone cannot get a job, they should be given enough money to live.