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?
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.
jks
>From: "Hakki Alacakaptan" <nucleus at superonline.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: RE: Food Is *Clearly* Not a Human Right
>Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:27:59 +0300
>
> || -----Original Message-----
> || From: dlawbailey
>
> ||
> || Charles,
> ||
> || Don't be dumb. You don't have a right to water, either.
> || If you don't
> || believe me, don't pay your water bill. It has nothing to do with
>market
> || thinking. In a free society, those who produce and consume a
> || product have
> || to come to a voluntary arrangement. Consumers cannot simply
> || stipulate some
> || "right" and take peoples work product. It's ridiculous. Wake up.
> ||
>
>I have a well in my garden (really). I used to be able to use the water for
>cooking and drinking. Now I can't bec it's polluted. None of my rights have
>been violated, then, have they?
>
>People in the neighborhood used to supplement their diet with fish they
>caught in the Bosphorus. Now pollution and traffic has put a stop to this
>and they have to pay for the fish. It's a free country, right?
>
>Subsistence farmers can no longer feed themselves bec. the little they need
>to buy, they can no longer pay for with their surplus produce. So they sell
>everything and become proletarians. A free choice that they make,
>evidently.
>
>I could go on stating the obvious like this but I doubt it's going to do
>any
>good.
>
>Hakki
>
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com