> 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. 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.
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.
Dennis Breslin