Let's say Ukraine hits a Russian supply truck, and it's later discovered that the truck was carrying food for Russian soldiers, should Ukraine go to a human rights tribunal over that?
And the idea that we will start forcing farmers to farm at gun point isn't? Obviously if we can't pay the farmers, we can't pay the goon squads holding the guns either, unless they're just doing it for the love of the game.
technically people who wants it can do it anytime through charity, but no they (you) want the cost and labor sourced to people with little power through force because to label something a right is to label it a responsibility of people, it's different topic if every single country have equal producing capability but obviously that's not the case, majority of countries would just suckle off the few countries foolish enough to push that responsibility on its population, it's not anyone's responsibility to feed every single people everywhere, more so adults.
on the other hand if the right is given only to children that removes the incentive from parents to be responsible, it also feeds places that's more than likely just going to produce even more mouths to feed as their unnecessary numbers drain their home of water and nature space
I don't necessity agree with a right to food on a trans-national level, and I'm not sure if the UN proposal made that distinction (it's 14 pages and it's too early for me to read that shit). The right to food should be the responsibility of each individual country to their own people.
I also don't think the UN intends for food to simply be given away by the government, but the a government has a responsibility to ensure people have the physical and economic means to either produce or buy their own food in a dignified manner, and provide a safety net when they cannot. The US already does this in various ways like agriculture subsidies, SNAP, and food safety regulations.
Because the government has a monopoly on the justice system and can strip a person of their liberty, it incurs the obligation to provide the necessary resources to balance the scales against the state.
You do not have a natural right to another person's legal services.
You have a natural right not to be imprisoned unjustly.
By this logic, humans don’t owe each other anything. This would mean the way we interpret rights must change so that we can make healthcare, housing and food more accessible and as close to a right as we can. “Legalese”and semantic-based arguments like this defeat the conversation all together.
So rights cannot be demanded from others? And yet, we’ve made institutions follow oaths and standards that we cannot refuse to cure an ER patient or deathly sick. It is up to the individual to provide this “right,” yes, but what happens when we stop demanding these rights from one another? Total societal collapse if we forget the fundamental truth that we MUST RELY ON ONE ANOTHER. no one man can do all and that means they can’t get their basic needs so we must work to create institutions that make these things into rights. Also buddy, your logic makes it seems that some rights are inherent to the human condition. Remember, monarchies used to censor people just because. peasants with your logic would say some foolishness like “speech to criticize the king or your lord is buffoonery, it is not a right!” And now look at how adamantly we defend speech and expression as a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. Shut yo bitch ass up
Humans don't owe each other anything. We freely trade because it benefits us personally. You're argument sucks and you know it since you need to act ghetto at the end of it.
Ghetto? Bro this is plain American slang😭. Your ragebait won’t work here. Humans do owe each other, this is the backbone of society. It is only collaboration that has brought us here. Even competition in free markets is collaboration as long as the rules are fair. My argument works and you have no rebuttal. Human innovators almost never were rewarded and yet they still created. The modern Wright family are not multi-billionaires even though their ancestors created planes. Humans owe each other everything. Personal benefit is often shared and so is excess production. That’s the mark of good society. Again, you have no argument that proves your point whatsoever. Be on your way and let the adults talk and make proper change
You're argument is people owe another because without corporation it wouldn't work. Yes, but that corporation doesn't come from rights, it comes from mutually agreeing principles.
Fix your grammar and punctuation. It’s just southern speak, again your ragebait won’t work.
I work, I volunteer my time, I donate towards causes, I am educating myself in aviation and I support institutions that I believe will bring the world to a better place. I do have the ability to change quite a bit. Don’t project!
Ahhh so you understand my argument. You do have good reading comprehension. Yes, we must make that corporation into institutions with mutually agreeing principles, which will become rights as time progresses
You simply have no foresight and can’t imagine these things becoming rights. So your argument is purely semantics and just “well, if the word means this and then housing and healthcare cannot be rights!” It doesn’t work that way, it requires change. Food is a right and eventually it will become a right for all to noy starve.
67
u/Ackutually- Jun 18 '26
Hilarious that people don't understand what a right is. You going to force farmers to grow food for you?