Ahh the UK, never mind then about the gun arguments. To be perfectly honest, it's a debate for Americans as we have places in our country where they are banned (cities like Chicago until very recently) and places where you can own almost any type of weapon. No offense meant, but people from other countries just don't have the same perspective as Americans.

Scratch guns and replace it with pizza:

You have the*privilege* to buy one if you have the cash. You do not have a *right* to just be given one because, well, you want one.


IMO, "right" is a term that is seriously overused when it comes to debates about the role of people in society.

@Strat - +100 for turning guns into something we can all agree on. I use my *privilege* to buy pizza very often.

As far as the term "right", I agree 100%. People have a "right" to everything nowadays. People need to clarify what they mean instead of just using "right" when they don't know what to say.

@ stratagos: "Scratch guns and replace it with pizza:

You have the*privilege* to buy one if you have the cash. You do not have a *right* to just be given one because, well, you want one."

Ok, but do you agree that everyone has the right to enough food to keep them alive and healthy? Not specifically pizza, but something to eat?

"Ok, but do you agree that everyone has the right to enough food to keep them alive and healthy? Not specifically pizza, but something to eat?"

And presumably in a famine, everyone who eats should be locked up for infringing on the rights of others?

@ TGM: No. The state should ensure that the food available in the country is properly and fairly distributed. Are you arguing that people do NOT have a right to be fed?

"But anyways, back to property......my statement still holds for my beliefs on property too. You have the right to buy it, everyone does, but you don't have a right to OWN it. Does that make sense? Basically, noone should restrict someone from buying it, but if you do something wrong, you don't have a right to keep it."

Indeed, he would have been better off just saying "property rights" and cutting his losses.

"@ TGM: No. The state should ensure that the food available in the country is properly and fairly distributed. Are you arguing that people do NOT have a right to be fed?"

Yes, I am. You are misusing the term "right".

Fairly- does that mean that everyone gets half the food that they need to survive the famine?

@ TheGhostmaker: "You are misusing the term "right"."

Ok, what term do you advise me to use instead?

"Fairly- does that mean that everyone gets half the food that they need to survive the famine?"

I haven't a bloody clue. Surely it would depend on the situation? I'm not an expert on famine relief. I think by the time there is actually a famine, the state has failed in its basic duties anyway.

@Jaime - the *decent* thing to do in that situation is for those who have excess to give to those less fortunate, but you can't *mandate* decency. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it a "right". It would be the Right Thing To Do - as in, correct - but not a Right in the sense of "you have to do this"

The details also matter. Did the person spend his money on a big screen TV instead of food for his family? In that case, my sympathy is minimal - they made a *choice* to watch Wheel of Fortune instead of eat. It's what I think is a *stupid* choice, but people make them - which is why assistance given to those in poverty here tends to be in a form that can only be *spent* on food.

To the best of my knowledge - and I freely admit I'm hardly an expert - there is very little starvation in the United States. That is because the people have elected politicians who fund programs that offer support. So, in that sense, the electorate has decided it's a Bad Thing to have people starve to death.

Does that equate to a de-facto "right to food"? I don't know if I would describe it that way. In a sense, our society have given people the *privilege* not to starve, assuming they follow some *conditions* to get the food (fill out some paperwork, listen to someone drone on the lectern for a few hours). That doesn't mean you can just show up at a grocery store and say "feed me, I have the right" - it's something we as a society have decided to do because we find it just, not because we *have* to. Fully granting that I wouldn't exceptionally *want* to live in a society where people starved, but take a look at history and there are plenty of examples.

This assumes there is enough surplus food around, of course. The people giveth, and the people taketh away - in case of famine, people are going to be much more interested in keeping their own families alive rather than the 'rights' of some stranger. "Rights" like that are based on a society being rich enough to grant them.

"No. The state should ensure that the food available in the country is properly and fairly distributed. Are you arguing that people do NOT have a right to be fed?"

""But anyways, back to property......my statement still holds for my beliefs on property too. You have the right to buy it, everyone does, but you don't have a right to OWN it. Does that make sense? Basically, noone should restrict someone from buying it, but if you do something wrong, you don't have a right to keep it."

There's a place where these two are valid - North Korea.

Of course people do not have the right to be fed. If all I do all day is sit and watch TV why should someone else have to feed me?

If you drunk-drive they will take away your license (which is not property) and not your car.

@ Ivo: "Of course people do not have the right to be fed. If all I do all day is sit and watch TV why should someone else have to feed me?"

Firstly, with rights come corresponding duties. The person who could be working but just sits on his ass is failing in his duty to contribute to society, so would forego his right to be fed.

If, however, someone cannot provide for themselves, and it is NOT their fault, does not society have a duty to feed them?

See, Jaime, I disagree with that. Rights do not necessarily correspond to duties - in the states, you have the Right not to be exposed to Cruel and Unusual Punishment. In theory, nothing you can do can take away that right.


(Yeah, don't remind me of Gitmo. That's why I said "In Theory". I'm not exactly pleased with that place or the erosion of civil liberties over the last decade)

If they are children - yes - our society has evolved to a level where we'd actually take the kids from their parents if they don't take good care.

If they are disabled, injured, etc. - yes - and again, most 'developed' countries provide some sort of support system.

However, these are the exceptions. If you're above 16/18 and you have no disabilities you do not have the right to be fed. You don't even have the right to ask for it - because the people you ask from are in the same position as you, just maybe work harder.

Rights are granted by default unless a person has done something to warrant redacting them (i,.e. murderers do not have a right to life and if they torture their victims before killing them they also give up the right to not face cruel and unusual punishment in my view)

Freedoms, which are confused with rights way to often, are priviledges earned through actions (freedom isn't free as the saying goes). You have the freedom to eat what you want, live where you want, drive what you want, etc. But only if you have earned that freedom/priviledge through working hard and using your talents to earn enough to buy the desired goods to the best of your ability.

In some cases freedoms become rights only because the person is incapable of doing for themselves and society has an opbligation to take care of them. So an infant has a right to be fed and clothed and taken care of. But a grown man with no disabilities does not have the freedom to sit on the couch and not even look for a job and expect to get fed and have someone else keep a roof over his head.

@ Ivo_Ivanov:

"If you're above 16/18 and you have no disabilities you do not have the right to be fed. You don't even have the right to ask for it - because the people you ask from are in the same position as you, just maybe work harder."

What if you are perfectly willing to work, but cannot find a job?


@ Draugnar:

"But a grown man with no disabilities does not have the freedom to sit on the couch and not even look for a job and expect to get fed and have someone else keep a roof over his head."

Argh! I wish you guys would give up on the "sitting on his ass on the couch" example. I already dealt with this above. Again: The person who could be working but just sits on his ass is failing in his duty to contribute to society, so would forego his right to be fed.

At no point have I attempted to argue that lazy people who contribute nothing to society should be rewarded for that.

"@ TheGhostmaker: "You are misusing the term "right"."

Ok, what term do you advise me to use instead?

"Fairly- does that mean that everyone gets half the food that they need to survive the famine?"

I haven't a bloody clue. Surely it would depend on the situation? I'm not an expert on famine relief. I think by the time there is actually a famine, the state has failed in its basic duties anyway."

A right cannot infer responsibilities on anyone else. It is nonsense to talk about a "right to be fed" when no-one has food, or there is no one to feed you.

You cannot have responsibilities tied up with rights, they are things you have just because you are human, and only a rights violation can cause you to forfeit them.

@Jamiet
First, you said "everyone has the right to be fed" - so, yes, this does include lazy people. If you don't want people to misinterpret your saying, phrase it better :)

Second, when talking about covering the basic necessities - I'm pretty sure one can always find a job (at least if you live in Europe or the US and the line) - maybe it won't be as fancy or well-paying as the previous - but it will provide for food for sure.

Third, we have unemployment benefits and other social services that try to provide a support system until the person get back on their feet.

So, who exactly did you have in mind when you said "everyone has a right to be fed". We've cleared children, people who are unable to work due to injury/disability and temporary unemployed - and actually all of these are 'fed' by the working population (via taxes). So, who else should we feed?