tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 26, 2020 11:47:10 GMT -5
I stick with the definition I came up with many years ago: I believe that every individual in this country has the right to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of anyone else to do the same. What they do NOT have is the right to expect anyone else pay for their choices. And no, I do not equate "socially liberal" with "throwing a whole bunch of money at stuff." I consider it to be a belief in individual rights and liberties. It also necessarily entails equal treatment under the law...for all. I have said before that those two things are the twin pillars of my political belief system. All of my positions are based on how they comport with those two ideas, and anything that violates either is inherently wrong. So, question. Basic healthcare, minimal food, and some shelter is or is not a human right? The simple answer is no, those things are not a human right. How could they be? Here's an example. If someone is born into a population where one or more of those things are not available, are they being denied anything? No, since there is nothing available to give them. One cannot have a right to something that does not exist. Following that, a human right (to BE a human right) must be at least theoretically available to all in every situation. Life and liberty are two such ideas, and those can and too often are denied. Healthcare, food, and shelter are examples of things that we in this country have decided (for the most part) are a societal good that we are willing or have chosen to pay for. Is there a "right" to such things? No. One has a general right to pursue their own interests, again constrained by their duty to not deny the rights of others in the process. They are also constrained by the law. Other than that...?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 26, 2020 12:51:16 GMT -5
So, question. Basic healthcare, minimal food, and some shelter is or is not a human right? The simple answer is no, those things are not a human right. How could they be? Here's an example. If someone is born into a population where one or more of those things are not available, are they being denied anything? No, since there is nothing available to give them. One cannot have a right to something that does not exist. ... A person could not survive to give birth without minimal food. I would argue that a person could not survive to give birth without some shelter from weather and/or predators. Therefore for the first, and arguably the second, it is not possible for a person to be born into a population without access to them. Since they were available for the person giving birth, they would be denied if not given to the newborn.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 26, 2020 13:58:10 GMT -5
The simple answer is no, those things are not a human right. How could they be? Here's an example. If someone is born into a population where one or more of those things are not available, are they being denied anything? No, since there is nothing available to give them. One cannot have a right to something that does not exist. ... A person could not survive to give birth without minimal food. I would argue that a person could not survive to give birth without some shelter from weather and/or predators. Therefore for the first, and arguably the second, it is not possible for a person to be born into a population without access to them. Since they were available for the person giving birth, they would be denied if not given to the newborn. Pretty big stretch all the way around, and easily countered. One example would be aid workers in a refugee camp in the Sahara. They can feed 1000 people. Word spreads, and they soon have 5000, then 10,000. Which 1000 have a right to be fed? Which 9000 do not? Suppose one of the workers is pregnant. She plans to go home in advance of the birth but goes into premature labor. Does that baby have an inherent right to be fed? Does food get prioritized to the mother when 9000 people are already starving? How could it possibly be determined that anyone has an inherent right to anything? Giving to one necessarily means not giving to nine others because it just isn't available. Say the aid stops. Now there is truly nothing available. How can anyone be said to be denied here? There isn't anything for them. Another example: a shipwreck. Let's use Gilligan's Island as a familiar case. Say the professor planned the growing of foods, the Skipper and Gilligan did the labor, and MaryAnn prepared and cooked. If Mr. and Mrs. Howell refused to work because they had been born to wealth back home and considered work "beneath" them, while Ginger thought she was too glamorous to have to do any physical toil, would they have a right to the food grown and prepared by the others? No, not in any real sense. They had a choice whether to contribute, and refused. Would the others share? Yes, but it would be their choice to do so. Feeding those three would be the societal good the other four desired.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 26, 2020 14:34:11 GMT -5
A person could not survive to give birth without minimal food. I would argue that a person could not survive to give birth without some shelter from weather and/or predators. Therefore for the first, and arguably the second, it is not possible for a person to be born into a population without access to them. Since they were available for the person giving birth, they would be denied if not given to the newborn. Pretty big stretch all the way around, and easily countered. One example would be aid workers in a refugee camp in the Sahara. They can feed 1000 people. Word spreads, and they soon have 5000, then 10,000. Which 1000 have a right to be fed? Which 9000 do not? Suppose one of the workers is pregnant. She plans to go home in advance of the birth but goes into premature labor. Does that baby have an inherent right to be fed? Does food get prioritized to the mother when 9000 people are already starving? How could it possibly be determined that anyone has an inherent right to anything? Giving to one necessarily means not giving to nine others because it just isn't available. Say the aid stops. Now there is truly nothing available. How can anyone be said to be denied here? There isn't anything for them. Another example: a shipwreck. Let's use Gilligan's Island as a familiar case. Say the professor planned the growing of foods, the Skipper and Gilligan did the labor, and MaryAnn prepared and cooked. If Mr. and Mrs. Howell refused to work because they had been born to wealth back home and considered work "beneath" them, while Ginger thought she was too glamorous to have to do any physical toil, would they have a right to the food grown and prepared by the others? No, not in any real sense. They had a choice whether to contribute, and refused. Would the others share? Yes, but it would be their choice to do so. Feeding those three would be the societal good the other four desired. So "just isn't available" is actually "not available in an adequate quantity in a particular location at a particular point in time." Thus it becomes a distribution issue. I don't see how your Gilligan's Island situation is "(a)nother example" of "just not available."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 26, 2020 15:11:53 GMT -5
Pretty big stretch all the way around, and easily countered. One example would be aid workers in a refugee camp in the Sahara. They can feed 1000 people. Word spreads, and they soon have 5000, then 10,000. Which 1000 have a right to be fed? Which 9000 do not? Suppose one of the workers is pregnant. She plans to go home in advance of the birth but goes into premature labor. Does that baby have an inherent right to be fed? Does food get prioritized to the mother when 9000 people are already starving? How could it possibly be determined that anyone has an inherent right to anything? Giving to one necessarily means not giving to nine others because it just isn't available. Say the aid stops. Now there is truly nothing available. How can anyone be said to be denied here? There isn't anything for them. Another example: a shipwreck. Let's use Gilligan's Island as a familiar case. Say the professor planned the growing of foods, the Skipper and Gilligan did the labor, and MaryAnn prepared and cooked. If Mr. and Mrs. Howell refused to work because they had been born to wealth back home and considered work "beneath" them, while Ginger thought she was too glamorous to have to do any physical toil, would they have a right to the food grown and prepared by the others? No, not in any real sense. They had a choice whether to contribute, and refused. Would the others share? Yes, but it would be their choice to do so. Feeding those three would be the societal good the other four desired. So "just isn't available" is actually "not available in an adequate quantity in a particular location at a particular point in time." Thus it becomes a distribution issue. I don't see how your Gilligan's Island situation is "(a)nother example" of "just not available." It's another example of why there is not a "human right" to food. The earlier post only mentioned a reason, not all of them. Why would you argue that food is a human right? Although we are derailing this thread....
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 26, 2020 15:33:59 GMT -5
So "just isn't available" is actually "not available in an adequate quantity in a particular location at a particular point in time." Thus it becomes a distribution issue. I don't see how your Gilligan's Island situation is "(a)nother example" of "just not available." It's another example of why there is not a "human right" to food. The earlier post only mentioned a reason, not all of them. Why would you argue that food is a human right? Although we are derailing this thread.... l was just questioning the idea of "just not available". But the show must go on. Call is at one for our 2 o'clock matinee so will have deal with the right question later.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 27, 2020 1:41:03 GMT -5
I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I am not at all fond of our foreign policy, but realize that some of my views in that regard are somewhat utopian. So what the hell DOES that make me? After saying I was social liberal / fiscal conservative all these years, I am struggling with that definition, especially with the radical left taking over the democrats. I believe, for sure, in liberties like abortion(no discussion here), gay marriage, gender and racial equality, etc. But what about declaring health care a right, therefore providing government funds, or helping out the poor through government programs, and such like that. If being socially liberal means changing tax policies and social programs to help the least fortunate, how does that marry with fiscal conservatism? Saying you are part of a huge group that is social liberal, fiscal conservative needs way more definition to me to make any sense. Since I couldn't figure it out, I just dropped the conservative part - I really don't want the new stench of that word anywhere near me at this point anyway. fiscal conservatism doesn't mean "doing the least amount of work you can do".
for my money, fiscal conservative means "doing what is absolutely essential".
now, we can have a lively debate about what that means, but I would go with the stuff in the UDHR. if we are not ensuring that the UDHR is protected for every US citizen, we have no business governing.
everything else is fluff, after that. we can spend the money if the majority agrees, but the government is by no means required to do so.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 27, 2020 1:47:19 GMT -5
So "just isn't available" is actually "not available in an adequate quantity in a particular location at a particular point in time." Thus it becomes a distribution issue. I don't see how your Gilligan's Island situation is "(a)nother example" of "just not available." It's another example of why there is not a "human right" to food. The earlier post only mentioned a reason, not all of them. Why would you argue that food is a human right? Although we are derailing this thread.... I don't think you are derailing at all. I think it is a fundamental point (reducto ad absurdum is logically valid).
if you look at Maslow's Pyramid it implies certain things about human needs. if we are not meeting them, what kind of a government have we created? and is it really something worth sustaining?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 27, 2020 3:35:31 GMT -5
It's another example of why there is not a "human right" to food. The earlier post only mentioned a reason, not all of them. Why would you argue that food is a human right? Although we are derailing this thread.... I don't think you are derailing at all. I think it is a fundamental point (reducto ad absurdum is logically valid).
if you look at Maslow's Pyramid it implies certain things about human needs. if we are not meeting them, what kind of a government have we created? and is it really something worth sustaining?
Now you are getting into the role of government, as well as the difference between needs and rights. The problem for me is that I do not believe that any government can create anything that could justifiably be called a human right. Various governments worldwide and throughout history can and have certainly infringed or denied human rights to their citizens, but how can any government be said to create them? I regard it more as natural rights, and reject the modern construct that anything we deem desirable is now a "right." Those rights either exist or they don't, notwithstanding any idealistic declarations anywhere. And yes, I am saying that the UDHR devolved into utter silliness when talking about "rights."
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 27, 2020 3:46:47 GMT -5
I don't think you are derailing at all. I think it is a fundamental point (reducto ad absurdum is logically valid).
if you look at Maslow's Pyramid it implies certain things about human needs. if we are not meeting them, what kind of a government have we created? and is it really something worth sustaining?
Now you are getting into the role of government, as well as the difference between needs and rights. The problem for me is that I do not believe that any government can create anything that could justifiably be called a human right. Various governments worldwide and throughout history can and have certainly infringed or denied human rights to their citizens, but how can any government be said to create them? I regard it more as natural rights, and reject the modern construct that anything we deem desirable is now a "right." Those rights either exist or they don't, notwithstanding any idealistic declarations anywhere. And yes, I am saying that the UDHR devolved into utter silliness when talking about "rights." Second Amendment?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 27, 2020 7:46:56 GMT -5
Now you are getting into the role of government, as well as the difference between needs and rights. The problem for me is that I do not believe that any government can create anything that could justifiably be called a human right. Various governments worldwide and throughout history can and have certainly infringed or denied human rights to their citizens, but how can any government be said to create them? I regard it more as natural rights, and reject the modern construct that anything we deem desirable is now a "right." Those rights either exist or they don't, notwithstanding any idealistic declarations anywhere. And yes, I am saying that the UDHR devolved into utter silliness when talking about "rights." Second Amendment? No, that is not a human right either. Not even close.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 27, 2020 13:01:57 GMT -5
No, that is not a human right either. Not even close. The way some people talk, god himself gave Americans that right........
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 27, 2020 15:31:47 GMT -5
Not a law but the foundation upon which the US was build deals with this issue though: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
No food or shelter means no life. So all this back and forth really comes down to do we as a society want to abandon the foundation of said society or will we do more than just pay lip service and live up to these ideals?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 27, 2020 15:45:47 GMT -5
Not a law but the foundation upon which the US was build deals with this issue though: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
No food or shelter means no life. So all this back and forth really comes down to do we as a society want to abandon the foundation of said society or will we do more than just pay lip service and live up to these ideals? Again, that's a pretty big stretch. It refers to one's right not to have their life arbitrarily taken from them. It does not refer to giving everyone everything they need to live that life.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 27, 2020 15:46:31 GMT -5
No, that is not a human right either. Not even close. The way some people talk, god himself gave Americans that right........ Yeah, but there are a lot of stupid people in this country.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 27, 2020 20:59:16 GMT -5
Not a law but the foundation upon which the US was build deals with this issue though: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
No food or shelter means no life. So all this back and forth really comes down to do we as a society want to abandon the foundation of said society or will we do more than just pay lip service and live up to these ideals? Again, that's a pretty big stretch. It refers to one's right not to have their life arbitrarily taken from them. It does not refer to giving everyone everything they need to live that life. for the record, I am not really a fan of the DOI as a legal document.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 27, 2020 21:15:05 GMT -5
I don't think you are derailing at all. I think it is a fundamental point (reducto ad absurdum is logically valid).
if you look at Maslow's Pyramid it implies certain things about human needs. if we are not meeting them, what kind of a government have we created? and is it really something worth sustaining?
Now you are getting into the role of government, as well as the difference between needs and rights. The problem for me is that I do not believe that any government can create anything that could justifiably be called a human right. Various governments worldwide and throughout history can and have certainly infringed or denied human rights to their citizens, but how can any government be said to create them? I regard it more as natural rights, and reject the modern construct that anything we deem desirable is now a "right." Those rights either exist or they don't, notwithstanding any idealistic declarations anywhere. And yes, I am saying that the UDHR devolved into utter silliness when talking about "rights." not really. I am not making that distinction.
but I understand your point. you are saying that government should not concern itself with human needs. I mostly disagree. it should for at least PART of what government does, imo.
I never said that "government created rights". but I do think our treaty obligations should be honored. if we think torture is OK, even in extremely limited circumstances, we should withdraw from the TAT, rather than just torturing when we feel like it. likewise, if we think that housing is not a right, we should "unsign" from the UDHR.
I think it is extremely dishonest to pretend to agree to shit, and then do the opposite.
I think we should demand, as citizens, more honesty than that.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 28, 2020 1:07:33 GMT -5
Now you are getting into the role of government, as well as the difference between needs and rights. The problem for me is that I do not believe that any government can create anything that could justifiably be called a human right. Various governments worldwide and throughout history can and have certainly infringed or denied human rights to their citizens, but how can any government be said to create them? I regard it more as natural rights, and reject the modern construct that anything we deem desirable is now a "right." Those rights either exist or they don't, notwithstanding any idealistic declarations anywhere. And yes, I am saying that the UDHR devolved into utter silliness when talking about "rights." not really. I am not making that distinction.
but I understand your point. you are saying that government should not concern itself with human needs. I mostly disagree. it should for at least PART of what government does, imo.
I never said that "government created rights". but I do think our treaty obligations should be honored. if we think torture is OK, even in extremely limited circumstances, we should withdraw from the TAT, rather than just torturing when we feel like it. likewise, if we think that housing is not a right, we should "unsign" from the UDHR.
I think it is extremely dishonest to pretend to agree to shit, and then do the opposite.
I think we should demand, as citizens, more honesty than that.
Not at all what I am saying. The Constitution references the role of government to "promote the general welfare." That has also been held as one of the purposes of the power to tax. Of course government should concern itself with human needs. Where I differ with some others is that I refuse to classify such things as rights. I maintain that such things are instead a societal good that we believe or have decided is worthwhile to provide if we can, but that is as far as it goes. There is no right to food. There is no right to shelter. Or clothing, or a job, or any number of other things people have claimed. Two examples from the UDHR that vastly overreach: 22 We all have the right to a home, to have enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill. We should all be allowed to enjoy music, art, craft, sport and to make use of our skills. 25 We all have the right to a good life, with enough food, clothing, housing, and healthcare. Mothers and children, people without work, old and disabled people all have the right to help. You at times speak of the social contract and the idea of universalizability. Apply those concepts here. If one has the right to any of those things regardless of whether they contribute, then all must have the same right. If a significant number try to avail themselves of that, the system quickly breaks down. How can that be valid?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 28, 2020 1:26:44 GMT -5
I think a big problem is there's some people that just ignore some facts that are true in a society and focus their view on either the median or that which are closest to them. I think a lot of what the government should do would be more agreeable if they understood that short of genocide:
1) There will always be people that mentally and/or physically cannot provide for themselves.
2) There will always be people that mentally and/or physically not fully provide for themselves
3) While sometimes people's choices lead them to be either 1 or 2 there will always be people there through no fault of their own, those people cannot not be easily identified, and regardless of whether their choices brought them there they may not have any choices to get them out.
So if we're supposedly the greatest and richest country in the world, how should we handle those in groups 1 & 2? Call it a right, call it a law, call it whatever, but shouldn't the greatest and richest country be one where those aren't going hungry or homeless or going without medical care?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 28, 2020 8:37:16 GMT -5
As a ridiculously wealthy country (in the scale of human history, and current world conditions) we should be judged on how we treat the average person, and the poorest among us. And it is looking pretty bad.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 28, 2020 9:13:45 GMT -5
I stick with the definition I came up with many years ago: I believe that every individual in this country has the right to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of anyone else to do the same. What they do NOT have is the right to expect anyone else pay for their choices. And no, I do not equate "socially liberal" with "throwing a whole bunch of money at stuff." I consider it to be a belief in individual rights and liberties. It also necessarily entails equal treatment under the law...for all. I have said before that those two things are the twin pillars of my political belief system. All of my positions are based on how they comport with those two ideas, and anything that violates either is inherently wrong. So, question. Basic healthcare, minimal food, and some shelter is or is not a human right?This sums it up really well.
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" The "PURSUIT" pretty much covers it. Which means, It is up to your to get there!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 28, 2020 10:13:05 GMT -5
... This sums it up really well.
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" The "PURSUIT" pretty much covers it. Which means, It is up to your to get there!
Note it isn't pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. One has a right to life and liberty. It is only happiness that one should have to pursue.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 28, 2020 10:17:46 GMT -5
As a ridiculously wealthy country (in the scale of human history, and current world conditions) we should be judged on how we treat the average person, and the poorest among us. And it is looking pretty bad. Whether one heeds the words of the Bible, or Gandhi, or any number of others, the view should be on how we treat "the least among us." I have no problem with that idea, and agree with the theory. That does not, however, translate into any of those people having a right to such charity. Charity is by its nature (and by definition) voluntary. It should be encouraged, and is at least in part through our tax code, but nobody has a "right" to receive it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 28, 2020 11:45:56 GMT -5
not really. I am not making that distinction.
but I understand your point. you are saying that government should not concern itself with human needs. I mostly disagree. it should for at least PART of what government does, imo.
I never said that "government created rights". but I do think our treaty obligations should be honored. if we think torture is OK, even in extremely limited circumstances, we should withdraw from the TAT, rather than just torturing when we feel like it. likewise, if we think that housing is not a right, we should "unsign" from the UDHR.
I think it is extremely dishonest to pretend to agree to shit, and then do the opposite.
I think we should demand, as citizens, more honesty than that.
Not at all what I am saying. The Constitution references the role of government to "promote the general welfare." That has also been held as one of the purposes of the power to tax. Of course government should concern itself with human needs. Where I differ with some others is that I refuse to classify such things as rights. I maintain that such things are instead a societal good that we believe or have decided is worthwhile to provide if we can, but that is as far as it goes. There is no right to food. There is no right to shelter. Or clothing, or a job, or any number of other things people have claimed. Two examples from the UDHR that vastly overreach: 22 We all have the right to a home, to have enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill. We should all be allowed to enjoy music, art, craft, sport and to make use of our skills. 25 We all have the right to a good life, with enough food, clothing, housing, and healthcare. Mothers and children, people without work, old and disabled people all have the right to help. You at times speak of the social contract and the idea of universalizability. Apply those concepts here. If one has the right to any of those things regardless of whether they contribute, then all must have the same right. If a significant number try to avail themselves of that, the system quickly breaks down. How can that be valid? yeah, I think we all have a right to food and shelter. but that does not mean we all have a right to a McMansion and lobster.
what I think is that if a person is living in a tent, that our city should not be allowed to simply destroy that tent, and leave them without any shelter UNLESS they replace it with something similar or better. what I think is that if people are displaced from farms by major agribusiness, that they should be allowed to farm in the communities in which they live to feed themselves. this is the opposite of what has happened in Indonesia, where subsistence farmers were moved to the cities to work for multinationals at sub-poverty wages.
so, I think we are thinking of th(ese) issues slightly differently, but we probably ALSO disagree on the fundamentals.
|
|