Conservative Attacks Health Care Reform by Saying "Next They'll Want Food" »
Posted By TechnologyExpert 5 months, 3 weeks ago in Political NewsThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. in 1948, states the following:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Apparently, conservatives may not agree.
Read Full Story at snafu-ed.blogspot.com »
438 Views Share Story 113 Comments Report
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 113 (view all)
-
100%
cleare5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the first job of any government --- any type, any size, any time; is to see to the well-being of the people that support it.
Reply
that means access to fresh water, nutritious food, shelter, education and health care.
i'm not saying government has to provide it all, but it does have an obligation to make sure it's citizens have equal and fair access.-
80%
MisterX5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Problem: If it can be exploited, it will be.
Reply
How many scandals did the UN see that involved dispersing food, medical aid, and security?
If the economy keeps going in it's current direction, we will only be too happy to get a basic standard of living.
-
-
-
100%
canadianrancher575 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can understand why countries would sign on to the declaration of human rights. To maintain a relatively peaceful country or world people must to some degree be happy with their lives, people around the world have different standards ofr what makes them happy, people in most third world countries are happy if they have food, but as societies become more advanced it seems that demands seem to increase. Canada and the US plus some of the European countries started of as counties that were relatively free from socialist ideas but as these societies advanced there were demands for even simple things like roads and many other things, these things had to be paid for by the people of the countries. As society demanded more from government the cost became larger to the taxpayer which left the taxpayer with less money, which in turn led to more demands on government, which led to more demands for taxes. The debt in the US has really grown in the last little while (2000 onward) because of a reduction in taxes but an expanding government beaurocracy, the move toward a health care plan is because people don't feel that they can afford insurance but if a health care plan starts then it will be more taxes and maybe food will be the next item. Part of the cause is not only taxes but the fact that over 90 percent of the wealth is in about 5 percent of the populations hands, if the truely wealthy are afraid of socialism they are going to have to make changes.
Reply -
67%
tadair9195 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "right to food" is an argument used by people who believe everyone has an inherent right to be fed. Sounds good on the surface, but a closer examination reveals that this line of thinking is based on the fallacy that the ends can justify the means.
Reply
We use this line of reasoning to justify all sorts of dysfunctional actions. For example, the last administration used torture as a method to try and guarantee freedom and security. Supporters of their methodology said it was "worth it." To them, the ends justified the means.
Similarly, just a few hundred years ago proponents of slavery argued their case for it: "How else are we going to tend to the farm??" To them, the ends of survival justified the means of slavery.
So it is, and so it was. But this time around, the more altruistic-sounding man asks a very similar question. People ask themselves, "how else are we going to feed those who starve?"
Their answer? Slavery of course.
But they don't like to call it slavery, so they change the semantics around to avoid the ugly connotations associated with that word. But merely changing the words around does not change the action, it merely allows us to justify it in our minds. Much like the doublespeak that allowed people to argue that waterboarding was not torture -- it was an "enhanced interrogation technique," right? (That has a more compassionate ring to it.)
The most inherent God-given right of them all is your liberty and freedom. You own your body and only your body. This means that your most unalienable right is that you cannot make somebody do something for you, any more that they can make you do something for them. The great thing about this strange idea of liberty, is that you don't even have to believe in God to hold this truth to be self-evident.
It just is.-
100%
Beau78905 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those who would deny a basic level of healthcare--and yes, food--to those who can't afford it are guilty of exactly the fallacy you speak of, tadair: thinking the ends justify the means.
Reply
The basic argument so-called conservatives make is this: People need to learn to provide for themselves, and no one should be forced to pay for subsistence level care for the poorest individuals in society. If that means some die from neglect and poverty, so be it:
The ends justify the means. -
100%
kobzikov5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The "right to food" is an argument used by people who believe everyone has an inherent right to be fed."
Reply
The "right to food" has a definition, one which US has not ratified even though Carter administration has signed ICESCR. Here is the definition,
"Right to adequate food is a human right, inherent in all people, «to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective fulfilling and dignified life free of fear.»
«The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has the physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.»"
http://www.fao.org/righttofood/principles_en.htm
So as long as the state provides access to adequate food or means for its procurement it meets the obligations. If there is no "right to food" then not only does the state have no responsibility to provide those who lack access and the means for procurement of food, for example mentally handicapped, crippled, infirm, etc it can also take the means away from a person and starve whole segments of population. Like in Soviet Union under Stalin or North Korea right now.
"a closer examination reveals that this line of thinking is based on the fallacy that the ends can justify the means."
That is simply false. Even if "right to food" implied the right to be fed that DOES NOT mean that "ends can justify the means". For instance, I have a right to freedom of speech that DOES NOT give me a right to engage in libel or incite riot. The same way the "right to food" is limited. Neither the state, nor an individual can obtain access or means to procure food through illegal means.
"Similarly, just a few hundred years ago proponents of slavery argued their case for it: "How else are we going to tend to the farm??" To them, the ends of survival justified the means of slavery."
If this was a serious question and not simply a canard designed to support chattel slavery, then one might answer in a number of ways. For instance, by working the land the same way as you intend to force slaves to work, or by hiring Africans as laborers if you need their services, if you have no money then by paying them with profits earned from their labor, etc.
"this time around, the more altruistic-sounding man asks a very similar question. People ask themselves, "how else are we going to feed those who starve?"
Hold it right there, cowboy. Shouldn't we at fist establish that those who have no access to food or means to obtain access should have some sort of help in the endeavor? Why not just let them starve? There are what 150 thousand homeless veterans on any given night? Not to mention other homeless people who might be having all kinds of physical or mental problems that prevent them from obtaining access to food, so why not just let them all starve?
Once you can answer the question, I think we'd be about ready to tackle the issue of how to feed them.
"Their answer? Slavery of course.
But they don't like to call it slavery, so they change the semantics around to avoid the ugly connotations associated with that word."
I don't know if you are aware, but what makes slavery unique is that it is defined by use or threat of violence against those who refuse to work. I'm personally not aware of any arrangement in which the "right to food" was enforced through use of violence or threat of violence against those who refuse to support it, so you should definitely provide some kind of evidence in that regard.
"You own your body and only your body."
If all you own is your body and ONLY your body, then you don't even own the clothes on your back. Oh and you definitely don't own the food that you might have bought, since you've just negated the most basic of property rights, the ones needed for your survival.
-
-
67%
calitennflo5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Congress needs to do what the law says...not what a conservative or a liberal says. If the bill of rights says they shall not...then they shall not. When they send a policeman to arrest us...they do not use the conservative or liberal views...do they?
Reply
It's time to see through that bunch of liars.
Look how they set women and children up every year repeatedly...to put them in jail for being in gangs, or just being wise to what the police and congress along with that president are doing.
The United States is has people at the helm that love to torture you using money and the physics that goes with it's diminishing effects over and over...and until Oboma admits it...he;s breaking the law...a Universal one...called slavery.
It is not necessary to have a government like we are witnessing...but it is dictated by nature we follow the Universal laws. Not the pageantry of Oboma and those in Washington...who want to acrt like what?
# pageant: a rich and spectacular ceremony
# pageant: an elaborate representation of scenes from history etc; usually involves a parade with rich costumes
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Haha...what does that get you? Further in debt. -
-
-
100%
Beau78905 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Saying that every human has the right to life (as in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness") does not mean every human has the right to the best life any human can have. Okay, I wouldn't call a Cadillac the best car a human could have--and I wouldn't call it food either. But you can see my point against your analogy, can't you?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0015 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The current argument from the Right is that they don't want taxpayer dollars to pay for the bad decisions (smoking, obesity, etc.) of others. Guess what? Our taxes already pay for the apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of every crapstack that decides to rob a liquor store, cap their spouse or rape a child. And they want to deny children taxpayer funded health care?
Reply
More News
Politics Daily
Rick Warren's Recession--and the Saddleback Stimulus
Top Obama Aide Defends Use of Criminal Trial for Would-Be Plane Bomber
Chaos Theory - It's a Good Regime in Iran, Real Good!
U.S., Britain Shut Embassies in Yemen After Threat
The Top 10 Religion/Politics Stories of '09: Catholicism at the Fore; Niebuhr's Reemergence
Fox News Politics
Obama Wraps Up Hawaiian Vacation to Return to Washington
GOP Financial Struggles Jeopardize 2010 House Election Bids
Some Dems Join GOP Opposition to Gitmo Transfers to Yemen
Fed Chief Calls for Stronger Regulation Against Future Bubbles
Despite Al Qaeda Threat, U.S. Not Planning to Expand Terror Fight in Yemen
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.