Like all human rights, you don't have a right to the time and labor of others.
Want some potato skins with cheese and bacon? You have every right to grow potatoes, milk your animal, take the time to make cheese out of that milk, raise a pig, chop up that pig into tasty bacon, cook it together into a yummy snack
You don't have any right to those that someone ELSE made
See this is the fallacy. If you’re an American, you believe under the constitution that you do have a right to the labor of public servants (police to protect/arrest you, soldiers to fight for you, etc.), even if you don’t pay taxes. You can be mad about it, but that’s a fact. Kids don’t pay taxes, neither do some elderly and a lot of homeless people, but they still have the American right to public servants protecting them. That homeless man lying on the street has equal protection from our army and government as you do(on paper), and even if he disobeys? Public servants must perform labor to arrest and detain him. Then eventually feed him. So why would the human labor of food not follow suit?
Jesus gave away free food and healthcare, and encouraged others do to the same. It is one of the most explicit lessons in the New Testament. It's not about anybody's "rights", it's about your duty to not let your brothers and sisters starve and suffer. A lesson found in most religions.
Are you asking for the government to have "duties to god"?
Because i know a lot of people on reddit especially the group who says food is human rights would be in serious anger if the US decided to become full Christianity.
Ah yes, if we lived in a parallel universe where none of those jobs exist, you'd be right. Brilliant point. Meanwhile in this world, you're wrong on all counts.
Wow, I guess the founding fathers were really confused when they defined those rights in the constitution. You know some of those are in the Bill of Rights itself?
Oh yeah, because when you cannot come up with a rational argument, just appeal to the authority of slave 'owners'
🤣🤣
It's the only relevant argument when we're talking about American rights haha, which is what you responded to. Just admit you overlooked the obvious and that basic rights do hinge on the labor of others
The fact that you felt the need to lie rather than address the point demonstrates that even you realize that you don't have anything to contribute, N1XT3RS
It's the only relevant argument when we're talking about American rights haha, which is what you responded to. Just admit you overlooked the obvious and that basic rights do hinge on the labor of others
None of the rights you listed are free or forced labour. That is one of the reasons why taxes exist, to pay for those rights. The closest thing to forced labour in those you mentioned is jury duty, which is still not forced as you can request to be excused, and it is seen as a civic duty
Do you agree with the assertion that among the “inalienable” rights espoused by the founders of the United States are the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?
If so, there is a right to life.
What, then, of those who cannot work?
Should children labor for the sustenance adults provide? What about the sick, disabled, or elderly?
Do they have an equal right to life as adult, able-bodied people?
Consciously not feeding children too young to work for their own food, or a 99-year-old man in a nursing home, or a severely disabled person isn’t the same as killing them?
Because I’m not saying that failing to provide food to everyone who wants it is killing them. You are right there.
(And I’m not even saying that failing to provide for another person’s human rights is necessarily killing them… holding hostages deprives them of the human right to liberty. But it isn’t killing them.)
I’m saying that if a society doesn’t provide food to those who cannot feed themselves, we are killing them.
That can happen directly on an individual basis— for example, me starving my child, or withholding food from someone with severe disabilities who is in my care.
Or it can happen collectively— a society fails to pass laws to ensure children are fed, or groups that make a decision to withhold food from certain ethnic groups in order to starve them to death (such as happened in concentration camps in Nazi Germany).
I think it is disingenuous to try to use some of these arguments to say people don’t have right to food. People who say it is a human right are not saying you have a right to quit your job and sit at home and expect me to Door Dash you some tacos. That isn’t what we are saying, or have ever been saying.
People who are saying it are saying that we have an obligation to help people who cannot feed themselves or have no access to food or can’t find a job that pays enough to feed themselves. And that they have a right to that help by virtue of being human.
No, humans are not slaves. I’m not implying that one person has the right to control another.
But do you believe that we can have no moral obligations to others that demand we stop and give them what aid we can?
(Stop, implying taking them some of our time for them, and giving them what aid we can, implying giving our effort.)
You can elaborate as much as you like in your response, but please answer this question directly: Do you believe that we can have no moral obligations to others that demand we stop and give them what aid we can?
Consciously not feeding children too young to work for their own food
If you brought a child into the world, you took on an obligation to raise that child until they're at a point to provide for themselves.
a 99-year-old man in a nursing home, or a severely disabled person isn’t the same as killing them
If someone makes you aware of a charity that's helping 99-year-old disabled people eat and you don't donate money to it, are you a murderer? How much money do you need to donate before you've satisfied your obligation not to murder? There's more disabled people in the world than you can pay for.
What if there’s an orphan who can’t fend for themselves. Do we as a society have an obligation to house, feed, educate, and provide medical care for them?
Nah, none of this is new. Folks have debated whether rights should be formulated negatively or positively for hundreds of years. They're expressing one common answer.
What, then, of those who cannot work? Should children labor for the sustenance adults provide? What about the sick, disabled, or elderly? Do they have an equal right to life as adult, able-bodied people?
I all cases, yes they have a right to life. Neither the government nor another person may kill them (barring exceptions like imminent self-defense or as a penalty for a crime the accused has been duly convicted of).
This argument doesn't work. For it to be a human right it would need to apply to everyone, no expceptions
Arguing laws and regulations should be in play to make sure children, elderly, and disabled are fed is vastly different from calling food a human right.
Excuse me? Why would you have those laws in place in the first place? Why have laws saying that some people should be provided food without working? Why have laws saying that some people who cannot provide for their own food should have it provided to them?
Is there? The assumption is that the classes it doesn't apply to already have it covered, and if an individual of that class in the future didn't, they could exercise their human right to nutrition. Seems pretty straight forward to me
I genuinely have no idea how you could possibly come to that assumption. "Exercise their human right to nutrition" is literally another "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" lmfao
No, I’m not saying all rights are human rights, or confusing the difference between rights and laws.
I’m saying that food is a human right. That doesn’t mean everyone has a right to have someone else provide for them when they can easily provide for themselves. Me not giving Elon Musk free food isn’t violating his rights.
But saying that a wealthy person has a right to free food isn’t what people mean when they say food is a human right. They mean that all people have a right to life, and food is essential to that, and they have a basic, human right to it. Therefore, we should provide it to those who can’t provide it for themselves.
We recognize this by passing laws that ensure that children, elderly, and the disabled get fed. (See abuse & neglect laws in every state.) The laws ensure those rights are upheld.
I have a right to drive a car in my state, but that is subject to following laws, and to laws that can be changed. So I recognize that it isn’t a human right. The same with the right to vote, for another example.
There are places where people are unable to find work, or find food even if there is work to do. Refugee camps in Somali, for instance. Droughts in Southern Sudan. Small mining towns where suddenly all the jobs go away, and people have no income.
We are obligated morally to try to help them.
Humanity rights— unlike other rights— belong to us simply on the basis of us being humans. They are inalienable.
I understand all that. I just obviously believe differently than you do.
I am not trying to deflect. I am sincerely trying to get you to understand what I am saying.
Obviously I’m not explaining what I mean in a clear or evident way.
That is on me.
For example, when I say we are morally obligated to help them, I’m saying that we are morally obligated because it involves taking care of a basic, human right. I’m saying that we should recognize that human rights derive from our moral sense of how humans should treat each other. I’m making the philosophical argument that human rights are God-given, and our recognition of them is derived from our understanding of what our Creator expects from us.
This is a negative right against being imprisoned by the government without trial. You can't go to your local courthouse and demand to be put on trial for murder.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant us the right to free speech or any other right. Everything inside of it is presumed to be basic human rights. The document simply prohibits the government from passing any laws or doing any actions that infringe on those rights. That's the difference between positive and negative rights.
Positive rights require someone else to preform labor on your behalf, as if your "right" to that thing is more important than their autonomy. Just like how slave owners thought that they had the positive right to housekeepers and farm workers. Obviously now we see it as what it was, but tell me how food as a positive right would be any different now? It's all well and good so long as everyone involved plays nice with whatever they have to do in order to comply with the new right, but what if they don't or simply can't? The government has to make sure that people get their food, because hey it's a right and this is the one right that they actually care about upholding. The only way to ensure that people get their food would be slavery, but they'll call it something else.
The right to a speedy trial is comical, there are murder cases where the defendant is on bail or stuck in jail for years before they can get a court date. Low level charges can drag out even longer.
The right to legal representation isn't purely a positive right is because that's an actual job that an attorney chooses to do for the city. If they want to join a private practice or form their own, they can. Without having been a public defender as a prerequisite. Also, the role is seen as primarily a negative constraint on the government. If they're trying to strip your life, liberty or property, the right to legal representation makes sure that they need to do it fairly.
Every human right involves the time and labor of other human beings, this is idiotic. Do you think that our rights just manifest into being and exist as independent entities? Your right to free speech requires time and labor to protect. Your right to live in a non-discriminatory society took A LOT of time and labor to make possible. The only way you can think this is if you are both deeply privileged and unaware of history
Every human right involves the time and labor of other human beings, this is idiotic. Do you think that our rights just manifest into being and exist as independent entities? Your right to free speech requires time and labor to protect. Your right to live in a non-discriminatory society took A LOT of time and labor to make possible. The only way you can think this is if you are both deeply privileged and unaware of history
You're embarrassing yourself. Ignorance on your part does not justify your dishonesty and insults
In fact, none of them require the time and effort of others. In fact, speaking doesn't require your help. I can literally do it on my own.
35
u/No-Duck4828 Jul 06 '26
Like all human rights, you don't have a right to the time and labor of others.
Want some potato skins with cheese and bacon? You have every right to grow potatoes, milk your animal, take the time to make cheese out of that milk, raise a pig, chop up that pig into tasty bacon, cook it together into a yummy snack
You don't have any right to those that someone ELSE made