Compassion anyone?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I cannot understand this whole SNAP debacle that is being played out and talked about. I do not understand how ANYONE can be against feeding the hungry. I am willing to concede that there will be waste and fraud. I cannot imagine what system(s) would not have *some* waste and fraud. That said, waste and fraud are bad, but, let's not go throwing the baby out with the bath water, eh?

Food is NOT an option for people. Neither is water. These two things are HUMAN RIGHTS as far as I am concerned. Nobody, anywhere, should be deprived of access to food and water. And you know what, these things, in their most basic form (ie. basic food staples, not fancy food feasts), should be free. That's right, free. For *every single person*.

I understand that to some cold-hearted demons out there, people only deserve food and water if they *work* for it. Well fuck that. Work is not the pre-requisite, IMO, for food or water. Those should be denied to NOBODY.

I have a question to ask folks here, and I'm not sure I will be able to stomach the responses, but here goes:

Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?

Comments

[aelf.livejournal.com]

Is anyone saying a hungry person should be denied food or water? My understanding is that the conversation is "how much does it cost / how much should we allocate."

There is clearly an amount of money that is extravagant - I doubt anyone would argue that a hungry person needs 1K/week in order to remain whole. We could also probably agree that $500/week for one person is excessive. We would probably agree that it's unreasonable for a person to feed himself on $1/week, or $10/week. But what about $50/week? $100/week? I think that's what the conversation is - how much is enough, without being extravagant. When we have excess money, extravagance is fine. When we're feeling a financial pinch, extravagance needs to be pulled in. Reasonable people can disagree about what is extravagant.

Casting your opponent as wanting hungry people to starve does not make you appear reasonable.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

The entire argument that we are short on money is bullshit. The reason we are short on funding (govt-wise) is because of the massive level of tax evasion that happens at the highest of levels. Reasonable people can disagree about what is extravagant--but only to a point.

There is no reasonable person (IMO) who claims 4.50/day is extravagant.
That's like those who claim that 7.25/hour is *too high* for the minimum wage. (I have met those people. "Wanna fix unemployment in the US? Drop the min wage in half, you'll see how fast employment picks up...." I sincerely wish that was a straw-man, but it was a real person who said that, to my face)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oh, and yes, the people who want to privatize water, are absolutely saying that.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?

When they aren't sufficiently bootstrappy according to standards set by people who don't live that way either.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

s/don't/can't

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I just want to go on record as being in favor of throwing out babies and keeping bathwater.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I suspected nothing less of the clergy.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Well, after the babies are done flavoring it, what else are you gonna do with them?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I commend you on your innovative policy position. Conserving water is important. So much so that population reduction is justified.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Silly question requires silly answer. Here you are!

Q: Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?
A: When there isn't enough food/water.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And that's why NOBODY has ever gone without food in the USA.

....right?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Question: in the US do we currently not have enough food/water?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

It seems like a sensible answer.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

That is a very good point. It would be much more profitable to sell that food to people in other countries who can afford to pay for it.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's an act of compassion when you're deciding how to spend other people's money. But if you're out there actually doing food drives or farming or giving people your food or money, then that's an act of compassion.

Otherwise you're just a hypocrite waiting for someone else to solve the issue and then taking credit for it because you wrote about it on the internet.

[paft.livejournal.com]

t: I don't think it's an act of compassion when you're deciding how to spend other people's money

You don't think those of us who advocate for government assistance pay taxes?

You are aware, right, that foodbanks and other such charities are swamped? That they are frequently forced to turn people away? Think things would get better if there were no government aid whatsoever?

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

Until there is a one to one ratio of appropriate job opportunities to those who need jobs, nobody should ever be penalized for being unemployed.

[404.livejournal.com]

Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?

Clearly Snidely Whiplash is withholding the poor food and water!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

is he the CEO of Nestle now?



Start at 2:10 to see it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I support feeding and clothing and housing the destitute.

Mainly because of the daily panhandling I experience...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I agree. Well fed and nicely dressed panhandlers are an asset to any community.

[existentme.livejournal.com]

"Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?"

The phrasing is difficult, and certainly as problematic as the word "free," for on its face, of course, the answer is "never."

That much said, what if a perfectly healthy and able-bodied person were to set up a recliner on a front lawn, prop up their feet with a book, and place a sign in front: "give me food and water." I would be inclined to say, "no, get it yourself or starve and thirst to death."

That much more said, it's my feeling there are certainly enough resources in the world that none of its 7 billion ought be hungry or thirsty, period, regardless if they are sitting in the recliner as the one in the example above. This is why, though I have libertarian leanings, I am an anti-capitalist.

[tigron-x.livejournal.com]

The overall standard of living has increased in China as capitalism was brought into the fold.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't go so far as to call them "human rights," or say they should be free. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there should be access... but going that far sets expectations that we can't meet. Why not give basic staples and water to everyone then, even if they can afford it?

I guess when I think "human rights," I think of freedoms and rights that don't require someone else to provide something on a regular/ongoing basis. Because those people have rights and freedoms, too. To me, a basic tenet of our society is to get something in exchange for doing something, not to get something for doing nothing.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"To me, a basic tenet of our society is to get something in exchange for doing something, not to get something for doing nothing."

So when you were born, what did you do to get treatment? I am guessing you were born in a hospital where there were doctors and the like around, to make sure you would be healthy--when you were born, what did you provide them with to balance out them giving you medical care?
--oh, right, babies don't have anything to give


When you (okay, don't know about you, so I'll switch to me) When I attended public school, what was it that I was giving? Cause I was getting, but I was getting and I was not doing something to get it. How come?


Maybe it's cause certain things, like education or basic medical care, benefit *all* members of society. All members of society are better off when the soceity is full of healthy and educated people--that is why, even if you have no children you pay taxes for public schools, and why, in most of the developed world, people pay taxes for public healthcare. These things, directly beneficial to you or not, are indirectly beneficial to anyone who lives in society.

I consider food and water to be more important than education or medicine. I do not understand why others disagree with that.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"Under what circumstances should a hungry person be denied food/water?"

When you're trying to save the hungry people's appetites for eating the Unites States senators of course. Geez, give me something hard.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

I fully support allocating 0bamacare insurance money to the hungry & back to the taxpayers.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

0h h3ll0, r3s1d3nt e-h1pst3r! L0ng t1m3 n0 s33! G0t @nyth1ng 3ls3 0f subst@nc3 t0 @dd?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Feed the hungry. By any means necessary.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

There is no logical, ethical, causal or sane reason why anyone should even have the power/control in the first place to actually be able to DENY a hungry person to food or water and then ENFORCE that denial to prevent them from actually obtaining it.

PERIOD.

I think we are, refreshingly, in agreement on this.