Food and Clean Water

[Disinterested]

Is there any reason at all why any human anywhere in the world shouldn't have access to food and drinking water?

[Morgan_Freeman]

I'm not sure I understand the intent of your question.

I can't imagine why someone would say anyone "shouldn't" have food or drinking water.

[Disinterested]

If you don't want to answer the question that's fine.

[Morgan_Freeman]

My answer is that I can't think of any such reason -- unless maybe it's a criminal facing a stiff punishment of the sort not legal in the US.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman My answer is that I can't think of any such reason -- unless maybe it's a criminal facing a stiff punishment of the sort not legal in the US.

Many famines are created for political and economical reasons.

[Mia]

Quote by: Disinterested Is there any reason at all why any human anywhere in the world shouldn't have access to food and drinking water?

No.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Disinterested Is there any reason at all why any human anywhere in the world shouldn't have access to food and drinking water?

Yes: they can't afford it.

[G. Adams]

No, we have the ability to produce more than enough food to provide for everyone sufficiently. The arguement of 'they can't afford it' is crap, because we can afford to feed them. Both individuals and society as a whole is missing the vast potential we have because of our desire for pure material acquisition, and the lack of appreciation of for other pursuits. The greatest leaps forward in the 20th century were made from the space race. And war... Both drove humanity to new levels of technology, excellence and comeraderie. And neither are profitable adventures (on the whole, war is good for a select minorities bank balance).

But we won't see such advances by society because of the ultra-individualist, anti-social attitudes that have been pushed by the neo-liberal agenda since the '80's.

[Mia]

The earth has more than enough resources to support every living being on it. It doesn't require going to the grocery store, in many places.

If the governments in some countries would just irrigate and teach people how to grow food...they wouldn't be getting eaten by buzzards right now.

It is sick we allow human beings to fall to the bottom of the food chain in Ethiopia and other places.

Makes me SICK!

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: G. Adams The greatest leaps forward in the 20th century were made from the space race. And war... Both drove humanity to new levels of technology, excellence and comeraderie. And neither are profitable adventures (on the whole, war is good for a select minorities bank balance).

And how many of those "leaps" are useful for anything but war or fruitless space missions?

The fact that many bright minds have had their efforts diverted to the service of nation-states in the last century is irrelevant to my contention that free markets produce more wealth and technological progress than any alternative.

The fact that these adventures weren't profitable (if true) is proof that they were a misuse of resources.

Quote by: G. Adams But we won't see such advances by society because of the ultra-individualist, anti-social attitudes that have been pushed by the neo-liberal agenda since the '80's.

Quit using the term "neo-liberal". It's "classical liberal". The original meaning of "liberal" is what we now call "libertarian".

Also, your assertion that libertarians are antisocial is completely unfounded. We are strong supporters of civil society, not political society.

[Osborn F Enready]

Food and water have value, because we all need them.

If a person sits on their ass when being fully capable of getting it themselves through WORK, but chooses not to, they are CHOOSING to not have food and water, by choosing not to work for the means to buy it.

If someone lives in a desert, do they have the right to free water? Who is going to transport it, at what cost, and who absorbs that cost?

Be real, pose a truly honest question, and then we can debate. This is baiting, in a push to plead for the necessity of socialism. This is not a socialist nation, and the experiments we have introduced are currently destroying our economy. If you like socialism, there are many countries practicing your theory, and they could use your support.

Again, pose a real question, and get some real debate.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: G. Adams No, we have the ability to produce more than enough food to provide for everyone sufficiently. The arguement of 'they can't afford it' is crap, because we can afford to feed them. Both individuals and society as a whole is missing the vast potential we have because of our desire for pure material acquisition, and the lack of appreciation of for other pursuits. The greatest leaps forward in the 20th century were made from the space race. And war... Both drove humanity to new levels of technology, excellence and comeraderie. And neither are profitable adventures (on the whole, war is good for a select minorities bank balance). But we won't see such advances by society because of the ultra-individualist, anti-social attitudes that have been pushed by the neo-liberal agenda since the '80's.

Perhaps we can afford it.

Why should we?

[Mia]

Because some of us are HUMAN. 'There but for the grace of God go I...' Ever think about that?

I want to stick you in Ethiopia with Barbara Bush.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman And how many of those "leaps" are useful for anything but war or fruitless space missions? The fact that many bright minds have had their efforts diverted to the service of nation-states in the last century is irrelevant to my contention that free markets produce more wealth and technological progress than any alternative. The fact that these adventures weren't profitable (if true) is proof that they were a misuse of resources. Quit using the term "neo-liberal". It's "classical liberal". The original meaning of "liberal" is what we now call "libertarian". Also, your assertion that libertarians are antisocial is completely unfounded. We are strong supporters of civil society, not political society.

Plastics, aluminium, advanced robotics, nuclear technology, satellite communications, fucking night vision equipment etc all this and more came about at the speed they did because of human drive to be better, whether it was for purposes of war or exploration. These new sidelines of this human activity are profitable in themselves, but would not have arrived as quick as they did if not for higher purposes. Today the higher purpose is the profit itself. So actual advances are not the important thing, just the returns. And as it seems 99% of the people on this planet are prepared to buy the same damn useless thing multiple times to keep up with what the trend setters say is cool, the advances themselves arn't neccesary much of the time.

Why should I quit using the term neo-liberal? Neo-liberal politics are not the same as classical liberal politics, but more importantly the term neo-liberal also informs you of the time period we are dealing with. If I say 'classical liberal', it just describes the theory. When I say 'neo-liberal', it tells you we are talking about a particular liberal movement of the 1980's. It also differs from classical liberalism in a number of ways. Classical liberalism as a theory is in support of freedom of expression, assembly and organisation. The neo-liberals in practice were rampant authoritarians, curbing the freedom of unions, curtailing the right to organising by infiltrating and undermining left wing political groups. Classical liberals were against governments enforcing morality, neo-liberals are typically, in practice, anti-feminist, anti-drugs, anti-sex and anti-homosexual. Lets face it, neo-liberals were in fact conservatives who traded economic protectionism for economic liberalism, but were on the social and civil side of politics, still very much conservative.

I never said libertarians are anti-social, libertarians are the classical liberals, I was talking of the neo-liberals, in particular those of my own country, mainly Thatcher and her lapdogs.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: G. Adams Plastics, aluminium, advanced robotics, nuclear technology, satellite communications, fucking night vision equipment etc all this and more came about at the speed they did because of human drive to be better, whether it was for purposes of war or exploration. These new sidelines of this human activity are profitable in themselves, but would not have arrived as quick as they did if not for higher purposes.

This is pure speculation on your part. I seems self-evident to me that if humanity hadn't been at war for the better part of the last century, we would be much further along in both technology and prosperity. Medical sciences, for instance, would probably be much more advanced than they are now.

Quote by: G. Adams And as it seems 99% of the people on this planet are prepared to buy the same damn useless thing multiple times to keep up with what the trend setters say is cool, the advances themselves arn't neccesary much of the time.

How do you define "necessary"? Whether something is a "trend" or not, one market demand is just as valid as another -- your aesthetic concerns aside.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Disinterested Is there any reason at all why any human anywhere in the world shouldn't have access to food and drinking water?

"Should(n't)" implies morality, which is subjective. However, I agree that everyone should have access to food and drinking water. Whether everyone actually has such access is another story, and is not affected by normative judgements.

- Rob

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Mia Because some of us are HUMAN. 'There but for the grace of God go I...' Ever think about that? I want to stick you in Ethiopia with Barbara Bush.

I have nothing against private charities.

I might even choose to donate to one.


However, the idea that all people should be forced to give is preposterous!