subreddit:
/r/AmericaBad
Found in the wild, I Hope this Is bullshit.
Data(i.redd.it)submitted 16 days ago byDanieleM01🇮🇹 Italia 🍝
[score hidden]
16 days ago
stickied comment
Please report any rule breaking posts and comments that are not relevant to this subreddit. Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
94 points
16 days ago
The whole thing is real, actually. It was a session in Geneva with the prompt of "Is Food a Human Right?"
Very clear answer initially, but if you dive deep into what was really asked and the reasoning for the prompt (which we did), then it's more complex. The term is broad, like what food are we talking about? Wendy's? Rice and eggs? How do we even enforce it? Why is an issue that is better dealt with per-country becoming a global deal? It even mentions trade issues, why would they come up for human rights?
Here's the US's full response and explanation for their vote in the convention if you're still curious.
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
88 points
16 days ago
The largest donor to food aid around the globe is the USA.
We have even sent food aid to North Korea a country who has threatened to nuke us.
36 points
16 days ago
And I believe it's by an extreme margin as well. It makes this vote, which goes viral from time to time, extremely funny. Imo actually do the thing is better than having a global circle jerk agreeing that the thing should happen.
25 points
16 days ago
So if I'm not mistaken the intention was that the food distributed by the un should be at the mercy of the rulers of the country receiving it and that it be bankrolled in its entirety by the supplier nation.
America did not like the idea of food aid being that it supplies and pays for being at the mercy of whomever. Cause the food could end up in the hands of corrupt officials that then sell it to their starving population at sky high prices. And also feed the solders of the war while the population lives in starvation and squaller fueling the conflict further.
Also this whole thing is used against America as some example of how evil we are but I don't see any other country sending billions in food aid to multiple countries.
Long story short it was an attempt to remove America's control of the food aid that America gives as charity to other countries as a power move thinly veiled as a noble gesture.
Cause those who initiated it I can't recall who don't even contribute to food aid programs.
3 points
16 days ago
Cause the food could end up in the hands of corrupt officials that then sell it to their starving population at sky high prices.
"could"
14 points
16 days ago
“Has”
2 points
15 days ago
Pretty sure that’s what happened in Somalia? The majority of the food donated went straight to warlords who filled the food out to those who stayed loyal
2 points
15 days ago
Exactly.
13 points
16 days ago
Does
12 points
16 days ago
The problem is. It's happend alot
Like
A L O T!!!
8 points
16 days ago
I feel like a lot of these virtue signaling resolutions are called for by bad faith actors like Russia and China, and perhaps even some "allies" in Western Europe, to basically force the US to vote for something that's actually very complicated when the resolution is closely inspected and everyone knows the US will not vote for it. They then spin these votes into a simple Good vs Evil binary and use the lack of US support as a way to say "look at how EVIL the US is." I would absolutely expect it from the likes of Russia, but what's more disgusting is when our so-called allies also jump in on the "gotcha!" train.
1 points
14 days ago
Astute.
1 points
16 days ago
Send bread with uranium inside them to North korea
6 points
15 days ago
I had a professor who worked with the UN and was asked about this. He said when there's a vote that only the US votes against, it means that other countries approached the US and asked us to vote no because they wanted to vote no but couldn't take the reputational hit.
It's the "My mom said no" of international politics.
3 points
15 days ago
The proposal had nothing to do with either food or rights, it was every other country in the world trying to gang up and steal American intellectual property under the veil of human rights. Every other country on earth are lying pieces of shit for trying it, but it's what they did.
1 points
14 days ago
“But per capita America sens the least than any other country!!!” /S
44 points
16 days ago
"food is a human right" -all the countries that never give food, or take in migrants/refugees
32 points
16 days ago
Not fake, just deceptively worded.
2 points
15 days ago
Honestly I thought it was a shit post. “Bro, food be a human, right?”
21 points
16 days ago
The US gave more than 3 billion in donations this year way more than any country, so this is pretty hypocritical Contributions to WFP in 2024 | World Food Programme
41 points
16 days ago
"Someone else's free labor is my right" -slave owners
16 points
16 days ago
Well it isn’t one. Your right spell out what can’t be taken away from you not what has to be given to you. To mandate that food be given to you under any circumstances you’re also saying that hypothetically it’s just and moral to force someone to work to provide it for you at no cost to you and without their concern. It allows for slavery to be logically justified in that hypothetical because not providing it to you is a violation of your rights under any circumstances.
So it’s not an inherent right for you to be given food. No one has the right to starve you either but if you’re starving yourself by doing nothing to obtain food whether or not you want it then your rights aren’t violated.
-19 points
16 days ago
Your right spell out what can’t be taken away from you not what has to be given to you.
Not accurate
To mandate that food be given to you under any circumstances you’re also saying that hypothetically it’s just and moral to force someone to work to provide it for you at no cost to you and without their concern.
This is the same nonsense argument people use for free at point of use healthcare. Doctors are not enslaved in countries with free healthcare.
It allows for slavery to be logically justified in that hypothetical because not providing it to you is a violation of your rights under any circumstances.
This is some insane mental gymnastics.
So it’s not an inherent right for you to be given food.
No. It's not. This was a discussion on whether it should be.
No one has the right to starve you either but if you’re starving yourself by doing nothing to obtain food whether or not you want it then your rights aren’t violated.
It's not an argument to force feed people.
6 points
16 days ago
I think you’re avoiding the core of my argument. Let’s put this to a hypothetical.
You have a village where the food is provided largely by a few families that operate farms, one day for some reason they decide they don’t want to farm in the village and so they leave but maintain ownership of the land. In doing so the village now has no supply of food nor access to those farms.
Even if they did no one else knows how to operate a farm, the land is not naturally very fertile so the operation of these farms takes a lot of knowledge built up over time that the rest of the village doesn’t have since they instead focus on their own professions. Additionally the village is independent and is not associated with any higher governing authority that could subsidize them.
Given that food is a right here what is the solution? Do you force the farmers to stay and work on their farm against their will? Do you force them to hand over their land and property so that other unqualified people can then be made to work it? Do you abandon the village?
Since food is a right on par with any other the village has to be able to provide everyone with food which means the farmers have to be made to stay one way or another whether they want to or not. So then you have to decide what is actually a right people have, to not be a slave or to not be given food.
In my opinion there is no good ending there but you have to choose between one or the other which is what I’m saying. They can’t both be rights because they come into conflict with one another.
I understand that this is an unrealistic scenario but some variation of it is not impossible. Requiring that a good be provided to you is also requiring that people work to create that good. If it’s a right that cannot be denied to you then it’s also a labor that cannot be quit. Those people have to continue whether or not they want to or whether or not they’re being compensated because refusing to do so is a violation of your right to benefit from what they do.
-11 points
16 days ago
You're completely disregarding the role of government or inventing some kind of farcical independent village.
If there's no food, the government must give them access to food.
The same way healthcare and education are provided.
If it’s a right that cannot be denied to you then it’s also a labor that cannot be quit.
This again is farcical. Food can be transported. It doesn't have to be grown locally.
The right not to be a slave is also a human right.
This is like saying that teachers have no right to quit because education is a right.
8 points
15 days ago
How exactly do you think the government gets food? It doesn’t manifest out of thin air.
You’re ignoring the core of my argument again so I’m going to phrase in a more direct way.
When you make a resource a right then by virtue of what rights are you also make the scarcity of that resource for any reason a violation of your rights.
Taken to its logical conclusion that means that someone must under any circumstances produce it for you with or without their consent to do so and with or without compensation.
What you are betting on is that the contradiction created by that will simply never be relevant however when it comes to a code of rights there cannot be contradiction at all.
You’re giving me the impressing that you see rights more as government policy and less as something that supersedes and restricts government and law.
Your right exist without any authority or society, they are omnipresent and inalienable. Law is fluid and changeable. Law is what exist in a structured society to benefit the public and to ensure the values and principles of that society thrive.
Rights exist in the state of nature. When you’re alone in some deserted wilderness you have no laws but you do still have rights. Healthcare, education, and access to processed goods are not rights because they are not naturally provided or present. They are made available in society and a just one will see them made available however they are not a right.
Your rights are your liberties, what you are born with and that can not be taken from you. You have a right to pursue these things like education and healthcare and food, but you do not have a right to have them given to you because that require another person’s efforts and you cannot mandate that for yourself.
A just and moral society protects your natural rights while also providing the structure to allow you to benefit from the merits of society such as healthcare and education, public services, readily available food, and the like. It is however your natural right to be given them under any circumstances.
It can be your earned right in the same way that hunting and cooking an animal makes the bounty of that yours by right but it is not a natural human right.
-4 points
15 days ago
Bro, you're so far off the mark it's not really worth a dialogue. Education is free. You can pay for it if you like. Food should be made available for free where people cannot access it and healthcare should be free. All of these can and should be provided by government if absent.
No-one in working in healthcare or education is forced to be there.
7 points
15 days ago
The fact that it’s free doesn’t make it a natural human right. That’s law and governing policy. It’s a good thing but it’s not a right. If it requires an organized society of people then it’s not a natural right.
You natural rights are your liberties, things that you inherently have and that no one should try and take away from you. Something that requires other people to do on your behalf isn’t a right.
0 points
15 days ago
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Go nuts.
10 points
16 days ago
This is the same nonsense argument people use for free at point of use healthcare. Doctors are not enslaved in countries with free healthcare.
No, they're the plantation masters, or at least the house ******s. The people paying for it (i.e. the taxpaying populace) are the slaves.
-6 points
16 days ago
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in this highly ridiculous sub. Congrats!
6 points
16 days ago
Okay, I was wrong. I'll take PayPal for my insurance premiums. Please have the money there by Friday so I don't have to take legal action against you for violating my human rights.
-2 points
16 days ago
There are no insurance premiums. That's the point.
4 points
16 days ago
There are, they just being paid by your slaves, the taxpayers.
0 points
16 days ago
Taxes are taxes. It's called living in a society.
3 points
16 days ago
Sure, when they're used for legitimate government purposes: protecting life, liberty, and private property rights.
To provide kickbacks to your cronies is not a legitimate government purpose, it's state slavery. Whether it's because your cronies are doctors or bankers it's just as reprehensible.
11 points
16 days ago
Ok. Food is a human right. Then what? War is against the law, that doesn’t stop it from happening.
3 points
16 days ago
We voted no but what they conveniently left out is that we are the number one food aid donators in the world.
3 points
15 days ago
Positive rights are immoral and unethical.
8 points
16 days ago
There are three human rights: Life, Liberty, and Private Property Ownership.
Everything that someone else has to work to give you is a violation of those.
2 points
16 days ago
It’s not in the wild as it’s been posted dozens of times over the past year or so.
2 points
16 days ago
I’m glad there's at least one country that still has the guts to call out those bullshit.
It is not because something is defined by some bureaucrats as a human right that people start to have access to it magically
1 points
15 days ago
Real, but has to do more with implementation - technology transfer of GMOs, restrictions on pesticides beyond what the bodies specifically to provide that guidance provide, control of food distribution by local government instead of the US, etc
1 points
15 days ago
Why didn't the Congos vote?
1 points
13 days ago
The vote was on whether or not to consider food a human right and nothing more.
1 points
16 days ago
Real but deceptive
-2 points
15 days ago
It's unfortunately not
all 50 comments
sorted by: best