this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
78 points (82.0% liked)

Reddit

17640 readers
419 users here now

News and Discussions about Reddit

Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules

Rule 1- No brigading.

**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **

YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.

Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.

**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

:::spoiler Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s
_MoveSwiftly
Thekingoflorda
ja2
Rooki
78
Only on Reddit: posting about US voting against making food a universal right every year, and the top comments justifying it (reddit.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/reddit
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Bro have you considered that starving to death is actually okay?

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lots of cringeworthy American exceptionalism and nationalism in that thread. I especially like this one:

It doesn't, all of these countries have different definitions on what "Rights" are, most of their constitutions don't even define a right in the context of a divine power as the United States does, most countries actually believe its the government's job to assign what rights its people are allowed.

It takes an impressive amount of baseless self confidence to speak with such certainty, yet with such ignorance, not only about other countries but your own country as well.

[–] dojan 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Divine power? What?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The point he's trying—but failing—to make is to invoke the core underpinnig of American legal philosophy: that people intrinsically have rights as an aspect of their being, and that they grant their government limited authority to regulate rights in order to ensure that nobody's rights get taken away or trampled on. Though the Declaration of Independence isn't part of the Constitution, it's useful rhetoric for understanding the legal philosophy of the United States, where everything I just said is phrased as:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [...]

He idiotically phrases this as "divine power" probably because of this passage, but the actual salient point is that laws and states simply do not possess the power to grant or bestow the rights that already exist independently of them.

[–] orion2145 3 points 1 year ago

It’s not that government doesn’t have the power to grant rights. It’s assumed by default that if the right wasn’t enumerated here (in the constitution) then it exists by default. None of that bars either the constitution (via amendment) or law (so long as it doesn’t contradict the constitution) from granting or conferring or even restricting/limiting rights (again as long as it doesn’t contradict the constitution). All done via the consent of the governed (ie via elected government). We seem to have forgotten we have the power to “perfect” our laws and governing document.

[–] dojan 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So he's saying that governments don't have the right to declare food a universal right?

[–] orion2145 3 points 1 year ago

Yes and incorrectly so.

[–] NightAuthor 2 points 1 year ago

How horribly concise

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

But they literally define which rights those are. There is no "natural" base, it's just whichever they decided to protect (and often times even those are infringed upon)

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, but the American constitution was actually written by god and passed down by Moses over 2000 years ago.

[–] dojan 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Happy 2024th birthday God Earth America!

[–] Kbobabob 7 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty that actually think along this line.

[–] who8mydamnoreos 8 points 1 year ago

Some Americans are indoctrinated to hate the government so much they forget that rights (despite what ever wording they use) are given and protected by the government

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

It means atheists don't have any rights 👍

[–] FireTower 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

US official reasoning from 2020, copied below. But here's the link https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-resolution-on-the-right-to-food/

This resolution rightfully acknowledges the hardships millions of people are facing, and importantly calls on States to support the emergency humanitarian appeals of the UN. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies that will have negative consequences for food security, sustainability, and income growth. Improved access to local, regional, and global markets helps ensure food is available to the people who need it most and smooths price volatility. Food security depends on appropriate domestic action by governments, including regulatory and market reforms, that is consistent with international commitments.

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

For these reasons, we request a vote and we will vote against this resolution.

[–] Dran_Arcana 12 points 1 year ago

(if genuine) isn't, "I like the concept but I think your plan sucks and won't work" a justifiable reason to say no?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

It's acquire bad reason imo. If anything, the resolution is very forgiving. It could literally pass and nothing absolutely change, yet they still chose to vote against it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bro have you considered that starving to death is actually okay?

It's okay if it's your own personal choice. But not okay if someone else is making that choice for you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Which is exactly what this UN resolution is about.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

I think we have an ethical obligation to help others. Being against forcing someone to do something at gun point doesn't necessarily mean I don't want that something done.

It's pretty disingenuous to claim being against a government provision means someone is in favor of the opposite.