TTI Forums

I wouldn't call this a "deep" or intellectual post but I thought I would make a posting about the UN's recent scolding of Canada for it's lack of a food security program for its population. Some are calling for a national "right-to-food" strategy to feed hungry people.

This reminds me of Rand's writings:
A right to food? Provided by whom?

I personally do not lack for food but if I did I cannot imagine demanding food from other people as if I had a right to it.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article ... dian-today

The UN is well known for its socialist point of view. It is part of the UN charter that if the UN determines that a country is not providing enough basic services for its citizens, the UN can declare that government invalid and can enter that country without regard for the government's sovereignty. What this level of basic services are is not defined. It seems to be subjective, and probably changes along with what is politically correct.

Many people here are probably familiar with the concept of positive and negative rights, but I believe that the government is only justified in using force to enforce negative rights, such as your right not have your property stolen or your right not to be assaulted. A positive right is whenever something is added to you that you didn't have before, like a right to food. When the government enforces a positive right it has to use force to take the necessary funds from someone else. So saying you have a right to food is essentially saying you have the right to use force to take part of someone else's labor. Liberals generally only look at the ends and ignore the means.