Selling food right or wrong?
Posted on: April 24, 2009 - 12:17pm
Offline
Selling food right or wrong?
Just a quick question
Is it morally fine to sell food? We all have the right to life, But isn't that right just a meaningless line on a piece of paper if not everyone can obtain the things needed to live? Im not asking if it is practical to give food away for free although I can see a few ways it may work, but feel free to comment on it anyway. To deny people of food because they don't have money just seems wrong to me.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
P.S. I forgot to add by food I mean the basics reqired to live not cake and Mc Donalds etc.
Well, given that we need someone to expend time and energy growing the food, we have to compensate them somehow. And if we create a completely subsidized class of food, how do we regulate the supply? How do we keep Bob from hoarding bread that he will never use if it's free? I dislike the food stamp answer, but I don't see any clear alternative.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Yeah hmm just an off the top of my head thought, taxs raised government buys all the food and disterabutes it. Or farmers get payed a monthly salary by the government but provides all nessicary equipment. etc. but even with these to examples it isn't practical because of the job loss in the retail industry. but as I said not all that bothered if it is practical or not atm, more weather it is morally ok to charge people for somthing they require to live. I could draw a comparision to selling air but I really shouldn't
Im with you on not liking the food stamp answer, I will have to think of a better solution
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I would say there is nothing immoral about selling food in a general sense, though at the same time I can envision this topic branching out into multiple scenarios of differing values.
There is after all usually an alternative. If I don't want to pay for food in a store, I can go out and hunt/gather my own. And as was pointed out above, the people who did the work to ensure the food was there should be compensated for their efforts.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It is a matter of positive rights versus negative rights. Is your right to life a positive one (I have to go out of my way to save your life) or is it a negative one (I can't kill you, but I don't have to save you)? If life is a positive right then everyone should get free food since it is needed to live. If life is a negative right, then so long as a farmer is not murdering you he is not violating your rights. Even if you starve to death the farmer isn't infringing on your rights.
But the farmer has rights to. If your positive right to life forces him to give you food for free, it would violate his property rights. The thing I don't like about positive rights is they are actually obligations on other people. Once someone declares that they have a positive right, they really mean to declare that everyone must give them something or do something for them with no compensation.
I don't believe that the right to live is a positive right. If it was a positive right then not actively aiding your life is violating your rights. But I'm pretty sure that it is a negative right. Only if someone actively kills you are they violating your rights.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
If you go and hunt it is called poaching and it is against the law. I don't know about in canda but you have to pay for a hunting license here, or you have to pay per thing you shoot if it is in a game reserve. not to mention you need a gun unless you want to chase after an animal with a pointy stick.... I don't think that would end well.... you might win verus a random goat but not much else
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Echoing Jormungander: what exactly do you mean by a right to life? And who/what gives/protects that right?
yes i think you are correct here, no one should go to jail for selling food, but to me the right to life looks rather worthless unless you have the things needed to be able to live. It would be like the government saying you have the right to education but it costs more than you could afford to get that education. unless you have the money that right is meaningless. Rights are supposed to be for everyone, yet they appear meaningless to me if you are poor. Anther example... you have the right to vote but the polling station is 1000km away. it makes that right meaningless. This was my point not that it violates your rights, just that it makes them meaningless
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
What an odd question. What kind of bizarre base belief would lead anyone to think selling food is immoral? That defies everything we know about game theory, and by extension, the foundations of reciprocal altruism and society.
It's called non-zero sum math, folks.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
hmmm can you give me a short explaination of game theory as I have no clue of what it is.
But here is why I think it could be immoral, im not actaully 100% sure it is.
We all need food to survive. correct? to not have food would be a bad thing. correct? To me anything that prevents people from geting what they need to survive is a immoral thing. agreed? because selling food prevents somone from living it is immoral. So because forcing people to pay for food causes extremely poor people to starve it is immoral. Then again I think it is immoral not to give a starving person food if you won't starve as a consiquense. I am actually interested in the food industry and food in genral (it seems that is where my career is likely to be) if you have an objection point it out.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Since humans became 'civilized', we invented this concept of land ownership, water, oil and mineral 'rights'. I have a huge problem with this concept, I've been accused of being a communist and a socialist for not supporting property rights over natural resources. I have a huge problem with anyone just saying they own something they didn't work to create.
The hungry can't go onto a farmer's land and take food and livestock to eat and they can't use this land themselves to farm. So the farmer must be taxed based on natural resource usage to provide social services for those people struggling. The social services must be temporary and targeted toward getting people independent from government support.
If society is going to grant rights to use farmland, water, oil, etc.., the people using it must make efficient and environmentally friendly use of it and they must pay a high price to do so. We have a system now where farmers pay low property taxes, pay little for water and are often subsidized when they lose money. The theory is that helping the farmer will keep food prices down and production up. In the long run, the opposite is true, all this does is promote inefficiency and waste, bankrupt governments and keep bad farmers in business.
The technology exists to grow a lot of food without much land and with recycled fertilizer/water. But we tax the high tech business and high tech worker at a very high rate with income taxes while subsidizing outdated, wasteful farming methods. Tax inefficient use of natural resources, don't subsidize it.
But some people who receive food aid from the government will always refuse to work or train for job to support themselves. Some will spend money on drugs before they will buy food. Some will keep having babies even though they can't feed themselves. Some people can't be helped by current social services. Unfortunately, since we don't have mandatory birth control, there will be some people go hungry. Malthus is a bitch.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Game theory is from economics, originally, but it applies extremely well to biology. Essentially, it's the study of how various stratgies work in very big interacting systems.
It's kind of difficult to start from scratch and paint you a picture of non-zero sum altruism in a blog post, but here's the basic idea. There's a mathematical principle explaining how collaboration is better than self-sufficience. That is, if I try to build both spears and axes, I will be less efficient than if I build only spears or axes, and trade with the person who makes what I do not. In the case of collaboration for production, 1+1 is greater than 2.
I'm jumping a lot of steps, but hopefully you can see that IF you're going to have any significant number of humans at all, everybody can't make food. The thing is, denying the growers of food trade for their food means they don't get spears, so you have to set up a system where some spears go to the growers for free... except that it's not free because someone had to make it, and they're not getting trade for it... unless you count the food they get as trade... in which case, it's not free, but trade.
You see what I'm getting at? Money is just a form of trade, and you can't avoid trade. Imbalance is inherent in culture. In a way, it is the defining principle of culture. While it's comforting and politically beneficial to preach about how everybody needs food, it's just rhetoric. Everybody needs a place to live, too, and a spear to protect themselves, and clothes to keep themselves warm, etc, etc, etc.
The road you're travelling leads to ideology.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This seems like odd response for someone that supports minimum wage as way to prevent poverty and hunger. Doesn't fixing food prices low amount to about the same as fixing wages high? In the short run it may help a few struggling people. But in the long run it promotes inefficience and low productivity? It just exacerbates the supply/demand problem instead of solving the imbalance.
So according to game theory and economics, why is fixing wages high when there is a labor oversupply good, but fixing food prices low when there is a food undersupply bad?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
It shouldn't seem odd, EXC. In isolation, fixing low food prices will have the same effect as fixing high wages, but an economy isn't isolation. People also want cars and clothes and other market items, so the two options are not equivalent.
But none of what you're asking has to do with what I said. All economies are based on trade. Period. Trade is absolutely unavoidable in human society. Money is a surrogate for goods. If I give you a spear in exchange for food, or I give you a dollar in exchange for food, I am doing the same thing, since you can convert the dollar into a spear by giving it to the spear-maker.
So, given the base-line equivalence of money and goods, and given the math of specialization, it's absurd to suggest that food should be given away. Selling it or trading it for goods the farmer needs is equivalent. Whether the government is in charge of making sure the farmers have enough resources to farm, or whether the economy itself is expected to drive the system is irrelevant. If there are humans farming, there will be trade for food.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
ahh yes I can see what you are saying but I think you may have the wrong Idea of what im saying, maybe not and im just being stupid. im not suggesting the farmers don't get paid. money is still used except the government does the buying, would be the most ovious practical solution but nt the only one I can think of. Im just saying that having something that prevents you from living is immoral. It would infact be immoral if the farmers didn't get payed or if a greater number of people died or were harmed by it. This is precisly why I said 'im not asking if it is practical' to aviod money would of course not be pratical, but I see now practicallity does have to come into it if we are talking about if it is immoral. But I think 'having a system that prevents you from living is immoral' is basically correct. your problem comes in on the practical side or am I way off base? Also im not suggesting everyone grows there own food although that is a possible solution but not very practical one. Maybe I phrased the question wrong, with nearly every possible solution people who have enough money will still be indirectly paying for the food through tax. But this way no one starves if it can be done right. Im refering to the current way it is done as immoral, perhaps it is not the buying and selling part that is immoral to me. but the current way it is arranged
Just because imbalence is inherent in our culture that doesn't make it moral, its just something that is there and in my view can be immoral. Yes everyone does need a place tro live and that to should be provided in my view, I wouldn't go so far with that as I do with food as you can live with out a place to live (notice a place to live doesn't have to be house it could be a large room where lots of people sleep with common facilities, im not talking about comfort). Same goes with weapons accept I don't think those should be provided, maybe there is a logical inconsistancy there but I don't think so, as food is a nessesity the rest are not, you can survive without them. Water is something I think should be free as well, not to your house that is a luxery but there sould be plenty public taps in my view whitch there are.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Again, I have to go with a short, incomplete answer, primarily because you're asking about subjects that take very large books to cover in depth.
The original question, as I read it, was whether or not it's moral to sell food. The answer is simple. It is neither moral nor immoral, since human society is necessarily imbalanced, and trade is necessary. We might as well ask if it's immoral for humans to breath through their ears. If something isn't possible, discussing its morality is nonsense.
If you want to get into a question of which political system most effectively ensures that every member of society has enough food to eat, we can do that, but it's kind of beside the point. I'll grant that as a general principle, we can say a government is immoral if it allows its citizens to starve when it could prevent it. But that doesn't have much, as they say, to do with the price of rice in China.
Once we have granted that governments are morally obligated to prevent starvation, we have lots more questions to answer:
* Are governments morally required only to prevent starvation, or to attempt to provide a high quality of life?
* What mitigating circumstances, if any, would trump the government's obligation? For instance, if the country is being invaded, and there is only enough food to feed the troops OR feed those who cannot afford food, what should the government do?
* Assuming an obligation to prevent starvation, does the government have a moral obligation to enforce fairness? What does fairness mean, and to what does it apply?
These are all extremely complex questions, and I'm not about to try to answer them. However, you should be aware that food production and distribution doesn't happen in a vacuum. Whatever proclamations you make about food distribution are going to affect all areas of the economy, and lead to their own set of "forced moves" which may or may not be moral in their own right.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I will admit I hadn't thought of the political implications, it wouldn't be very.... well it wouldn't fit in with the rest of capitalism very nicely. yes after rereading what I wrote it would be very easy to get that impresion, im not always the best at puting my views forward, I will be the first to admit that.
yes and here I have no answer. This is another reason why I wanted to remove it from all praticality. I realised it may not be moral to change as more people may be harmed than helped. I merely wanted to know if people thought the current system was morally ok without worrying about the alternative. Maybe a mistake on my part.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
There's your mistake. Morality is practicalty. There are no morals outside of that which does or does not cause a certain effect.
To ask whether food distribution, removed from practicality, is moral or not is the equivalent of asking whether or not baseball, played without balls, bats, gloves, or a diamond, is a good sport.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
On the other hand, we don't deny hungry folks the opportunity to free food when they're put in jail.
Now that would be immoral if we didn't feed them, Im of the mind that a little physical labour never hurt anyone. There does need to be punishment in prisons not just siting around until lunch time. But more importantly people shouldn't have to go to jail to get something to eat.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Well, I'm of the opinion that it would be nice if the government simply provided 'basics' to everyone; a small studio apartment, a small but reasonable grocery allowance, utilities, transportation and perhaps your choice of TV or the internet in order to stay abroad of current events and be at least marginally entertained.
I think it would be nice for a few reasons:
1) I think we would see a voluntary reduction in rampant growth as some portion of the population simply decide that the bare minimum is fine by them if they don't have to work for it, perhaps consolidating a fair number of people into much more sustainable living conditions.
2) It would likely reduce saturation of the job market when things like massive lay-offs occur.
3) People who dislike their jobs and so make it their priority to make their working space a miserable place to work around would perhaps choose to keep their misery at home and make work a more enjoyable affair.
4) It would give homeless persons a place to be other than on the street asking for money.
5) It would be an excellent way for a person like myself, who does not cope well with work environments and becomes a rather bad employee in a short span of time, to stay out of the way and out of trouble.
Now, 'nice' and 'viable' are two different thing of course, and I'm not sure such a plan with meet the latter criteria (I imagine it would be rather expensive and I don't think a vast majority of people would be interested in paying taxes towards such a program).
...Similarly, I think it would be nice if we could just feed everyone at no expense. Unfortunately, that nice idea does not mesh with reality.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
What do you mean, that if one voluntarily agrees to be sterilized, the government would guarantee you have the minimum to live on? Because if you don't require no more babies, people will use the fact that the government provides for them as an excuse to go out and have many more.
Wouldn't a better plan be to be evaluated by educators, psychologists and social workers to find out how you can become a happy and productive member of society? Perhaps help you with starting your own business?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Im in 100% agreement with you here. But to achieve it I think we would be looking at 70/80% tax. expessially if you include things like the internet and transportation and definatly a reasonable place to live. Although I think would go for it. It could possibly solve a lot of problems. cause alot more as well. But I would be worried about a reduction of the economy as would most people work if they were to have 80% of the money they make taken away? this intern reuces the amount the government has to work with making it impossible. This is why I would keep it to the bare minimum needed to survive.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Well, that is certainly the big problem with your plan. I think that it would be nice to have several wives. If one of them stops putting out, there are always the others. If that one has such a terrible problem that it never occurs to her to do it ever again, she can sit alone for the rest of her life.
As far as the specifics of your plan, I can see some points that you may have missed:
1) Any government big enough to give you everything that you need is also powerful enough to take away everything that you have. Further, in order to give the minimum to the “have not” crowd, they would have to take stuff away from those who have more than they need today.
If it were enough to just take stuff from those who inherit millions of dollars and sit around not doing much, that would be tempting but I suspect that there would not be enough of those people to deal with all of the others. So we would probably end up with no choice but to take away from those of us who have struggled up through the middle class. In that case, what incentive in there to working hard at all? You can sit on your but contemplating your navel and have the basics taken care of. Problem being that if there are not enough people out there working hard to get ahead, then there is nobody to pay for such expensive basic care of everyone who only does the minimum.
2) Sure, if nobody needs to work, then when there are not enough jobs to go around, people simply do not have to contribute to society in general. However, we cannot all be takers. Someone has to be out there getting rich, except that there is no real incentive to work past being just a bit better off than your neighbors. If you did try to put into the system, the government would just take it away from you.
3) You forgot about the workplace sadists who like the idea of making other people miserable at work.
4) No comment.
5) Do please come to Connecticut. You can work for the same company that I do. They will hire anybody regardless of how well they work with others. If you are as miserable as you say that you are, you can be my supervisor in a year or two.
=
That depends on the animal you're hunting, and the country you live in.
The same applies here, to standard game animals. However, perhaps 99% of all the species of animal in Canada are not considered game animals, and you do not therefore need a license to hunt them. Though at the same time, I don't know many people who would hunt a skunk or a mouse or the like. Still, they are quite edible.
I chased down a young dear once, completely unintentionally (at least, that it ended with the collapse of the dear, and its subsequent death, wasn't at all my intention; I was just having some harmless fun running through the woods, or so I had thought), so it can be done.
Making your own bow and arrow wouldn't take too much effort.
And there's plenty of places (here at least) to fish that are nowhere near civilization, which pretty well nullifies the chances of getting busted for it.
And finally, a pointy stick works wonders on small animals, though I wouldn't recommend trying to bring down a moose or a bear with one.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, that is not what I meant.
Consolidating people into studio apartments and away from suburbs is much more sustainable than everyone having an enormous lot & house.
Um. Are you sure of the 2nd statement? Source?
Pardon; I don't mean that I'm a miserable person to work around. I mean that, over time, I tend to care less about what I'm doing and get rather sloppy and/or incompetent, which tends to get me into trouble and causes problems for my employer.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Well, in theory, there would be incentive to go out and do something for those people with the ambition to do so in the form of our base instincts to compete with one another. I'm not sure how many people are happy to have the 'bare minimum', as it were (...for that matter, I'm not sure how many mates people in such circumstances would attract); in order for such a proposal to work, of course, there would need to be far more people who aren't than are (I presume, then, that you think there is not?) - as I said before, I'm not sure that this is the case, and so not sure such an idea is at all viable (and if it were, again, I don't think it would be nearly popular enough to be implemented. If conservative platforms have demonstrated anything at all, it's that people do not like paying taxes).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
location diffenance I supose
you evil person, killing bambi
geting busted for it is irrelavant, it is against the law. Forcing people to break the law is wrong. I challenge you to make a bow and arrow with no money and with nothing that costs money. Any bow you make wouldn't be strong enough to do anything i think. Hey but for all I know it is possible in canda with no prior knowledge. I know it is possible in south africa but unless you have been trained from birth to do it you will fail, the san people do it here, our very own hunter gatherer tribe 
They run down fully grown animals, it takes 6 hours of straight running on the hottest day of the year with only a bottle of water (very little) and a spear to give the animal a quick death when it falls (they don't throw them but wait for the animal to fall). of course not there every day method. seriously those guys are amazing. fishing is an option but you need a fishing license here for somekinds of fish but you could do it I supose not that you would survive long without some equipment I supose you could make that, im sure you could find some stuff that would work even if you had nothing, branch from a tree if you go that way etc net would probably be better though.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Civilized societies (and generally successful ones) ensure everyone can eat as hungry people tend to shoot the less hungry.
The best method so far to ensure this happens has been capitalism with a social security net. This isnt perfect but this regulated market seems to be the best one humanity has come up with.
So yes its ok to sell food but if someone can't afford to eat and has no reasonably way of obtaining the means to do so (ie working or social security) its quite ok to steal the food or even kill to get it
Fertility rate is 3x higher for women on welfare vs. non-welfare:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/08/25/welfare-continues-to-drive-new-births.htm
Animals will reduce their reproduction rates when food supply is limited. No reason to think humans are different. How many people you know delayed or decided not to have children until they could afford them?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
For large animals, you're kind of fucked in Africa, I agree. Too much protection for them. But there are still small ones, else there could not be big ones. I'm sure there are plenty of rodents around, for example. And I doubt very much you need a license to kill them, unless perhaps you're doing so as a business.
lol.
I have very little respect for the law in general. I respect certain laws, ones that make sense and have to deal with things like murder. But society is far too free in making laws that have no purpose but to limit freedom. I have no respect for these laws, and do not recognize them. I recognize that society recognizes them, and so I will make sure to be well concealed whenever I break such laws, but I have no problem with breaking them. I am morally required to do so.
30 minutes access to the internet and knowledge on how to do a search with google or wikipedia (or access to someone willing to do it for you) would provide one with knowledge to be able to make bows and arrows for the rest of their days. I'd guess about 70-80% of the world's population could accomplish this if they truly desired to and put effort into it. It's not like you need constant access, its a one time deal.
Of course, there are plenty of plants that you can eat, and many bugs qualify as food too; even if one tends to find them offputting. There's a lot of food around if one is willing to put some effort into it. We just happen to be a species which ignores more types of food than it consumes, thanks to the ability to produce the kinds we prefer at will.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Just a small point, the law is going to be the least of your worries if you try kill a large animal in africa, and probably in many other places around the world. You will likely come off second best in most cases. did you know more zoo keepers are seriously injured by zebras every year then lions? even the herbivores can dish it out. But yes there are a couple small animals in africa, good luck catching them though let alone finding them. But i will conceed it might be possible, but I highly doubt sustanable.
pity the government doesn't see it that why, but making hunting against the law does make sense to me
Don't think there is much of the right kind of wood in south africa, not sure tbh. I mean unless you are going to go cut down a tree in somes back yard that is. Mainly grasslands here. But if you want sucsess and not to morally inclind you want to use snares, far better sucsess rate I would think and easier to make. The only problem I have with the last bit is how do you know what is eatable?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
It would actually surprise me if predators injured people more than herbivores. By the very nature of the animal being a predator, certain precautions are taken that often aren't for herbivores, despite the reality that herbivores in general outmass predators many times over through population density if not through individual density.
I can agree with hunting rules that help to enforce a natural equilibrium between the environment and the environment, but I can't support any other type of enforcement. For example, I fully support the seal hunt in Canada. Not taking part in it would lead to the overfishing and then extinction of many types of fish that are already on the edge, as well as some that currently seem safe. It could potentially lead to the extinction of seals.
Whereas I am completely against hunting game animals for sport. Also I am against the hunting of predators that help keep populations in check when one can take other measures to protect livestock instead. Unfortunately most people cannot afford such measures, which is yet another reason I am against capitalism. It does not allow for restructuring until a desperation point has already been reached and in many cases has been crossed beyond the point of return.
If one ignores access to accumulated human knowledge, one can simply observe the actions of other animals. Granted, this is not always a successful tactic, and it is possible you will consume something that the animal you observed eating it has an immunity to while you do not, but in a general sense it is a tried and true technique that every animal on Earth and even some plants have had to take part in at one point or another. Generally, if a bear or lion or zebra can eat it without dying, so can you. There are exceptions, but there aren't a whole lot of them.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The true purpose of governments (which they all neglect) is to provide a food, housing, healthcare and education to all people as a basic human right.
It is right to sell food, if everyone can buy it. But obviously, a large part of humanity can't buy it. This is why basic foods should be made available for free. I mean a basic food, like bread, rice, potatoes, etc, but a luxury food should be of course always paid. I believe that the global warming can make some northern areas (of Russia, Canada, etc) suitable for farming, which will make it even more possible.
The freely available basic food can be a great factor changing the society. People wouldn't have to commit crimes to get food. They also wouldn't be so afraid of quitting a bad job, they could survive well without being hassled by a tyrannic employer. And, they could discover if they are by any chance geniuses who can make the world better, when they won't have to toil at stupid factories.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
The true purpose of governments? Hell no. I hope that my government does not hand out food, healthcare or housing.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I don't understand....... what do you have against this? Everyone needs these things and im not seeing the negative impact on you. Maybe if you lived in a country where millions of people are with out a decent roof over there head, or have any food security then maybe you would see it differently. I am really at a loss at how free food, healthcare and housing could be a bad thing. Free housing doesn't mean anything bigger than a 2 room house, free food, just means enough so people don't starve, and free healthcare is very important, what happens if you cannot afford treatment?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Then who will "toil at stupid factories?"
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
illegal immagrants, they already do
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Well, actually government has many purposes, Luminon, you seem to be talking about democratic government, I'd guess, in which case the purpose of it is to instate equitably shared decision making authority through elected representatives - an intent to ensure basic living standards for all represented people could be a result of that but it doesn't really orginate in it, democratic government's purpose is to assure the people decide what they get inherently and so forth, it doesn't of itself imply any of the nature of the assurance that follows.
That said... Jormangunder, what is so scary about social provision of fundamental needs? It could be good for us all to move the focus of human activity away from trade centered around securing basic living and on to things more ambitious. This can't happen if our lives are doomed from dot to be entangled in meeting benchmark obligations first and being creative and industrious only if and when we overcome the struggle for basic needs. And it's not as though this ultimately would have to rob providers of their livelihood, there are a good number of successful socialised systems in our modern world that can testify to the fact that it doesn't reduce the living standard of the provider.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
It's not free. Taxes.
Also concern about government inefficiency, I'm guessing. Plus a few other things.
Here, the government is a failure, devoid of any authority, decision making, or listening to the people.
As the proverb says, the government is like a fire. Good servant, but bad master. As for the needs, people simply doesn't know them yet. They must first have the basic necessities I mentioned, simply because they're so necessary. Only then their minds will be finally free to start thinking about serious things. It's diffcult to think if the life is a blur between work, sleep and watching of TV.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Yes that is 100% correct taxes would pay for it. I see nothing wrong with that. But it would be free to the poor as they don't pay taxes, at least here they don't. And government inefficency.... thats kind of why we have elections every couple years, old one doesn't provide then out they go. But even if they are inefficent, you still have the money to get these things the poor doesn't. I supose it isn't as bad, there is social welfare in america right? tbh i really wouldn't expect rich countries to want this kind of thing. But here with 42% unemployment (i think can't remember exactly) we desperatly need a solution
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Precisely.
None of the right wing aristocracy is interested in sharing with the peasantry. Tossing them a handful of shillings, in their framing of the world, is more than sufficient.
Sadly, the peasants are also all too willing to throw the monarchy their lashes.
Bahhaaahh, as it were.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940