Should the government have a program that provides food for people who can't provide it for themselves?
Why/why not?
Reading the replies from our useless wingnuts you'd think we lived in the past, when food was difficult to produce. In those times, including the massive program carried out by Stalin to starve Ukraine into submission, food was given or withheld to control people. Reading what Ben and others say, their mindset remains in the past, and Stalin's means of manipulation fits right into how they would use food as a control tool. Along with torture and maiming. Fuck all that.
Hunger is a political problem. We are now able to produce enough food so that everybody in the world need not be food insecure without straining the economic system. Instead of looking at this situation as an opportunity to advance society, our backward folk yearn for the days when millions can starve if they don't tow the line. Societies that don't starve people into submission are doing better than the good ole boys 'merica. Germany, France, Denmark, UK, Netherlands, Japan and many other countries have adopted systems where people compete and succeed through education and can take risks without fear of starvation.
Society needs more educated and innovative people, not serfs and manual laborers. Most people want to succeed and better themselves if given a chance. Putting a person and his family at risk of starvation if they take a risk and everybody starves is an impediment to progress. We already can see that making food -- or better put, food security -- is part of modern and thriving economies. So, yes, think of food security as a basic right, fund education and healthcare for everybody and this country can begin to move out of the bad old days.
What a great Question to ask.
. I know how shitty it is, why I live where I live JJ
