Is there a constitutional right to food? Mainers to decide

We are probably thinking the same way but I would word it differently.

To me, a right is something that everyone has initially until the government takes that thing away. Putting a right into law simply means that the government can't take your right away.

You have the right to water until the government says that you can't drill a well, you can't hook up to the city system, you can't access that river, etc.

 

then you aren't talking about rice and rights don't exist you only have the privileges afforded to you by the government.

Rights are limits put on the government.

no the people being able to slay the government means the government cannot take your rights away. That's why the Second Amendment is so important it gives us the power to slay our government if they try.

You don't have the right to anything you have the freedom from things.

 

it gets a lot worse than that though. the only thing preventing the cloning of a human (if you believe such things aren't going on) is that its illegal. modifying human dna, just slightly, would make the resulting organism not technically human, not subject to any rights, and totally patentable (read: ownable) by its creator/modifier.

 

yep, it's like people claiming to own slaves in the past

 

I dunno. 'Slaves' tend to be used for labor. Most labor done by slaves can be done by robots now. I hate to think what the technocratic elites would 'use' slaves for today... 'slave' might not be a horrible enough term for it.

 

true, even slave traders did not claim to own the future off spring of the slaves they sold

maybe corps could copyright their pollution too, then sue people that breathe it without paying, thus prevent anyone from being able to complain

 

Interestingly, some states have laws that could interfere with someone putting food on their own table, but (ironically?) these seem to be the same states where most of the people view being given food as a right.

If a conservative stops to think about that for a moment, it really shouldn't be that surprising.

 

Anyway, I don't oppose this Maine constitutional right, I just find it asinine the background situation within which it is needed.
What this is really tantamount to is these people trying to protect people from themselves, and their own mentality run amok. They want to keep passing endless rules and laws which necessarily cut back rights, but at the same time they want to secure rights. They want two different things that are in conflict with each other.

 

yep, even in republican States the corps buy the laws

 

Depends a bit on your definition of food


But verge gardens are becoming quite the “thing” in Australia

 

Well sorta

You might be in real trouble if you plant one of these too near the fence


And in central Qld an awful lot of houses we’re proud of their beautiful Angels Trumpet shrubs



Rudy thing is a hallucinogenic

 

Not at all.

 

Where does free food come from? It's either donated and you don't have a right to it or it's taken.

If you're taking something from somebody without paying for it you're either stealing it or you're enslaving them.

 

Tell that to the Japanese/American interment camps.

 

Why is that happening?

 

That was a violation of constitutional rights.

 

Because food doesn't just magically appear somebody has to cultivate it somebody has to raise it somebody has to harvest it.

There's an entire chain of many industries involved in getting food to you. If you don't pay for it all that's done for free.

 

Which was not prevented or limited.

 

Why would it not be paid for?

 

Are they still in operation today?

 

Do you know what a right is? I don't have to pay for my right to free speech. These are things you're guaranteed regardless of your ability to pay for it.

 

Nope, because the govt decided to let them go.

 

Then it was limited. It was still a violation of constitutional rights

 

Doesn't work that way.

 

WHICH WASN'T PREVENTED.