June 18, 2011

"It's important for people to come out and risk arrest and do whatever it takes. Food is a right."

Says Nick Emery, one of 5 young activists arrested for feeding the homeless.

69 comments:

Sofa King said...

Food is not a right. If you're going to go through the hassle of going to jail, at least take the time to learn some basic civics.

nevadabob said...

"Food is not a right.

Nevertheless, what these people are doing is correct and moral.

We need to disabuse our out-of-control government of the idea that it can prevent us from giving sustenance to our fellow men.

These union thug police officers ought to be ashamed of themselves and if you know their children and their wives, you should give them a piece of your mind wherever they show themselves in public. (Nonviolently, of course).

Shame them.

pbAndj said...

Do you think they also arrest folks who illegally feed the birds?

If so, I'd head down there just so I could say I was arrested for feeding birds.

OTOH, it may be legal to feed birds, just not people.

edutcher said...

Presumably, Food Not Bombs is an offshoot of Breasts Not Bombs.

Too bad there's no such thing for Lefties as Brains Not Bombs.

And if they think food is a right, there are plenty of places in the world where they can still participate in a hunter-gatherer culture and find out just what their rights really are.

pbAndj said...

Do you think they also arrest folks who illegally feed the birds?

Probably no law against feeding the birds. Just the bums.

Lem said...

The quote punctuation at the end is missing..

Unless I got that wrong.

lewsar said...

Food is a right. and since it's a right, it is only natural that the federal government take over food distribution for all citizens, if only if to shield everybody from the horrors of Big Grocery.

wv: logic (honest), the internet approves!

Jose_K said...

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,
UNDHR

Synova said...

Food isn't a right, but that's not the point.

My daughter helped out with a group that was feeding the homeless here, and the guy in charge of it got arrested.

The point is that the do-gooders have made so many rules and laws and ordinances to protect us all from ourselves that personal charity becomes a crime. If a charity organization isn't big enough and well enough funded to file for all the permits and get inspected for food handling it can't function, and larger organizations who do spend all the time, money, and effort for hoop jumping figure everyone else ought to have to do so as well.

clint said...

What silliness.

This is just a basic time-place-manner restriction.

Yes, you have the right to give people food.

No, you don't have the right to take over a public park to do it.

Use a church basement like normal people -- or your own front yard, or the local Y...

And, wow, but are lefties stupid when it comes to identifying rights. "Food is a right?" WTF does that have to do with this case -- that's what you'd claim if you were demanding that the city pay for the food.

Chip S. said...

It would make better sense to claim that distributing food is a right. Of course, that would put them on the libertarian side of Lochner.

kcom said...

Food is a right?

Scenario:

You're stranded on an island with one other person. You have a right to food because you're a human being. The only possible conclusion is that the other person has an obligation to provide food to you at no cost or effort to yourself. The implication of that is that you have a right to enslave that person to provide for your needs. You are entitled to live off their labor because it fulfills your "right" to food. So the right to food implies that slavery is a public good. It's morally correct to take the products of someone else's labor for your personal use at no cost to you because you have a "right" to food. Extend the analogy to a larger population and nothing changes.

shirley elizabeth said...

From Stan, a commenter at the link:
"I mean, we could all go back to 19th century France where Jean Valjean was jailed for 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread, but I thought humanity was making progress toward civil society."

Jean Valjean is a literary, not historical figure. His story is fiction. And France's problem was not a few hungry, that could be fed any other place you care to set it up, amonst a city of the fed. We could never go back to 19th century France because we were never that low.

Chip S. said...

kcom, I'd take your parable a step further. Imagine that each of the two people insists on his "right" to food. They spend all day in political activity, making demands on each other, instead of hunting or gathering or farming, and thereby die of starvation in short order.

It's pretty much the story of communism, minus the prison-camp interlude.

nevadabob said...

"No, you don't have the right to take over a public park to do it."

We do have that right, and I can prove it.

Americans have the right to gather wherever in public that we want to in this country with our friends and do whatever we want to so long as that activity is legal.

This is the "right of association" and is part and parcel of the First Amendment. This right of association was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 1958 in the case of NAACP v. State of Alabama.

Giving people food is legal and doing it in a public park is legal and even if some rogue union thugs with guns say it's not legal we should do it anyway.

These rogue police are merely union thugs attempting to enforce their will on law-abiding citizens. We have no obligation to obey them while they violate our Constitutional rights.

fivewheels said...

I think you mean "assembly." Freedom of association doesn't seem to have much to do with this. So your lecturing tone is a bit off...

bagoh20 said...

If food is a right, then it's pretty easy to determine who is oppressed. A simple bathroom scale should do it.

Penny said...

Picture worth a thousand words.

tfmaguire42 said...

The preoccupation of many commenters with "food is a right" is a bit silly, and beside the point.

People are being arrested for feeding the hungry. These kids should be cheered for their courage, not derided for one guy's pithy phrase.

Presumably, the city is not against feeding the hungry, but rather wants to prevent hoards of smelly homeless from chasing good taxpaying voting sunbathers out of parks.

Rather than arrest people, why not help them set up a food kitchen somewhere nearby? That would be easier and a better use of taxpayer dollars than these expensive mass arrests.

Penny said...

"Rather than arrest people, why not help them set up a food kitchen somewhere nearby?"

Not so sure that this is about FOOD. Although most Americans would appreciate the "hook". Sans fish, I might add. This is a vegan group.

Paddy O said...

Good for them to do what they're doing, and for putting themselves alongside the very most needy even to the point of being arrested. Finally a cause that's not about getting more for oneself but about giving to other, sacrificially if need be.

Penny said...

"It's important for people to come out and risk arrest and do whatever it takes."

Odd how those who flagrantly disobey a law count on law enforcement to obey the law during their arrest.

Anarchy for me...but not for thee.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)







The point is that the do-gooders have made so many rules and laws and ordinances to protect us all from ourselves that personal charity becomes a crime.



Uh no, this has NOTHING to do with “do-gooding.” It's an ANTI-HOMELESS ORDINANCE. If you feed neighborhood cats more turn up for the free food, so to the Homeless/Bums. The town is discouraging the Homeless/Bums. If you feed them more will come. No food, no bums...or at least bums in city parks. Again it's not do-gooding it's about getting Homeless/Bums outta the parks.

Also, let one of the Homeless/Bums get ill from the food and see how your liability works.

Milwaukee said...

Not allowing a group to have a large gathering more than twice a year in a public space seems reasonable. If this group really wants to feed the poor, they could set up a community meal program. If they just want to make a stink, well homeless people are good for that. I have to question the motives of the food distributing group.

For a time I was a regular volunteer at a community meal program. They had to pass city inspections and have a licensed kitchen. Requiring a facility to have enough bathrooms and fire extinguishers and what not is reasonable. Zoning them away from public parks is also reasonable. Communities get to do that.

fivewheels said...

I agree that the use of the phrase "food is a right" is distracting, but I don't think it's beside the point at all. To certain kinds of people (not necessarily people like me, but including me in this case) phrases like that, and like "Food Not Bombs" make it seem like the point is not to feed the hungry but to make some other grandstanding kind of statement.

I'm not saying this is what those people do indeed care about most, I'm saying that's what it looks like to some people -- people who don't from first principles hate bombs with every fiber of their being, and possibly just people who think complex issues deserve more thought than bumper-sticker chants.

That's one reason not to say those things, and one reason that if you just want to feed people, not to clutter up the message.

Chip S. said...

Rather than arrest people, why not help them set up a food kitchen somewhere nearby?

Believe it or not, this thought has already occurred to some people in Orlando who are quite serious about feeding the hungry. Guess what? It involves a lot more than setting up a stand in a park when whimsy moves you, to hand out watermelon, beans, and rice to whoever happens to show up when you feel like showing up.

Here's how the charitable organization SecondHarvest describes its activities in the Orlando area:

You won’t find lines of people stretching around our warehouses waiting for food assistance. What you will find instead are representatives from more than 500 nonprofit feeding programs in our area who are picking up the food their programs need to keep helping our neighbors.

Now, you tell me which group is serious about alleviating hunger, and which one is having a self-righteous lark in the park.

Milwaukee said...

When anything is a "right", then if you have it and I don't, I get to take it from you. Are you going to finish that cake?

We have very limited "rights" in terms of what is given to us, mainly opportunities. Free speech is a right, if I am talking and you don't like what I'm saying, you can just walk away. How about the soda, you gonna finish that?

Getting an education is a responsibility of citizens, not a right. Receiving a subsidized education is a privilege. How about those chips, mind if I take some?

Chip S. said...

Correct link for my previous comment.

Penny said...

Paddy O, I too applaud those who work hard to provide for those in need.

Do you doubt that this could be done without breaking a law?

bagoh20 said...

Nobody is hungry because food is not available. Food stamps, welfare, soup kitchens, etc. This is a stunt and if left unchecked will lead to less human dignity, not more.

If you treat people like stray cats, you are not doing them a favor nor solving their problem.

If your goal is to feel better about yourself though, this is a quicker fix, but you need to keep the long term condition of the homeless safely out of mind.

Bender said...

They were violating a controversial city ordinance that prohibits sharing food with large groups in a downtown city park more than twice a year.

I don't know that this would withhold scrutiny as a time, place, manner restriction.

What if, instead of food, they were passing out clothing? What if they were passing out pamphlets promoting Jews for Jesus? What if they were sharing food with large numbers of birds, as someone suggested?

Presumably these would all be permissible. Can the city therefore restrict one type of distribution of items when it permits all of these others?

Bender said...

As for whether food is a "right" or not --

Man, people, give it a rest. Whether or not it is a "right," food and eating are fundamental liberties. Indeed, so essential is food and eating to life, it is part and parcel included within the inalienable right to life. Now, one might not have the "right" to a given cheeseburger, but one absolutely has the liberty of eating one and giving one to others, as well as the right to be able to seek cheeseburgers.

Chip S. said...

What if they were sharing food with large numbers of birds, as someone suggested?

In that case, they might well be in violation of another city ordinance.

clint said...

Nevadabob-

Two hypotheticals for you:

1) A number of local families want to spend time sitting and playing in their local park over the weekend. A local band wants to hold a free concert in the same park. A veterans group wants to have a moment of silence in the park for our fallen heroes. A school lacrosse club wants to practice in the park. A group of union activists want to stage a protest in the park. A school marching band wants to practice marching back and forth in the park. And this group wants to set up a few tables and feed the homeless in the park.

All of them want to do legal things in a public space. There simply isn't room for all of them to fit in the park, much less carry out all their activities without interfering with one another.

If they all have an inalienable right to use the space for their desired projects... which ones have to leave to avoid violating the rights of the others?


2) A group of protesters decide to link arms across a busy street during rush hour.

A number of other people would like to use the road to drive home.

It's a public space. They both want to use it in a legal way.

Would you really argue that the protestors have as much right to the road as the commuters, and that the local government is constitutionally barred from deciding which use of public property takes priority?

Yes. You have a right to assemble with your friends for any legal purpose -- including feeding the hungry. But you don't necessarily have the right to appropriate any public resources you want along the way.

Palladian said...

Why not just feed the homeless without the obligatory sanctimonious leftyism?

Could I have a bowl of chili, but hold the politics, please?

Skyler said...

Jose K,

Citing the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is moot. The United States has not signed on to that socialist plan. And for exactly the reasons you quoted, among many others.

Penny said...

You sure can, Palladian.

But I won't be home before midnight.

I'll be out working my "points" on the square. ;)

No law against that, far as I know?





.

tfmaguire42 said...

@Chip S. "Now, you tell me which group is serious about alleviating hunger"

I'm going to go with secret answer c: they both do.

Chip S. said...

tfm, No. They're fighting for the right to offer free food in the park--period. Not at their own homes, and not in any other facility on which they're paying rent. Just...the park. The people who are serious about feeding the hungry are hard at work, out of the spotlight. Giving away food is not illegal per se. Is that really so hard to understand?

The issue is clear to most of the commenters in this thread--it's about the permissible activities in a public park. The City of Orlando appears to have passed an ordinance barring the handing out of food to large groups. These people had a decision go against them, but it isn't over until they win.

Carol_Herman said...

I don't get it. Don't people meet in parks and have birthday parties for kids? And, other get togethers? It started before there was air-conditioning. And, gathering in parks ... where food is brought and served ... usually has no restrictions.

So, I'm guessing that Orlando is now forbidding folk to do something that was pretty natural.

Yeah. Kids feeding the homeless is strange. Where'd they get the food from? Their moms kitchens?

In the past, when bums became a nuisance, towns would just buy these critters bus tickets.

Here? The kids were looking to get arrested. How is that a bonus?

Synova said...

The "United Nations Declaration of Human Rights" is downright moronic, as if declarations make something true simply by declaring them. As a rhetorical trick it's useful to make confident statements, I know. But they don't change reality. Might changes reality, and only might. Since the Declaration does not function as the line over which a nation may not cross or action will be taken, it doesn't function at all.

Not that there aren't rights that exist even without a declaration and they are proven by consequences, mostly. Our Constitution, at least the first bits, attempt to define what are rights that people have apart from and despite governments, and there is a good reason they don't include the right to be fed, housed, clothed, employed, cared for by doctors, or happy.

The physical parts would enslave others, and people seem to think that's an extreme view, but it's not. The last is simply impossible to gain for another person.

Which leads me to the harm done by something like the "United Nations List of Things to Make the United States Feel Guilty Over and Pay For".

It confuses what a "right" is to the point that we lose the concept of "right" altogether. This "food is a right" is a good example. "Health care is a right" is another one. The word is so corrupted that it's almost as though the category that does constitute actual inalienable rights... disappears.

Carol_Herman said...

Yup. Everyone in france gets arrested for stealing bread.

While, in france, it's okay to rape a chamber maid. And, it's her duty to oblige the hotel's customer.

Not the same, here.

People don't read Hugo to find out about the rules on stealing bread. (At least in france their bread's worth the price.)

These kids are costing the City of Orlando more to arrest them, and use up police resources ... than just letting a church group get donation of foods that don't sell. Rather than watching restaurants having to throw this stuff out.

While, yes. Kids setting up lemonade stands are shut down. With fines to the parents. Because who knows how the lemons were squeezed. And, if the kids are wearing hairnets.

Carol_Herman said...

Isn't Orlando, Florida run by the Disney organization?

Maguro said...

Is cheap liquor a right, too? Seems just as important as food to the homeless lifestyle, if not more so.

bagoh20 said...

Does the UN human rights declaration include the right to work without union interference, thuggery, intimidation and extortion?

Yea, didn't think so.

You have the right to food, but not the right to work for it without paying off political interests.

S said...

Even in the fictional story, Valjean didn't get 19 years for stealing bread, he got 5 years for stealing bread and 14 years for escaping from prison, usually just before his sentence ended. Which doesn't mean the French state depicted was the perfect model of justice; maybe something other than the original five-year sentence should have been worked out. But in the kindest interpretation possible, he got five years for being poor and fourteen for being stupid.

I seem to recall that I developed more sympathy for him later on in the story, but that it took a long time for me to stop thinking, "what a moron."

Speaking of morons, I read that article and I still don't know what the point of the law is or why it was adopted. It doesn't look like they were aiming it directly at people feeding the homeless (which wouldn't necessarily be improper - maybe they want homeless people directed somewhere else for food?). But there's no explanation of what the law in question was for. I would think a story of this sort should make that clear.

Mind you, I lived in Massachusetts for a long while and in New York for a shorter time, so I don't think all laws need to have purposes. But I suspect there's more here than has been reported, and it's a shame that it apparently hasn't been.

Largo said...

Carol,

I would love to take you out some Sunday to poison pigeons in the park. :-)

I like your point about birthday parties. How is the distinction made? Is there a principled distinction?

bagoh20 said...

I believe the distinction is that having birthday parties does not generally lead to an increase of drunken, stinking, drug using, leering, urinating men hanging around the park developing their potential. But offering up buffets for them just might make them congregate there... just maybe. Only a guess of course. I'm sure someone can get a grant to study the question and determine the elusive truth.

fivewheels said...

"They were violating a controversial city ordinance that prohibits sharing food with large groups in a downtown city park more than twice a year."

In my day, you didn't have three or more birthday parties in a year, but I know kids are pretty spoiled now...

Blue@9 said...

I would believe there's a neutral time/place restriction if not for the fact it specifically outlaws food distribution and not other activities. And their argument about food being a right is BS in my opinion, but it's still a political argument that is free to be expressed.

Personally, I will take this kind of charity any day over a gov't funded program. The park is a public space. Either outlaw/limit all large gatherings, regardless of the activity, or just put up with it. The "ah, but homeless people are smelly" argument is not really valid IMO.

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't think that food is a right. But I do applaud the activists for trying to feed the homeless. Far better, from my point of view, for them to do that, than to force the rest of us to do their good deeds, at the cost to us taxpayers.

That said, I am not sure where I come down on the ordinance and its enforcement. I think that the better answer is to feed the homeless at a church, homeless shelter, etc. - which the protesters probably could have done if their real aim were to feed the homeless, and not to make a point.

My guess is that these restrictions likely will pass 1st Amdt. scrutiny, but it may be close. I think the time-place-manner restrictions are reasonable, but a judge may not (and the protesters surely don't think so).

nevadabob said...

Hypothetical: "If they all have an inalienable right to use the space for their desired projects... which ones have to leave to avoid violating the rights of the others?"

The groups themselves would have to decide. The government is not permitted to decide based on its dislike of the speech content of a particular group.

Hypothetical: "A number of other people would like to use the road to drive home. It's a public space. They both want to use it in a legal way. Would you really argue that the protestors have as much right to the road as the commuters, and that the local government is constitutionally barred from deciding which use of public property takes priority?

Happens all the time. Many times, groups of non-commuters take over the roadways and commuters are forced to take alternate routes (block parties, gay pride parades, anti-war demonstrations etc.)

The government may not, based on its dislike of the speech being displayed by a certain group, make decisions to ban certain groups. It simply doesn't have that power.

What is occurring in Orlando is a city ordinance saying that you cannot speak in a public place more than twice a year. That law is blatantly unconstitutional and we are not obliged to obey that law.

We have a Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution was to prevent the government from exercising power in certain ways. The Bill of Rights was written and adopted specifically so that the government of Orlando cannot use armed union thugs to enforce a law restricting speech in this way. No matter how "sensible" such a law may seem.

I'm sorry. Is it inconvenient? Sure. Tough shit. That's the price we pay for living in the United States of America.

Violate this law. It is your duty as a patriotic American.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Orlando police arrested five more activists from behind a makeshift buffet table at Lake Eola Park on Wednesday evening..."

"The members of the group Food Not Bombs were ladling out corn on the cob, rice, beans and watermelon to about 35 people..."

I would explain to the well-intentioned people that food is NOT a right, rather, a product. Of course, I would never seek to deny anyone that was homeless or hungry a meal should they want one, it simply must be done within the confines of the law.

I believe the law was passed to avoid a public nuisance, much the way other laws are considered, such as feeding wildlife in parks, etc.

These well-intentioned people simply need to find a way to do this without running afoul of this law, but, of course we don't know if they are doing this on purpose to bring attention to the 'homeless', a sort of blurry and undefined class of folks that have always been with us.

I am a financial supporter of my city's homeless shelter and would suggest to these people that they conduct their 'work' in conjunction with a proper outfit such as that.

traditionalguy said...

Actually, food is as close to a right as we humans know. Starvation creates a "what do I have to lose attitude" and a bitter realization that a man is expendable, and this combination starts all revolutions. The problem here was a "feed stray cats issue": feeding at one location leads to the homeless/mentally ill men and women setting up a tent city in the location.

kcom said...

If you read the comments on the story you'll learn that there is a church across the street from the park that has a well-established feeding program.

Page 16 of the comments:
The Post is only reporting one side of this. (shocking!) These kids aren't getting proper permits to do this. If someone were to hold a small concert, they would have to get the proper permits. The church across the street from this park has been feeding these homeless people for years and you don't see them trying to get media attention. Maybe these kids should go work at the church and hand out food or go through the proper procedures instead of breaking the law.

clint said...

nevadabob-

You seem to be rather deliberately missing my point.

It isn't viewpoint discrimination to decide that the interstate is for cars and trucks to drive on, no matter how much you want to sunbathe on it.

And it isn't viewpoint discrimination to decide that parks are for small groups to spend time in, not for distributing food, having craft fairs, or holding rock concerts without special permits.

"The groups themselves would have to decide. The government is not permitted to decide based on its dislike of the speech content of a particular group."

What speech content? Neither the law, nor the article, makes any reference to speech, viewpoint, or politics.

This is about the use for which a public space has been set aside, at taxpayer expense.

You can't open a tanning salon in the city library, either. Is that unconstitutional as well?

Chris said...

Interviewer to Ayn Rand: "But who will help the poor?" Rand: "If you want to help them, no one will be permitted to stop you". Good for people who help the poor and give them food. That's their right. It's even a right to ASK for food, as much as it is to work for it. I don't see how "food" can be a right though, and even if it was, how would you word the law guaranteeing it's provision. What specific quantity of food? What KIND of food? The food one desires, or the food, as specific in law, that you are deemed to need?

madAsHell said...

I thought Jean Valjean stole a silver candlestick?

nevadabob said...

"Neither the law, nor the article, makes any reference to speech, viewpoint, or politics."

You must have read a different article than I did because the article I read had a huge picture of a banner that said: "Food Not Bombs"

That's speech, dude. It's anti-war speech that I don't agree with, but it's political speech that armed government jackboots cannot suppress for ANY FUCKING REASON.

The rogue corrupt union thug police officers who shut down this speech should be terminated. Removed from their positions as police officers for violating the free speech rights of these protestors.

Seeing Red said...

You won’t find lines of people stretching around our warehouses waiting for food assistance. What you will find instead are representatives from more than 500 nonprofit feeding programs in our area who are picking up the food their programs need to keep helping our neighbors.


more than 500 NFP's just in the Orlando area?


Do they really need that many?


Think of the overhead - and the taxes NOT COLLECTED!

Andrea said...

Unlike most of the people on this comment thread I actually come from Florida, and lived in the city in question for over ten years before moving up to Virginia recently. Before that I lived in Miami -- I was born there. So I think I can say with confidence that most of you who are saying how wonderful these kids were for feeding the "homeless" have no idea what you are talking about. Let me set you straight.

The park in question, Lake Eola Park, is right in the middle of downtown Orlando. Yes it is surrounded by office buildings and restaurants. It's also surrounded by churches and other places that already have homeless-feeding programs in place. It's a downtown urban area in a large American city, for God's sakes. No one is not "feeding the homeless," and there are plenty of places to get free food.

As for the "rich" people I can tell some of you are getting a jones imagining being made uncomfortable by the presence of the "homeless" near them, let me tell you what these "rich" people are: most of them are families, with young kids, who just want to walk in the park, feed the swans and ducks and other water fowl that the lake is full of, ride on the swan boats, take photos of the fountains, etc. They don't want to share their space with a crowd of smelly, alcoholic, often drug-addled, sometimes mentally fucked up, yet for the most part able-bodied young-to-middle-aged bums, which are what most of the homeless in Florida and indeed most of the country consist of. If that makes these families with kids lesser human beings in your eyes, well so be it.

By the way, I wasn't (and still am not) "rich" by anyone's modern standards, and in fact for four years I didn't own a car and had to depend upon Orlando's wonky bus service to get around. That meant I got to spend a lot of time around homeless people, observing them and their ways. They are not the rag-wearing, big-eyed, starving wimmin-'n'-kids groupings you're imagining. Most of them are able bodied males, with a few very hard females who remind me of that lesbian killer woman, a whole lot of people with just enough screws loose that they can't seem to keep a job or a house, and some crippled vets who I'll bet you actually get a disability check every month. And none of them are starving, and a lot of them have cell phones. This "feed the homeless" group is just another version of that guy who pretended to be a Syrian lesbian -- a pack of narcissists out to "grow as people" and impress their fellows. They don't care about the homeless any more than I do but at least I'm honest.

shirley elizabeth said...

So wait, are unions thuggery, or the "young, heart-full-of-love folks?"
All these definitions to keep up with get so confusing.

Blue@9 said...

It's interesting that some here object that the group is not really about feeding people ("do it at a church!"), but rather making a public statement. But that means it's political speech and is entitled to 1st amendment protection. So either it's a charitable activity--and you have to argue against it--or it's speech.

Eric said...

Where I live in California the homeless have taken over all the local parks. You can't bring children to the park without worrying about needles and drunk guys exposing themselves.

It's not a money problem, either. The city employees dutifully come and clean up all the trash periodically, but there's a limit to what you can do when you have people living there.

Years ago I decided to vote against the creation and maintenance of parks until some political/legal way can be found to clean them up.

Synova said...

"The Post is only reporting one side of this. (shocking!) These kids aren't getting proper permits to do this."

Heh.

Without reading the article OR knowing what the Post wasn't reporting I knew that this was exactly what was going on.

Cedarford said...

Sofa King said...
Food is not a right. If you're going to go through the hassle of going to jail, at least take the time to learn some basic civics.

==============
I am not a Lefty, but there are a few essentials to life that the masses, from days of Marie Antoinette on, believe are worth and totally justified going to violence to get if they are denied it in significant numbers. And if enough believe that, heads end up getting chopped.

Food is on that short list. In most people's minds, food and security are higher priorities than Freedom-Loving and other such trite values. Only with basic needs secured do humans want to discuss the frills..

America can - or could through most our history, say anyone who wants a job can get a goodpaying job. Ergo, they and their children can be fed and clothed and housed - so we can move on and blather about Freedom! and Liberty! But globalism and free trade has destroyed much of our job base, and gutted whole regions of industry and private sector jobs.

So yes, food is a right. It is presently sustained by unsustainable entitlements that form a too lush social safety net and also protected wealthy Elites outsourcing the US labor for high profits from the repercussions of hungry jobless mobs from Oakland to UpstateNY wanting to kill the betraying Elites.

Remove the safety net, and we must remove at least some of it ..things will get very ugly very fast unless we find a way to employ most Americans in useful private sector endeavors.

Cedarford said...

traditionalguy said...
Actually, food is as close to a right as we humans know. Starvation creates a "what do I have to lose attitude" and a bitter realization that a man is expendable, and this combination starts all revolutions. The problem here was a "feed stray cats issue": feeding at one location leads to the homeless/mentally ill men and women setting up a tent city in the location
==================
Well stated, TradGuy.
Throw liberal, conservative, libertarian ideology out the window. Recognize the Constitution is just paper. Only given force by people believing it is worth having throughout America's past historical realities.
But bottom line, every human has organized into groups for (1) Collective security; (2)Obtaining food required for the group to survive; (3)Specialization of labor to Optimize (1) and (2). That is the social contract.

But in that all, you are right that if feed homeless, your kind deed may punish the collective group by attracting more outsider undesirables in your midst that no one considers "part" of the group. Tribalism matters for ensuring collective well being of the "members" at a local level.

Peter said...

Well, if food is a right, then I'm sure defecation is even more surely a right. For how could government forbid citizens from commiting a biological necessity?

Nonetheless, I'll bet government still has the right to limit the time, place and manner of defecation.

Manty Five said...

You must have read a different article than I did because the article I read had a huge picture of a banner that said: "Food Not Bombs"

That's speech, dude. It's anti-war speech that I don't agree with, but it's political speech that armed government jackboots cannot suppress for ANY FUCKING REASON.


Wearing an anti-war shirt while breaking the law doesn't make the law viewpoint-discriminatory. You don't have a good grasp of what viewpoint discrimination is, and you should go educate yourself.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com