Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Food & DrinkCooking & Recipes · 1 week ago

my friend said everybody deserves to eat regardless if they have a job. what do you think about her logic?

She said food is a basic survival need and no one should starve. She said even lazy people who don't want to work shouldn't starve and die. She said "They shouldn't be able to get luxury makeup and designer clothes and expensive cars if they aren't working, but food isn't a want it's a need and no one should go without." i was like " If stores gave away free food all the time then no one would even WANT to work. Everyone would just sit on their butt. Most people aren't buying designer clothes with their paychecks. only about 1% of the population can even afford designer clothes and designer makeup. Most people are struggling to feed their families, especially with the rising cost of food. Most people's paychecks go towards food and bills. I know, it's defintely the case with me. I spent $150 at walmart. A tiny container of raspberries is $4 and that's something I can eat in one sitting. A well balanced diet is incredibly expensive. I love and eat meat also so it's defintely expensive for me. I couldn't afford designer even if i wanted it."  I mean why should people like me bust their butts at work, never have free time JUST to buy groceries and pay bills just so someone who doesn't work can eat. If you don't work, you don't eat that's how it's always going to be unless you have generous family, friends, or a significant other to support you. 

15 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 week ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'll relay a story from when I was working in a store. A homeless man was caught stealing food out of a delivery truck. When we caught him and argued, he lamented "so you have to throw it away first before I can eat it" referring to the other common practice of homeless people rummaging through the dumpster. I made the point "if you keep stealing from us, this place shuts down and there's no dumpster to go through anymore anyway."

    That's the heart of what I think you are trying to get at and what your friend doesn't understand. We can if we want to set up homeless shelters and food banks in churches where people donate cranberry sauce from Thanksgiving they bought and decided not to use. But if we give everything away to everybody there is no excess to give away after a while. That's when we start fighting in the streets with dull tree branches over expired beans because that's the only food for 300 people.

    While Regan's trickle down didn't pan out as predicted on a macro level, we see it as how bums are allowed to exist on a micro level everyday. People are too lazy to take their cans to the recycling center because they work too long and they throw out 30lbs of lasagna because it wasn't quite right for the reputation of the restaurant. So now bums can get fat because everyone is not forced to become equal.

  • 6 days ago

    I don't think that stores should have to just give away food, but everyone, I repeat every single person has the right to have proper food. The right to proper food is one of the human rights, and everyone should be able to eat, and shouldn't have to worry every day about having to find food. Just because someone was unlucky, perhaps kicked out of their house because of whatever reason doesn't mean they should have to starve.

  • 7 days ago

    There are people who are disabled and cant work. There are people who are caring for their disabled relative and cant work. You dont know the reason why someone isnt working so dont assume laziness.

  • 7 days ago

    I agree. Eating should be a basic human necessity. That's the same with some other things. We are in a very money orientated society.  

    • Aquarius 1011
      Lv 6
      5 days agoReport

      Instead of 'necessity' the word should be 'right'. I can't edit that.  

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Laurie
    Lv 7
    1 week ago

    The factor that is missing in your discussion is about freedom of choice, and whether or not the individual is ABLE to work.

    Society has no responsibility to take care those who freely CHOOSE not to contribute to their own support.

    However, society does have a responsibility to help/feed those who are unable to do so... especially if society has contributed to/created the individual’s inability to support himself.

  • 1 week ago

    thats why there are food banks, charity meals served, second harvest programs that gather left overs and repackage and distribute.

  • Anonymous
    1 week ago

    Then they shouldn't BREED either, why artificially propagate a lazy gene - where does that take humanity? 

  • Anonymous
    1 week ago

    I think it is moral and ethical to help people provide for their basic needs if they are truly unable to do it for themselves (whether temporarily or permanently).    I don't think we do ENOUGH for those people in the USA.

    That being said, government programs are very good at being bloated, inefficient, wasteful, rife with fraud/cheaters and generally a dismal expensive failure at completing the most very basic of their goals.

    You may not be buying designer clothes or make-up, but you're buying designer food.   Anyone who pays $4 for one serving of hot-house raspberries in December is either rich or a moron. 

  • John
    Lv 7
    1 week ago

    We are all deeply sorry that yer mammy dropped you on yer head when you were a baby. Hopefully coping in life will become easier for you.

  • 1 week ago

    Yes but but you get what you get. No being choosy. 

    • Mark
      Lv 7
      5 days agoReport

      To a point.  Being served cabbage soup EVERY day is not just unhealthy (humans need protein), but it's just boring.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.