[gruez]

That sounds outrageous at first, but it makes sense if you think about it. Are there any mainstream political parties in the west that thinks food (arguably as essential as water) should be a human right (ie. the government provides it to anyone who wants it unconditionally)?

[xyzzy123]

Yes. Most welfare states.

I cannot find any recent reports of anyone starving to death in New Zealand, for example. It would be national news if it happened and (rightfully) generate a lot of hand-wringing and introspection.

Just that the implementation gets complicated and politicised for various reasons.

Distributing food nationally is hard (consider cold chain, warehousing, distribution, managing expiry, dietary requirements, demand), so most welfare states distribute money instead and rely on the private sector to provide the infrastructure.

Giving people "free money" has it's own problems. It gets political. People moralise. Beneficiaries never have enough, they might not spend on food, and they often have worse food choices available to them.

Since the government distribute money and not food directly, they have to add strings to stop people "rorting the system". Those conditions can be a problem.

See for example "food grants": https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/urgent-costs/f...

Food banks and free kitchens have to fill in the gaps where people inevitably fall through the beauracratic cracks in the welfare system.

People do go hungry when the system fails.

But the public view (multi-partisan) in well-off welfare states is that of course people have a right to live, and access to food is a part of that. It would be political suicide to suggest that anyone should be left to starve.

[gruez]

> Yes. Most welfare states.

Is it guaranteed? ie. do you have to be disabled/retired to qualify, or is it open to everyone?

>Distributing food nationally is hard (consider cold chain, warehousing, distribution, managing expiry, dietary requirements, demand), so most welfare states distribute money instead and rely on the private sector to provide the infrastructure.

But then the food isn't guaranteed, is it? You're only really guaranteed money, which could be converted to food. Consider a hypothetical: let's say a country has a poll tax of $100 per person, then offsets it by giving everyone $100, is it fair to say that you have the right to vote in that country? Feel free to replace "right to vote" with other rights, such as freedom of speech, right to not self-incriminate, protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

[xyzzy123]

> But then the food isn't guaranteed, is it?

You are correct but I feel perhaps missing the woods for the trees.

Every person's right tends to be someone else's obligation.

When obligations are met by state resources, there is then a responsibility to distribute fairly (because the resources come from everyone), this introduces hoops or conditions.

That doesn't mean that the right, or the obligation doesn't exist.

The need to ensure everyone gets food is absolutely part of the public understanding and discourse.

You can of course pick holes all day because yes, administering public welfare programs is hard.

Conditions where the state is obliged to do or provide something tend to be more complicated in practice than when the state is obliged NOT to do something (search and seizure, freedom of speech etc).