The Right to Food and Shelter

[delicti]

The right to food and shelter may sound like a far out there concept to the more conservative members of this group. After all, those aren't actually rights in the US constitution, and you're not going to see them in other constitutions either.

Or will you?

In fact, there is one piece of paper that all Western nations have signed that ensures the rights to basic food, water, and shelter to their populous: the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This isn't some radical quasi-socialist theory either; the verbiage has been codified since 1948.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2.htm
http://cesr.org/udhr

So why aren't we all eating free food and drinking free water, and all provided with some sort of basic living establishment? Well, to some extent you can argue that even in the most capitalist countries, we make efforts to accommodate the poor with this. Each system is different depending on each country, with each one having specific strengths and weaknesses.

But what if there was a technological breakthrough that suddenly allowed us to provide these services at a radically lower cost?

Enter vertical farming, or as some call it, Skyfarming. Skyfarming is the idea of building a farm vertically, taking up less surface area that a traditional farm. Bringing produce closer to the consumer also drastically reduces spoilage, making Skyfarming far more efficient than traditional farming. Science fiction though? Not really:

http://nymag.com/news/features/30020/
http://www.verticalfarm.com/index.php

For years, Dr. Dickson Despommier of Columbia University has believed that Skyfarming is farming of the future, and he's unleashed his graduate students on the idea to prove it. So far, they've managed to convert the original Skyfarm into not just a farm, but also a waste-water treatment plant, a housing complex, and mini powerplant. While some ideas are still being thrashed out, this seems like a project that is perfect for government spending, because:

1. It serves a greater public good.
2. The rate of return is too low to be viable in the private sector.
3. It provides services that are so essential that we don't care if the government screws it up, as long as someone is doing it.

That's my personal test for whether or not something is worth going into the public sector. Whether it it passes test #3 is up for everyone here to decide.

Are we ready to live in a worth where basic food, water, and shelter are rights that the government provides? What would be the market ramifications, and how can we ensure minimum marketplace interference? Is it worth it? Or is it just UN commie hype?

Let's hear it.

[KontanKarite]

...No.

Awesome idea, but people SHOULD be a bit more entitled to something better if they work hard for it.

I'm not saying that poor people shouldn't have certain things, I'm saying people that can afford it should not be told what they can and can't have.

I love the idea though. I just don't like the idea of the government telling me that all I need in regards to living space is something like 20 feet by 20 feet.

Community housing really sucks. :-/

Food is a great idea though. So long as there's a variety of flavors and nutrients. One of the better things about being a free individual is the ability to indulge.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

...No.

Awesome idea, but people SHOULD be a bit more entitled to something better if they work hard for it.

I'm not saying that poor people shouldn't have certain things, I'm saying people that can afford it should not be told what they can and can't have.

Excellent counterpoint. I had initially considered this, because there is no question in my mind that something like this could be a disruptive technology in the marketplace.

What if a project like this were created specifically with the lower classes in mind, and optional for people who did not need it? Then people who could afford better housing and food could pursue it, but people who couldn't (or opted for the simpler government provided accommodations) would still have access to the the free options that this would make available?

A big concern for me is how far this would disrupt the existing farming and ranching industries. I don't know what the margins on these industries are, and if they were too slim, we could accidentally put a lot of these people out of business, or potentially over-inflate the prices of food not provided by Skyfarms.

Another unintended ramification of this could be a major disruption in the housing market. A lot of apartments that could be considered qualitatively better space-wise depend on Section 8 vouchers as a way of making income. Buildings like this would reduce the need for Section 8 vouchers, and so this may reduce rental values. That initially may sound good (lower rent), but could also reduce the price of property values.

To the elderly population, the majority have their largest asset as their property. A lot of elderly choose to use reverse-mortgages to pay for their medical care in old age (basically the bank buys your home, and pays you for it in installments over the remainder of your life). This might change the viability of this.

Thoughts?

[Umbrellacake]

I'm not sure I got the whole idea from the above post. It sounds like you're talking about communism, but coinciding with a market? I'm confused. Maybe I didn't read the original post right, but...what?

If you're talking about exclusively providing the poor with housing, food, and water via these (admittedly supercool) skyfarms/water treatment plants/housing complex things based on the title principle, then I can see all kinds of flaws. To begin with, not everyone is good and hardworking. Some people would take advantage of guaranteed and basically free governmental support, not unlike certain people already do in present society.

Edit: Oooohhh, I think I get it now. I think it's flawed regardless of the cost, based around the point KontanKarite made.

Also, how could food, water, and shelter ever cost so little that giving it away freely wouldn't hurt the economy?

[Umbrellacake]

Ah, forget it. I'm ducking out. (Curse you, 5-minute editing rule!)

I'm not sure what I'm talking about, and I probably shouldn't have posted without knowing whether this was vague or I'm just tired...

[HellforgedX]

I say we all get robot digestive systems and run offa Mr. Fusions!

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

I Think water and food etc (things you cant live without) should be free. don’t like the whole system that’s going on now. And when I mean food I mean food with nutritional value that’s not covered in tons of chemicals. I mean its been proven that allot of the gross (cheap) food that people get causes allot of side effects. Red die 20 causes(ed) ADHD. I don’t think simply because you are poor you deserve poison sickening food. Hell most of the food sold is genetically altered and covered in pesticides, unless you can afford the “health food” which often times is still not all the way natural.
I don’t like how certain corporations can “own:” a natural resource like a particular river on a particular plot of land….
Water of all thing should be free. “you don’t have money there for you can go die”…
You should be guaranteed decent housing. I especially believe that these things should at least be provided for children. Being a kid you often cant choose things for yourself. You get what your parents can give.

I don’t think the government would ever provide good food water medical care and shelter to its people. I mean the objective of our (usa) government is to maintain power/control/money. It doesn’t give a shit if people have bad health from the crappy food. And then our medical system isn’t supposed to heal you. Its supposed to get you to take prescription drugs and stay on them…
The government isn’t exactly what I would call humanistic. I mean making sure every one has the basic things needed to live isn’t high on the list… The poor are generally who the rich stand on….it doesn’t matter if you are in a wretched state as long as you keep the cycle going as long as they stay rich fat and loaded with guns their happy, and justified in their actions.

[Splintered]

It's not that they 'own' the river or water. In reality, they own the ability to process it. I dare you to try and exist on pure seawater. You need plants to process it, lines to transport it, etc. There is a whole complex process that a government water treatment plant has to go through. There is an even more complex process that Dasani has to go through to be able to sell their product.

As resources become cheaper and cheaper, I think they should be considered to be free if you get it for yourself. Water is one of those things where you don't actually pay for the water itself. Instead, you pay for the energy requirements to transport that water to where you are. You pay for the energy costs to move drinkable tap water from the source (River, Ocean, Lake, Rain Barrels), to the processing plant for purification and sometimes flouridation, and finally off to the end user of the water.

If you walk out to the lake with a bucket, no one is going to stop you and is going to make you pay for it. It is already free. If you set up a rain barrel system (Which I would recommend anyway. They can be quite handy) and purify your own water, no one is going to charge you for it. They'll charge you for the materials, and that's it.

So should they be free? I have a hard time saying they should.

I want the resources to be free. Yet, the fact tells me that someone still has to farm them, even if they are in sky farms, someone has to maintain the farms, someone has to build the farms, etc. There is a whole chain of people who would need an income generated from this, and would need to feed off not only what the skyfarm produces, but what the solar plant produces, what the water purification plant produces, pay taxes and rent, etc.

Sure, you could say that robots will take care of that, and do all of the chores for you. In the future, I could see it possible. Slightly possible. But with what we have right now, I don't see it being a viable solution. As long as you have people who would need to generate an income from working at these sky farms, then you still need to take care of them.

Like I said, I would like these sky farms to work. Seriously, they seem like they could help a lot of communities out. However, I just can't see them working out.

Instead of sky farms, I think self-sufficency would be a better alternative. Rain collection systems, solar panels in each house, micro-gardens in the back. They're much easier to maintain, and can still yield enough to support enough of a family through an emergency, which is what they should be used for in the first place.

Capitalism is an old system, sure. It should be replaced, and it should be replaced eventually.

But right now, you have to work within the framework.

[Porphyria]

I don't think food, water and shelter should be free for anyone. We're already well on our way to creating a society in which people have this notion that the government owes them something more than what they're getting. Could you imagine how much more lazy and ignorant we'd become if we became a society that's being spoon-fed everything we need by Big Brother? I mean, if you knew you'd always have a place to live and food to eat, would you really care about advancing yourself personally? Probably not. America is a wealthy, successful nation because Americans are competitive and ambitious by nature. I doubt we'd fare very well if we lost those traits.

It's not to say that capitalism is a great system, but it's working better than any other system right now, so let's not be too hasty to dismiss it. Capitalism incites competition, which fuels progress. America has really good shit because we've created a sink-or-swim economy in which things always have to be just a little better than the thing they're replacing or no one wants to have anything to do with it. It can be harsh, but it's helping us more than it's hurting us.

Furthermore, free food and shelter would destroy our economy. America's main export is food. A third of our economy is based on agriculture and food production. The housing market would also suffer, which, as we're seeing now, can have a very damaging ripple effect on the market. You could say "No one would need to have a job or to have money because everything would be free," but I feel this is an overly-utopian concept. The majority of people need to have something productive to do. That's why retired people are always going back to school or getting jobs bagging groceries... they're not content to sit around.

While free food and shelter is a nice thought, I think skyfarming would probably be better put to use in the production of green fuels (corn) and as a more eco-friendly alternative to traditional farming for private producers. It would be a great advancement for less-developed nations that have trouble feeding their citizens, and should be something we consider sharing.

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

“America is a wealthy successful nation” I would have to disagree on that. The majority of “Americans” are not well of they are poor. The “nation” itself is in debt based on debt. And I suppose we may have a different Idea of what success is. I suppose we do have an large amount of nukes.
And when I say food and water should be free I don’t necessarily mean big brother should provide it. I think its not just “the government” but the whole society structure. The mentality of “Im the only one who matters” and “ MONEY MONEY MONEY”. I personally think we need a new world order , the current one is crashing. Human interest should come before business. The planet is more important than fucking money.
Shelter is something we all need. Kids should be guaranteed shelter. Being a kid you can control how much money your family has. Im not saying you should give someone a mansion but at least a place to stay warm. Some people really don’t have shit they were born into nothing. I don’t see how someone can be expected ( or considered to have equal opportunity) to “succeed” when they live in a project/slum/trailer park/etc , eat food that is not nutritious (that cause physical as well as mental problems), and go to crap schools.

There was a point in time when you could pick your own food. When what you ate was grown near you, you may have even grown it your self. (in some places you can still do this). Part of the food issue in my eyes goes past the “cost “ of it, its beyond just what is and isn’t the responsibility of the gov.. It’s horrible that the average person doesn’t know how to grow their own food. That we live in polluted areas with cement and steal, most of the soil has been stripped. The food thing goes into the CORPORAT world. Food is genetically altered covered in pesticide then shipped to your local store. They try to make all of the plants identical, as fast and cheap as they can, thus eliminating most of the nutrients.
I try to buy all my food from local natural farmers as often as I can. Because, allot of small farms are being put out of business but huge conglomerates. I most defiantly think farmers should be paid for their work (I like co ops). It would be good if things were self sufficient. I’ve seen farms where people in the community each work a certain amount of hours on the farm per day/week. And as payment for that you get a certain amount of the harvest.

I think the government should put more regulations on these giant companies. I don’t think they should be aloud to genetically engineer and alter every thing just to get a larger profit. The companies should at least be forced to include on the label that the food contains genetically engineered products (in print that’s actually big enough to read). The pesticides used on the food should be labeled as well.
The hormones used on animals that people eventually eat are disgusting. I the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised is eventually the whole “children of men” thing comes true.

Yes I know this sounds quite “hippie” but im thinking people should live in more natural environments. From my experience people are happier when they aren’t in shit hole cities, people are nicer.

So even if food isn’t “free” there should be some quality standards. You should not be able to sell food that is so gross. Even if you are poor you should be able to get good food. I don’t think simply because you have more money means you are entitled of better health and food, treatment. I’m not afraid of work, I like a challenge, I hope I will be able to have a profession I love. But in all likely hood I will never be very “rich” at least not monetarily. I think I will be able to support myself well enough , I wil have to because that’s just the way it is now.
The rulers make claims as to how great “our country” is that we are all that and a bag of chips. Every one should model them selves after us. And if we invade your country to rid you of your barbaric ways you should welcome us. When really the gov cant manage what’s going on with in its own effing borders.

[HumanePain]

I agree with Bleed that far too much money is spent on weapons that would be better spent on infrastructure investment such as:

a) school bathrooms that are actually clean and built like tanks to survive vandalism by pre-sentient teenagers, and

b) inner city hospitals that could be modernized and better staffed rather than SHUTDOWN, and

c) mass transit that would reduce the need for foreign oil and consequently foster less terrorism, and

d) affordable housing, and

e) more social workers to intervene before domestic violence is visited on women and children by alcoholic or drug addicted spouses, and

f) etc.

[prophecyofdoom]

I've always wished that basic food and shelter was made available to those in need. I can't imagine that this would cause people to stop working for a living- most people want more out of life than the most basic food and shelter! A person could be a much more productive member of society if they weren't tied to a low paying dead end job just to pay the rent and put food on the table.

[Nevan]

Originally Posted by Porphyria

We're already well on our way to creating a society in which people have this notion that the government owes them something more than what they're getting. Could you imagine how much more lazy and ignorant we'd become if we became a society that's being spoon-fed everything we need by Big Brother? I mean, if you knew you'd always have a place to live and food to eat, would you really care about advancing yourself personally? Probably not.

Brilliant remark. Take a drive through one of SA's many free housing developments and you'll have all the affirmation you need.

I dream of a moneyless society and where all people can enjoy equal opportunities and rights. But giving things for free has certainly not raised the quality of living in this country, in fact, it only makes it far worse.

Something is always given at the expense of something else. Pretoria city council spends 80% of its budget to provide free housing, water, electricity and other development programs for poorer communities. That is 80% spent on a community that gives 0% return. So in the end, the paying communities have to make up for it, yet get only a 0-5% service and development return for their contribution. This year, electricity rates alone increased by 400%. The high cost of tax and services is driving many 'better off' people out of these areas and into the poor communities.

In the end, all you're doing is making more poor people, which in turn needs more money to fund their free services, thus higher taxes on those that must pay. It's an evil spiral.

[CptSternn]

delicti -

The system your describing is called socialism.

It's not some fantastic far off fantasy world, its the way things are in every first world nation, except America.

Most all European countries and Australia provide their citizens with free water, food, and shelter.

It's called the dole. In Ireland, we get €180 a week from the government if we are not working (thats about $240). On top of that, if you are signed on the dole, you qualify for free housing, and free heating/electric costs. The benefits never run out and every citizen can receive these benefits if they are without food or shelter.

Having lived in the UK, the same is true there. And France. And Poland. And Spain. (etc)

Why do you think America needs to 'invent' some new type of farming system to provide food for its people when every other nation in the world is able to do it today with the current systems in place?

Much like bush trying to sell people on hydrogen fuels - to be ready in a couple of decades, ignoring the fact electric cars available and already ready to go, you propose a very liberal solution, feeding everyone, but suggest that some new high-tech solution is the answer. Something like this will take years to implement, meaning no change in the status quo, plus no promise of a new system ever being developed or implemented if any snags occur during the research or implementation process.

Your suggestion of the new farming technique may to the average joe soap seem like a good solution, that is unless you take into account all the other nations that already have already solved the problem you speak of. Your solution requires years of research, testing, and implementation - which means at best estimate the next generation might get some benefit from this idea, possibly.

The rest of the world has already dealt with this, and found solutions which are working as I type this. Trying to re-invent the wheel is nothing but a right wing effort to stop real change and, at the same time, acting as a high-tech fig leaf to cover up their real intentions.

If America spent as much money making sure it's citizens were healthy, fed, and living in proper homes as it did on guns, bombs, and starting wars around the globe - people in America would be much better off.

I find it hard to believe a country that spends 30 billion a month, and has for many years now, on a WAR - can't afford to give it's own people health care. Your now claiming America needs new sci-fi farming techniques to feed it's own citizens. 30 billion a month could buy a hell of a lot of McWhoppers mate...and you don't even have to call in Issac Asimov to order them.

[Porphyria]

I never cease to be amazed at how people living in other countries (yes, I do mean Europeans) who have never lived in America and don't really have much information on our government systems outside of what they're either assuming or what they read on the internet can be so critical of this country. It's one thing to be annoyed at American foreign policy. We suck at that. But come the fuck on, people. You call all Americans fat and then turn around and accuse us of not having enough food to feed ourselves. Make up your mind. Are we overfed slobs or poor starving bastards?

CptSternn: America has a public wellfare system almost exactly like the Irish one you're praising. People who are unemployed, disabled or make less money than they need to support their dependents receive a monthly allowance. There's also a program called WIC that makes certain foods available to families with young children for free or nearly free. People who need help can get it fairly easily. On top of that, people who fall into certain "low income" brackets receive a large tax credit. My husband and I always get all the income taxes we paid back plus around $2,500 in tax credits because we have kids. We wouldn't starve without that money, but I'm certainly not complaining.

BLEED REBELLION!!!: Americans have no idea what "poor" is. We think people who live in trailers are "poor" and should be pitied. These people are not starving... not even close. Ugandan refugees are poor; those people who come here from China in shipping containers are poor. Trailer-dwellers are simply less rich.

I agree that our society is too obsessed with money, but I don't think giving the government the power to control our food supply would change that. The Chinese government subsidized their people's food and, because of corruption and excessive waste and breakdown in their beaurocratic infrastructure, the people went hungry. Everything Big Brother gives you can be taken away just as easily. Do you really want important things like food, water and shelter to be their responsibililty?

The one thing that at really admire about socialist countries is that they subsidize higher education. I think the government's bomb budget would be much better spent on free public universities.

Americans have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement in my opinion. Nothing we have is ever enough and nothing we get is ever what we want. If your kids acted like that you'd bitch at them for acting like spoiled little shits. It's not that we're suffering over here, we just love to complain. It's extremely trendy to hate everything about this country and most people do that because they're expected to... because all the "cool" people in Hollywood are anti-everything.

[delicti]

Thank you everyone for your replies! I'll try to address as much as possible. Here's how I envision this being potentially implementable:

First off, I'd like to address why this would be a minimum hit to our economy:

While it is a popular myth that we are a highly agricultural society, this is in reality, a myth. Agriculture accounts for just 1% of our GDP:

http://www.bea.gov/industry/gpotable...&format_type=0

While 1% is still a large number, it's not nearly as high as the 30% that was cited above. Even if this was largely disruptive to the agricultural industry, it would not have a dramatic effect to the US economy.

Secondly, we would only be talking about providing basic food and water to the population. We could regulate what would be considered basic food necessities, and ultimately the only people who would be wholly dependent on these Skyfarms would be those already eligible for governmental food assistance. These people constitute approximately 12.6 million Americans, or approximately 4% of the overall food market.

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publis...le_63404.shtml

The remaining population would have the option of receiving food as well, but as this would only provide essentials, large amounts of the agricultural industries could be converted to provide more specialized foods. Exotic foods, foods deemed non-essential, and organic food markets could all be pursued. In exchange for giving up a portion of the market, the government would provide aid to farmers to convert their land for these purposes.

Even if food necessities are provided for by the government, this would free up extra income that could be used towards other purchases, including the purchase of goods from these specialty markets.


Additionally, once these Skyfarms were put in place, we could then convert them to a privatized model. I tend to prefer this model:

private company <-> self-regulatory agency <-> government

This is one of the most efficient models of regulation we have in place today. The NYSE is a self-regulatory agency that works as a mediator between stock traders and the government. It is incredibly efficient, as it has to be.

This model allows us to maximize freedom by allowing private companies to operate autonomously with minimum governmental interference, while still being vigorously regulated.

Skyfarms could be given a mandate to produce a certain amount of food for the populous at large, and be given reduced section 8 vouchers for upkeep of the building, and mild profit, which would be their incentive.

Again, without governmental build-up of these Skyfarms, there would be no market for them, but if we privatize them following their construction, we would be creating a market.

Some have suggested that this is akin to Socialism. It is not, and here's why:

- By creating basic food, water, and shelter as rights, we are eliminating them from the marketplace instead of controlling the marketplace.

- These would cover very basic essentials and would, in most cases, only service a minority of the population that are already not a force in the marketplace.

Thus, by creating it as a right, we are not creating Socialism, but instead modifying a Capitalist structure while preserving it.


I would like to also state that this is not intended to be mandatory housing, but instead would be housing for those that required or wanted it. People who wanted their own homes and particular foods would still be allowed to purchase these items. Essentially, this would be streamlining our existing systems in place.

How does everyone feel about this type of implementation of it?

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

Hello??!!! Are you not understanding the words that are coming out of my mouth??

I’m not saying let the government control all of our food. Im not saying we should absolutely do one thing. I’m not for more government control of freedoms. But Im for regulations on BB.

It annoys the shit out of me when people go “ you think you have it bad, look at those ppl they have it worse!!”. No matter who you are someone can always say some one else has it worse. Bad conditions are bad conditions. Jus because Someone else has it worse doesn’t mean that I should remain in my “less bad “ situation. “Oh your arm was amputated? Ohh well, you should be HAPPY you’re not missing both legs like that guy over there”.
You’re not starving to death you’re just eating Dog food…. BE HAPPY!!

There are places in Amerikkka that you wouldn’t believe. I have a problem with the conditions that allot of people are living in. Should I run of to another place and try to fix the problems over there when the problems in my back yard go on?
when you live in a bad area it affects you. Even when you leave and go some where nicer you are still marked by it the tendencies still show through. The whole mentality you have to adopt (or at least pretend to) in order to survive suxs. You are taught from when you’re young that you have to fight every and anyone to survive. You are not aloud to be weak or show fear. You cant want anything because you will never get it you are not worth it, so why get your hopes up.. Violence every where death.

All you will ever amount to is working in Mc Donald’s or going to prison.
Its obvious that’s what the school is training you for. I mean look at the way all the windows have bars on them. Look at the fact that there are more cops than teachers. Look at the way they scream at you. Look at the fact that there are rats in the cafeteria. “You are not even good enough to eat decent food”..

That’s the message that’s being sent and that’s THE MESSAGE THAT FUCKS SO MANY PPL UP….
So you know what yeah some of the people in Uganda have it worse than some people in America but that doesn’t mean we should just sit back and take this type of shit.

[Porphyria]

delecti: Thank you for making a point without being arrogant or melodramatic. I'm completely for the concept of skyfarming. I think it's cool in a kind of Star Trek way. The privatized model you mentioned would work well, but the idea of the government becoming over-involved with our food supply kind of scares me.

I'm just not so sure about providing people with an abundance of free food. More affordable food options, sure, but not free for everyone... not even just the basics. It seems like that would invite apathy. I believe it's the governments job to take care of only the people who can't take care of themselves... physically and mentally disabled people, kids and the elderly and such. There should be more of a focus on providing the opportunity for everyone to advance themselves instead of on providing actual goods. Teach a man to fish and whatnot...

Thanks for the links and everything. It's been an interesting read.

BLEED REBELLION!!!: I'd appreciate it if you'd chill the fuck out and make a point that has something to do with this thread.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Porphyria

I never cease to be amazed at how people living in other countries (yes, I do mean Europeans) who have never lived in America and don't really have much information on our government systems outside of what they're either assuming or what they read on the internet can be so critical of this country.

I lived there for 20 years, so I have first hand knowledge. I have lived in a few countries, and unlike most Americans have a view point based on the fact I have lived in other countries, not just America.

You call all Americans fat and then turn around and accuse us of not having enough food to feed ourselves. Make up your mind. Are we overfed slobs or poor starving bastards?

Both. Poor people in America eat crap food. Proper food costs more. Healthy food costs more. Fast food is cheap and easy to obtain. While a minority enjoy good health and a healthy lifestyle, the masses are forced to feed on whatever they can afford, which usually comes in a cellophane wrapper with a logo on it.

America has a public wellfare system almost exactly like the Irish one you're praising.

Thats not true. Your telling me in your system you can live anywhere you want and the government pays for it? Nope, they build 'housing projects' and force people who need housing into them, and then charge them for it. Here, the government pays our rent wherever we choose.

In America, you get food stamps. Here, we get cash in hand to buy what food we want, when we want.

In America, you don't get money every week, or ever. Everything they give you is second class, where as here you would never know who is or isn't on welfare as the system is setup as such that people who receive it are no different than the ones who don't

Also, in America, does the government give a weekly stipend to people who make wages below the poverty level? No. Here, if you work a job and your wages still are below the national average, the government gives you a check to make up the difference. That way we have no poor people - everyone is equal and has more than enough to get by on.

I have yet to see any sort of system in America for that.

On top of this, we can move to another country, any in the EU, Australia, and others and we still get social welfare. Try moving out of America and having them mail you your food stamps or unemployment benefits. Our rights to our social welfare system follow us wherever we go. With the exception of places like America.

It's easier to just show you this than to explain it...

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/ca...lfare-payments

I mean, the government here gives us an extra payment the week before Christmas so we can buy gifts. I don't see the American government giving people a check to buy their friends and family gifts at Christmas.

If you look at the money spent per person on citizens in not only Ireland, but the EU in comparison to what the American government spends on its citizens per capita, you will see a HUGE difference. The money we put into taxes comes right back to us, in many ways. Many, many more ways than America has ever even thought of yet.

The one thing that at really admire about socialist countries is that they subsidize higher education. I think the government's bomb budget would be much better spent on free public universities.

Agreed. All college in Ireland is free like the school system. If your accepted, your tuition is paid AND you get weekly checks to cover your living expenses so you don't' have to work and can focus on your studies.

On top of that, if you decide to not go to college right away, or later in life want to go back for another degree or learn a new trade, the government pays for that as well. If I decided today I want to be a doctor or learn how to fix airplanes, all I have to do is go fill out a few forms and the government will pay for it, plus pay all my bills while I am in school/training.

Don't take my word for it, check the website.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Both. Poor people in America eat crap food. Proper food costs more. Healthy food costs more. Fast food is cheap and easy to obtain. While a minority enjoy good health and a healthy lifestyle, the masses are forced to feed on whatever they can afford, which usually comes in a cellophane wrapper with a logo on it.

Since was any of that food cheap? For about the price of a McDonald's meal, I can make myself a huge pot of whole grain pasta that will last me at least a week. For the price of a meal at an "upscale" chain, I can make myself 3-4 meals like you'd pay $20 a plate for at an upscale restaurant.

No wonder you think food is expensive, you can't cook.

Thats not true. Your telling me in your system you can live anywhere you want and the government pays for it?

Yup. With the exception of some exclusive communities, you certainly can. I know someone who lives in a commuter village and due to his disabilities, the government pays for it.

In America, you get food stamps. Here, we get cash in hand to buy what food we want, when we want.

In America, we get WIC cards in most states. It works as cash, but you can only spend it on food. I fail to see a difference.

In America, you don't get money every week, or ever. Everything they give you is second class,

Actually, depending on what aid you're under, you do get a cash stipend.

Also, in America, does the government give a weekly stipend to people who make wages below the poverty level? No.

Well, I really have no comment for that. We believe in paying for people to better themselves through trades and colleges, and give people grants to do so. If you feel your nation is served by rewarding people who don't do that, then there's nothing I can really say.

On top of this, we can move to another country, any in the EU, Australia, and others and we still get social welfare.

I mean, the government here gives us an extra payment the week before Christmas so we can buy gifts.

That is off topic, and probably should be its own thread. Not to mention the second is a hideous violation of the separation of church and state.

If you look at the money spent
...
All college in Ireland is
...
On top of that, if
...

Stop hijacking threads.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Porphyria

delecti: Thank you for making a point without being arrogant or melodramatic. I'm completely for the concept of skyfarming. I think it's cool in a kind of Star Trek way.

Thanks. I try to be level-headed usually. I mean, I understand everyone can get heated on occasion, but it's only politics. And really, arrogance only benefits the person with it, and only until everyone finds out how much of a mask it is.

It would be really cool, if nothing else. I totally want to drive a hover car between a few of those things.

I'm just not so sure about providing people with an abundance of free food. More affordable food options, sure, but not free for everyone... not even just the basics. It seems like that would invite apathy.

To be honest, it scares the crap out of me, too. It's an interesting question though; can we actually form government in a way that benefits humanity more? And you bring a valid point; would humanity then respond by achieving to greater heights? Who knows, really, but I'll try to be terminally optimistic in those regards - even though experience has shown me both sides of it.

I'm probably going to post a series of these types questions; I look forward to your input. :-)

[the-broken-harlequin]

Originally Posted by delicti

The right to food and shelter may sound like a far out there concept to the more conservative members of this group. After all, those aren't actually rights in the US constitution, and you're not going to see them in other constitutions either.....................

Hmmm, another person who thinks there is a flaw in the system.
But maybe I just disagree because I support a dystopian future.

[Splintered]

I had a thought.

We're in Capitalism now right? At least, if you're in America, you're in some form of Capitalism.

So, despite whether you agree with Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, or *-ism, you still have to deal with the reality that someone has to be pay for it.

Who would you all suggest pays for the sky farms? Remember, it will not magically build itself.

You could say the government, but there's a problem with that. Where gets priority? Why should one person get free/reduced cost food, while the other doesn't? If you're aiming for economic equality, what sense does it make to force anyone to pay for their food, when someone else is getting it for free/reduced cost without the work, from these skyfarms?

More so, if you decide to go to it based on poverty levels, wouldn't it make more sense for America to invest globally in places like Ethopia and Nigeria, rather then the Bronx or some random tiny town of 4 in Arkansas?

It seems to me the only practical, and in my mind, fair solution, is to build them simultaneously across the world. But that costs money (Like I said, we still live in Capitalism). So who should pay for Skyfarms?

Also, does anyone know the actual cost to build one of these things? What's the rough yield of them? Do we even need them in certain areas because of what is already existing for farms? How will 'non-skyfarms' exist, if every majour and minor city has one?

A lot of questions I'd like to see answered, before I'm onboard with this.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Who would you all suggest pays for the sky farms? Remember, it will not magically build itself.

Easy killer, we get along more than you think. I'm proposing that the government build these. For the sake of our argument (since you and I both know that me posting this here is not going to make it so), let's assume that we are able to build these Skyfarms with minimum extra tax burden.

Following the construction, since we'd be using them in conjunction with our existing systems, we would switch to a privatized model. The assumption is at this point, they would largely pay for themselves.

You could say the government, but there's a problem with that. Where gets priority? Why should one person get free/reduced cost food, while the other doesn't?

Well, I'm American, so obviously I'm going to advocate America. If other countries wanted to pick up on this, I would applaud them.

If you're aiming for economic equality, what sense does it make to force anyone to pay for their food, when someone else is getting it for free/reduced cost without the work, from these skyfarms?

Well, and I'm sorry if this sounds callous. I'm not aiming for economic equality, I don't believe it has ever happened in all history, and I'm not going to be the one to try to fix it.

I'm actually more concerned about societal evolution, and raising the plateau of our citizenry to be more competitive in the global marketplace.

It seems to me the only practical, and in my mind, fair solution, is to build them simultaneously across the world. But that costs money (Like I said, we still live in Capitalism). So who should pay for Skyfarms?

Sorry man, I'm not interested in fairness, either. Our rights are ours, and by providing rights that other countries don't have, it ensures an economic edge for us. I'd love to propose these in the same way you're proposing, but it'd be an entirely different question.

Also, does anyone know the actual cost to build one of these things? What's the rough yield of them? Do we even need them in certain areas because of what is already existing for farms? How will 'non-skyfarms' exist, if every majour and minor city has one?

All good questions.

- I'm not sure of the cost, but I think that "a lot" is probably a good ballpark number. :-D

- Not only is the population rising, but city populations are the fastest growing number out there. Certainly this will become a problem when you eventually have so many people living far away from their food supply.

- I'm proposing that Skyfarms be restricted to only growing crops deemed "essential," and then pay farmers a lump sum to help them restructure their farms to create crops that do not compete with the Skyfarms (hard to compete with free). Of course, these Skyfarms aren't complete automated, some may opt to work the Skyfarms instead. We could madate that former farm-owners get priority in employment at the Skyfarms.

A lot of questions I'd like to see answered, before I'm onboard with this.

Absolutely, and some good ones at that. Hope that helps?

[delicti]

Oh, I forgot to answer your question as to what the yield is. They claim it can feed 50,000 people a day on a 2,200 calorie diet.

As far as I'm concerned, that's way too many calories to be considered "essential." We could feed 61,111 people on an 1,800 calorie diet, which sounds much more appropriate.