most recent 30 from politics.stackexchange.com
Dormant Last read · last published · next check
Read 5 days ago and current, but nothing has been published for 2 years.
While many of the various answers (written by far more eloquent and able individuals than I) describe the US position regarding positive rights as being unconstitutional, I believe we must recall that, first and foremost, the US was hugely instrumental in formulating and ratifying the UDHR which includes several positive rights. Moreover the USA were likewise instrumental in authoring the American…
Simply put, because it's a trap, like all "positive rights" are. "The right to have a thing," whether it be food or any other thing, is an insidious way of avoiding describing it as "the right to force someone else to provide the thing to you." There's a reason they taught us in school to avoid the use of the passive voice: it's all too often abused to hide important details like this and deceive…
I expect that the USA saw this right as socialism by other means. The USA was born as a business, and remains as one, despite all the trappings of statehood that it has. It's why its so hospitable to capitalism - the philosophy of the wealthy. It's gotten to the stage where Elon Musk can, with a straight face, ask for a salary of 50 Billion dollars. Luckily a court threw this out as even they have…
Not too sure what the Israel's motivation was, but for the US, the between-the-line essence from what the officials said would be this in simple terms: The "right to food" is a positive right . Unlike the rest of the globally recognized human rights, guaranteeing it requires action , not refraining from action. To guarantee it, someone has to do work to produce and supply the food. Essentially,…
It somewhat depends on the US administration in power, whether they recognize the right to food. Sayaman's answer points to the US rejection of "General Comment 12" . The latter is mostly a repeat of some articles from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights though. Wikipedia says on the latter that the US has signed but not ratified it. And adds : United States –…
In the case of the USA, the expressed reasoning was primarily economic. As the USA Advisor for Economic and Social Affairs wrote: The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies that will have negative consequences for food security, sustainability, and income growth. Improved access to local,…
The U.S. has always taken the position, going back to its refusal to recognize that the positive rights in the U.N. Declarations of Human Rights are enforceable law, that positive economic rights are something to be fulfilled through the political process, rather than being rights legally enforceable in court.
From this article on the Guardian: From UN hunger expert: US must recognize ‘right to food’ to fix broken system In 2021, the US and Israel were the only countries to vote against a United Nations committee’s draft that asserted food as a human right The US said the resolution contained “many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions What are these unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise…