Here's a bit of the universal declaration of human rights. I've just been thinking that food and water are considered rights because we can all get them for ourselves, it's just that some people are prevented from doing so.
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, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
While it's certainly a laudable attempt to bring countries into line with western democratic policies on the treatment of their citizens, importantly, it is a
non-binding agreement. It will always remain non-binding because it's based on flawed logic.
For example, article 25 claims that food, clothing, housing and medical care are basic human rights. Sounds nice doesn't it? But sadly, no cigar. Those things are only possible under advanced socio-economic circumstances ...and if it's only possible under "certain circumstances" it isn't a basic human right, because it cant be afforded all the time to everyone.
To explain. For food, clothing, housing and medical care to be basic rights, then someone must grow the food and be prepared to give you some, someone must make the clothes and be prepared to give them to you, someone must build the house and be prepared to let you live in it and someone must be prepared to bandage your broken bones. In a state of extreme economic depravity, nobody is going to be giving anything to anyone else, it's only a socially advanced and economically stable and wealthy nation that can offer this.
Similarly, the validity of any right is dependent on not conflicting with any other right. I have the right not to be forced to do something I don't want to do. If everyone exercised that right and refused to give food, clothes, housing and medical care - those things could not be provided - at least not without forcing others to do them - which sets up a human rights conflict. You cant have a right which requires the generosity of others.
This is in contrast to genuine human rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of oppression etc - which dont conflict with anyone else's rights and which we all should have automatically afforded to us from birth to death. There is no "certain circumstances" which must be achieved first and no generosity required.
Like I said, flawed logic - article 25 of the UDHR is akin to an Antelope claiming it has the right not to be eaten by a Lion.
The Universal Declaration of Human Right is not an irreducible list of global, basic human rights, it's just a set of nice sounding ambitions that wealthy, democratic western states can sign up to if they want. Do you have the basic right to food, clothing, housing and medical care? Unfortunately, no you dont. You do have the right to starve, to be naked, to have no shelter and to bleed. Those things are not dependent on the generosity of others or economic circumstances.
