>Why do people still starve if we make enough food for everyone?

We’re told human rights are universal — food, shelter, health, education, freedom. But in practice? You pay to live. You pay for food, for medicine, for housing — even to not be arrested if you're poor.

Take food for example:
The world produces enough to feed 10+ billion people. Yet over 700 million go hungry. Why?

Because food is a commodity, not a right.

Countries export food for profit while their own people starve.

Governments literally destroy surplus to stabilize prices.

Supermarkets throw out tons of food instead of giving it away.

30–40% of all food is wasted.

Massive farmland goes to biofuels or animal feed, not hungry people.

We already solved the logistics. What we haven’t solved is greed.

Same with healthcare, housing, even clean water. If you can't pay, your "rights" don't exist. So what does that make them? Privileges, rationed by profit.

>We're not lacking solutions.
>We're lacking will — and systems that actually serve people.

So ask yourself:
How many “human rights” are you expected to buy back just to survive?
And how much of this “scarcity” is just manufactured?

>>936259488 (OP)
America is equal access based upon the ability to pay, that's why niggers ruin everything by being where the shouldn't (entitlement, or so thought).

Human rights are a concept. A concept that says things should be this way for every human regardless. That is idealism and idealism functions poorly in the real world. Especially when there is insufficient effort put forth to make things happen.

>>936259488 (OP)
I don't think there are "human rights." Depending on where you live, you have abilities that are protected by law. Many people view these abilities as human rights.

>>936259882
“Equal access based on the ability to pay” isn’t equality — it’s a paywall on existence. That’s not a free society, it’s a subscription model with debt slavery baked in.

And blaming Black people (or any group) for being “where they shouldn’t be” just reveals how warped the system makes people think. If someone existing near you feels like a threat, maybe the issue isn’t them — maybe it’s a system that convinces you scarcity is natural, and that someone else's survival is your loss.

It’s not race that ruins things — it’s engineered competition over fake scarcity.

You’re not mad at “entitlement” — you’re mad because you were taught to fight over scraps while billionaires float above it all.

Keep punching sideways, and the top keeps winning. Every. Time.

>>936260308
You’re right that human rights are a concept — but so are laws, money, borders, and nations. The fact that something is idealistic doesn’t make it useless — it makes it a target to aim for.

Human rights aren’t about pretending the world is fair — they exist because it isn’t. They're a baseline that says: "Here’s what no human should fall below, no matter where they’re born or how much they earn."

The real problem isn’t idealism — it’s hypocrisy.
We declare rights, but design systems that punish people for needing them.

You say "insufficient effort" — I agree. But that’s a reason to fight harder, not to discard the standard altogether.

Human rights aren’t fairy tales. They’re lines in the sand — and every time we let them get erased, the powerful push further.

>>936260808
You’re right that what we call “rights” are only as real as the systems willing to protect them. On paper, they’re ideals — in practice, they’re often privileges backed by power.

But the idea of human rights goes beyond laws or borders. It says:

"There are some things no one should have to earn — simply because they're human."

The fact that they’re often violated doesn’t mean they aren’t real — it means we’ve failed to live up to them. Same as with justice, peace, or truth.

Denying the concept of human rights because governments fail to enforce them is like denying the concept of health because people still get sick.

They're not guaranteed — but they should be pursued, or we’re just admitting that might makes right, and anything else is sentimental fluff.

And if that's the case, then no one has rights — only temporary permissions from whoever holds power.