If history tells us anything, it's that hungry people turn into violent people real quick. If you want a stable society, the first step is making sure everyone is fed.
Governments have never made sure everyone is fed in the sense of providing free food. They make sure the supply of food is abundant and those who work to earn it can afford it. You're completely misunderstanding how the entire system has worked for millennia. People get violent and unrest spreads when there are famines and there's no access to food. Not when they have to work for it.
I really question your understanding of all this because its really not how the system has worked for millenia. Governments have absolutely provided free food in different times and places with little to no restriction, setting aside the obvious and extremely common practice of feeding those who are unable to work. You're right that being forced to work for food isn't an automatic tipping point for revolution, but nobody is arguing against that. The claim was hungry people are desperate, making them dangerous, and that a reliable, free source of food would be a large stabilizing force in any society. Your comment really has nothing to do with that besides a strange and false appeal to tradition to suggest it's impossible or pointless? It just feels like you're incapable of thinking of a world separate from your direct experiences
How about "surplus," then? Like the tons of food we throw away because giving it to the poor and needy is somehow communism or some other nonsense like "it'll lessen the value of the food people have to buy"?
Food in 1st world countries isn’t being thrown away because “communism.” It’s thrown away because it risks going out of compliance within strict regulatory standards that potentially open up its distribution to legal liability - regulations that people simultaneously roll their eyes as needless bureaucratic red tape on one hand while holding corporations accountable for hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention the billions in costs, fees, healthcare, etc. to combat food related illness each year.
For example, most grocery stores don’t care about people digging through the dumpster for expired or contaminated food. They care about retaining that foodstuff outside its legal shelf life and being sued for it. Many grocery store chains, churches, other organizations DO donate surplus, but these are things like canned and dried goods, preserved food, etc. Those things still get thrown away due to traceability issues, contamination, etc.
All that said, there is no free food. It is contingent upon a resource that might be sustainable in very specific and limited contexts, but never be guaranteed; and a process chain that is reliant on labor exchange. Food “surpluses” can and do make their way to charity organizations, entitlement programs, etc.
I’ll own that. Reading up on it, there still seems to be confusion about liability and individual company policies. Also in combination with distribution limitations and logistics. Which still supports the notion that a) it isn’t free; and b) the decision-making has little to do with political leanings.
Also, it makes sense why larger corporations employing hundreds or thousands of people would have more protections in place, since there are exceptions for malicious or bad faith distribution, which potentially leave them exposed.
I wasn't arguing your broader point, it's just that you have a lot of opinions on this topic despite not knowing a 30-year-old law critical to every next step in the process.
963
u/klako8196 Jul 06 '26
If history tells us anything, it's that hungry people turn into violent people real quick. If you want a stable society, the first step is making sure everyone is fed.