Welfare is only available to families in the United States. Even then, it's not enough to live on, and most who receive it have to supplement their income by homeless services (where these are available). As I showed you earlier, with statistics from the United States and the United Nations, millions of people in the United States are in fear of hunger or starvation. Forty-five millions according to the United States Department of Agriculture.
You can joke about it all you want by talking about how being homeless is a nice way to collect welfare and live at the beach. But then again, almost everything you believe seems to be... well, made up, no offense. Any statistics? No. Any quoting of history? No. But you'll quote a bunch of right-wing, pro-life websites, oh, and then ignore them when they support my point, like how there is enough technology for the land to make enough food for all.
Believe whatever you want. You can't even answer my argument why people starve to death in both developed and undeveloped countries. Instead, you deny the existence of starvation. You're a really responsible, "UN worker." If I could summarize your argument, it would be, "I have no idea what's going on, but property, tradition, and the church have to be right."
It deserves rights, so long as it is unborn, apparently. After that, you're on your own. How about we stop abortion, and instead, just extract the unborn, and let them starve to death without the umbilical cord? That's not abortion. It's church-sanctioned Capitalism! After all, the only reason you let children starve to death, is because they are outside the womb. But it is the same child. The anti-choice, religious believers fail to see that life continues after birth. Maybe it's because the church benefits from there being a lot of starving children around. After all, that helps the church find cheap workers for its businesses, right?
If the welfare system in the US does not provide enough to enable the poor to avoid starvation, get involved in the political process and help to change it. At the moment you have the most left-wing President in US history, and a Democrat-controlled Congress, so they should be sympathetic.
Our church groups don't just talk about poverty, they DO something about it instead of just pining for a long-lost anarchist nirvana as you do. Get involved in politics or at least in one of the micro-credit schemes as pioneered in Bangladesh to help people out of poverty.
The Christian churches have done the most to help the "untouchables" in India get out of poverty and their huge interest-debts to landowners, that is why some Hindus are persecuting Christian missionaries.
Pining about a long-lost anarchist nirvana? Why thank you. That's what we call, in human society, responding. You get a gold star, Babette.
Now respond to this. Would people rather starve to death, or work? And if they can't work, what's stopping them?
See, you can't answer it, except by saying, "Well, probably because of inequality of bargaining power between the workers and the Capitalists." That would be the only reasonable thing. It has always been like this, and always will be. Only when the people have the right to the land and to work, will they always have the right to benefit from their labor. Doesn't it seem better to work to create the only model of human society that abolished hunger, instead of working side-by-side with those who have destroyed these communities, like the Catholic Church?
A year of anarchism in practice obliterated poverty. More than a thousand years of the Catholic Church has continued global poverty. If you don't get the idea of science, we do experiments for ideas, and when all of the experiments of an idea fail, then the idea fails, whether Capitalism or Catholicism. So, you can wail all you want about how you'll stop the billions from suffering, but it's nothing more than superstitious bloodletting, and the more you do it, the worse the subject gets.
You have NOT answered by assertion about the Catholic and other churches getting land for landless untouchables in India. They are doing something positive, you are just theorising.
I'm not denying it. Nor am I denying that the Catholic Church blessed the conquerers upon entering India.
That's your response to my question? When I ask, five or six e-mails in row, why people are starving, I get this reaction: "You have NOT answer my assertions!" Can you answer an assertion? I don't know. But you can answer a question, I know that!
So, if 1.4 billion people are starving, would they rather starve to death or work? And if they can't work, why not?