Quote Originally Posted by seven-deuce View Post
C'mon man, you can't compare humans to chimps we're different species. Chimp's brains haven't evolved to the point human's brains have.
Well, it's kind of a tangent but evolution does not progress towards a "higher" or better target, it converges towards a more _adapted_ state. A more evolved creature isn't necessarily "better", it's just better adapted assuming it's environment has remained relatively constant. That's not to get onto the idea that, given that chimps have been around longer than we have, and that their environment has not changed as radically as ours, they are arguably better adapted. The idea that humans are better/higher/more enlightened than chimps seems rather dubious to me.

Their brains are hardwired to feed and breed
And yours isn't?

I prefer to call the property of "deserving" - rights. The right to life, the right to have food in your stomach etc. Obviously there are no actual "rights" all rights have been man made because we are capable of thinking and can recognize the moral need for them.
As you observe, there are no "rights" in nature, they are a man made construct which we use to live together in relative peace and non-interference with one another. Don't you think the right to do what you want with the products of your own labour is one of them? Why is it that our hypothetical homesless mans "right" to food trumps the right of someone else to give that food to their own child? Who is to be the arbiter of who is most deserving of that food? If our farmer/smallholder doesn't get to keep that food for himself or give it away according to his own free and unfettered inclinations, what is his motivation to produce it in the first place?

The idea that there would be no food if there was no marketplace is wrong too. We would just have to hunt our own food instead of buying it prepackaged at the local store etc.
So why isn't our hypothetical homeless man hunting his own food? Indeed, his options are richer and more varied than hunting his own food, because he can produce value in many different ways then trade that value for food - the market improves his access to food, it doesn't diminish it. For him to expect that he can produce no value, and that he should have a "right" to take the value that someone else has produced in the form of food or medicine without giving anything in return does not seem remotely moral to me.

Why should a person in India starve to death because he was born into poverty in India? The world has x amount of resources. Nobody has any intrinsic right to said resources. Said resources should be divvied up fairly.
Again, "should" is all fine in theory - someone has to exploit those resources though, and if people _choose_ to employ the resources they have exploited to feed poor people in India, more power to them.

The more wealth and resources there are in the world, the less likely people are to go hungry. The best motivator to produce wealth is peoples self interest.