Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

Thank you, Con, for responding. Rebuttals: Contention 1: Con has stated that a just government is honorable and fair. Does that not suggest that a government ought to ensure equitable distribution of food, one of the key elements of food security? Con is taking things too far when he says that a just government cannot be oppressive and that every person has a right to individuality, liberty, and property. I agree that individuals do require autonomies and cannot be restricted of their individual rights. However, when Con states that every person should pursue activities based on their own desires, food security is ensuring food rights for everyone, including the people who cannot afford food. The whole point of this issue even having been brought up is because there are too many people facing food insecurities in the world, and the government's job is to give them what they desire. So in fact, that completely drops Con's first contention. Con says, "A just government cannot morally impose a duty upon a citizen to provide food to another citizen. A government that imposes duties upon citizens is not honorable, fair, or moral. Citizens that produce food should be able to voluntarily exchange the food products of their labor under mutually beneficial agreements without government interference." Citizens should defiantly produce food and exchange food products of their labor without government interference, but this topic is focusing specifically on the fact that the government should only interfere to ensure that everyone can produce and exchange food products. Con's second contention talks about how food distribution is an issue, and that the government increases food prices due to the laws of supply and demand. I am not sure I understand this contention, but is Con stating that the government would create high prices and distribution problems if they ensured food security? If that is what Con is saying, ensuring food security is meant to fix the issues of distribution and prices. Con attacked my first contention, stating that only unjust governments would have laws entitling the well-being of citizens. That completely goes against a government in general - of course a government has laws to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Con states, "The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no legal power over any nation. The purpose of the US Constitution was to protect citizen"s negative rights, not to grant positive rights. In the words of President Barack Hussein Obama about the US Constitution, "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." Food insecurity is a negative right. This is a right everyone needs, yet is denied from too many people. The US Consitution is intended to protect citizens' negative rights, in this case protecting the negative right to lack of food. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is meant to be upheld by every single nation that signed it, so yes it does have legal power over every nation who signed it. Con writes that government distribution will only lead to shortages. I am not suggesting that the government distribute food. Rather, the government must find a way to fix the supply of food to ensure that everyone receives food at an equitable amount. Furthermore, where is your evidence that it will lead to shortages? Didn't you say in your previous argument that the world has plenty of food? There is a surplus, correct? So from my understanding, Con is saying we shouldn't give food to everyone because then there will be shortages. So let's deny some people food so that we can always have a surplus of food. I stand open for further rebuttals. I thank Con for their impressive arguments, and urge anyone to read this and vote Pro. If you support a just government, support equality and a strong economy, vote Pro.