Paul Krugman's -- "we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be."
Or as Ezra Klein put it -- "In truth, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome aren't opposites. They're partners. Companions. Inseparable amigos. You can't have real equality of opportunity without equality of outcome. A rich parent can purchase test prep a poor parent can't. A rich parent can usher their children into social networks a poor parent can't. A rich parent can make donations to Harvard that a poor parent can't."
Or Jonathan Chait -- "the attempt to draw a distinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity collapses immediately."
No mainstream right-winger is getting anywhere close to arguing that people should starve to death.
This is true even if they're bedridden.
The government is right-wing.
In the US we have a government safety net, and a private safety net.
If someone falls out of the government safety net, as they are sometimes known to do, there are still churches and non-profits across the country which will provide them with food and shelter. They may lose benefits, but they're not starving. That distinction is important.
tl;dr People are dying because of government policy. Some people have in fact quite literally starved to death. There is absolutely no hyperbole involved here. It's a literal, physical, undeniable fact.
The possibility that others may perhaps find their way to private help is largely irrelevant, because private help - if it exists at all - is geographically patchy, resource constrained, and often disorganised.
I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you have to experience what this means in practice.
I really want to know what do you think is wrong with it?
The disagreement is about what type of system produces the best results -- be that using cultural change and market forces to bring up the general tide, or giving increasing power to a central government to try to force equality of outcomes.
We believe that if you try to force equal outcomes, you end up destroying your civilization. The best you can hope for is freedom.
That means we believe in making the world better without government coercion, and we believe that history supports that position.
They're not saying it in those exact words, but they are clearly saying that.
Those three cases are abused children, the mentally ill, and forgotten elderly. In all cases food scarcity was not the problem. They're problems of community oversight.
> Braasch competed in a "Battle of the Sexes" contest against Venus Williams and Serena Williams at the 1998 Australian Open when he was ranked 203. A decade and a half older than the sisters, Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."[2] He nonetheless defeated both sisters, playing a single set against each, beating Serena 6–1 and Venus 6–2.