This post is a response to the question posted by 
This is sort of a deceptive question. It seems so simple. Of course there should be a minimum quality of life. Of course everyone should have access to what they need to survive.
If you pulled someone aside and asked them this question, they would probably respond in the affirmative right of the bat. However, given time to think, I bet people would come up with wildly different answers. New questions would arise, like "who would be responsible for such a guarantee?" and "are there any limits?". Sometimes people's own actions leave them unsure where their next meal will come from, and if people can't or won't guarantee their own minimum, someone else would have to. It is a much more complicated question than it seems at face value. Would it be great if everyone could be guaranteed a minimum quality of live without affecting others? Of course, but unfortunately it is not that simple.
Personally, I believe in such a minimum. I think that with the global wealth and the state of technology we have achieved, we should be able to make sure people are clothed, sheltered and fed at the very least. I believe that this is possible for the world, not just for certain countries, or each country individually. We have reached a point of globalization where countries can no longer ignore each other. That said, the whole concept may just be a dream. There is clearly not enough economic incentive to take care of the poverty issue globally, and while donations and aid can be helpful and even necessary, that alone cannot be the solution. My hope is a shift in values across the world, but honestly, I am a little pessimistic.