Renegade

For a document such as as the "Charter of Rights", yes I think natural rights are the only principles which belong and should be guaranteed. However I'm not completely closed to the idea taht other principles can also be part of the constitution. IMV, "natural rights" empass virtuall all of the other principles that a document like the Charter should include. Before we should include other principles in the charter we would need to rigoursly define them. Other aspects of our society such as how we are oranized for democracy, separation of powers, etc should be documented but not within a "Charter of Rights" type document. Yes I do, but only making those rights more correct means in better alignment with natural rights. What you have called "rights" are better defined as privileges, and recognition of privlleges should only take place in laws, not in guarantees embedded in constituional documents. Neither you nor I can prevent anything. Even though you have previously agreed that a constitution should be based upon a set of principles, there is no way that if sufficient people who have power agree, that they can't do whatever they want anyway. But it is entirely besides the point of what a group, given sufficient power and do, I think what we are discussing what "should" be. What I'm saying is that it shoud be more than a personal itrerpretaion. It should be a legal one. Meaning no right should be embedded which isn't a natural right. There is no way to control how a person interprets what is a right. Frequently it is intrepreted as "Is this in my interest?" Suit yourself, but this is at the core of the issue. You have previously said that you were fine with a constitution based upon "natural rights" ("I am not at all opposed to a constitution based on "natural rights"..."), so if you decline to justify why economic rights are natural rights, then you also decline to defend why the should be guaranteed in the charter.

How much do you pay for your invaluable food, Angus?

Then perhaps what we differ on is what the princples of of the constitution are. I believe that the principles of the constitution are natural rights, something you said you were agreeable with. How does those other principles (ie "freedom, democracy, equality, etc") fit in with natural rights? Yes there are a "correct" set of rights, however I understand that society doesn't always have the foresight to realize what they are, thus the constitution must be amenable as society gets a better understanding of that correct set. Yes no new rights can be "created". They are simply recognized, if they fit in to the principle of natural rights. First I disagree that "manufacture by consensus" is the same thing as "refining the definition or deciding what fits the definition". If a consensus of people all agree that eveyone of us should be paid a billion dollar does that make it a "natural right"? I understand that you propose the question "Does this constitute a right in this society?" , but to substitute the term "natural right" would make the question contridictary, as you can see by the previously posted definition that a "natural right" doesn't depend upon society. Thus the question left with is simply ""Does this constitute a "natural right"?" Which is the question I have been asking of economic rights all along. I don't agree with you. Is the right not be be discrimminated against a right to be guaranteed to all? If so, and a group may " receive special treatment" do others not in that group, have that right violated. If you want to discuss this further, I'm happy to do so, but let's do so in a different thread. It will only sidetrack this trhead. OK it is a subject of debate, but isn't that what were doing now, so again, please address whether you believe "economic rights" are in fact "natural rights" and why.

Food/water is only valuable if there is a shortage, until then it is simply not valuable.

Your statement seems to counter your own position. If a country grows a surplus of food and is able to export it, yet its population is so poor that they cannot afford that food, is that country making the right choice? Perhaps if they made a different choice, their populaion would have wealth to purchase food (local or imported) and stave off starvation. You are suggesting that this is realistic scenario. Please give some real examples where this has occured. (ie if the citizens had the wealth to buy food on the open market, and were prevented from doing so, by "WAR, Faminine, Foreign Government Intervention"). If you can't provide examples, then I would assume that this is not a realistic scenario, and you are using a "the sky is falling" argument to elicit support an expensive and unnecessary practice. Huh? If there was suddenly a shortage of food and prices rocketed up, would local producers not want to be paid market prices for their food? The only diffierence is that it would be local producers collecting the profit rather than foreign. BTW, if local producers thought it was a realistic scenario, they would keep farming despite losses on the expectation that one day they could cash in because of a food shortage. The fact that they rather close farms is evidence that they do not consider this realistic. Which countries are you specificly referring to? like? Cm'on now be specific. I don't know the situation you are talking about, but so what. Let's say it was coffee. If the price of coffee was high enough would not the market move to subsitutes or give it up entierely? Maybe if you were more specific about the situation, we could look at it as an example. So what? If there is record profit, investors would be investing more in creating more supply. Hmm, that seems to completely contridict your argument. Let's say that you are correct in your scenario and their is a shortage of food/water. Since food is something "you will fight for it, for hunger/starvation knows no law", what is to stop a more powerful country who needs food/water from taking the locally grown food from Canada by force? Why bother to grow it when it comes to crisis time, someone else takes it away. Pretty much everything. The value of food is simply what people are willing to pay for it. Until it is in shortage and people are willing to pay more, pretty much everything else is more valuable.

I'm almost with you but not quite. I guess it depends upon what you mean by "interpret their principles according to the current realities". The principles the constitution is based upon SHOULD NOT change. I don't have issue if rights are modified so long as it is in line with the UNCHANGING principle. I'm not sure where you've picked up the impression that I favour a "frozen" constitution. I favour no such thing. Constitutions are imperfect documents and need the ability to change. My objection is not to change in the constitution. My objection is to the kinds of change which are permitted. It the example we are discussing, if a primitive society interpreted "natural rights" in a primitive way, and a forward thinking individual challenged that (perhaps to a judicary responsible for such interpretation) it would give impetus to change the constitution to include the interpretation that slavery was wrong. Your assumption that I favour a "frozen" constitution is plain incorrect so your criticism is not justified. Ethier you don't understand what I am saying or you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Yes I think that society can refine the definition, or decide which behaviours fit the definition. But that is something very different than manufacturing rights by consensus. The rights which should be embedded, are not as broad as "according to their interpretation of their principles", but more specfic that that. Meaning, the question asked of a right to be embedded, is "Is it a natural right?" You have already agreed that you would be ok with a constitution based upon "Natural rights". My question then, would you be ok if the test of whether something should be embedded in the constitution is "Does this right fit within the criteria of a natural right?". That may even means some rights may get embedded even if there is no consensus. (For example the "right to die"). Yes I disagree with the favourable treatment of certain groups as well. I simply point out that your contention that "Unequal rights would not be justified because that is an issue integral to the rule of law" has not been applied in the case of Canada, yet the "rule of law" still applies. Perhaps you need to remind me where I suggested that. I do believe it should be amendable but with constraints. I'll restate my position yet again, because you are clearly misunderstanding it. The "inflexibility" applies to the principle. The principle is that the only rights which should be embedded in the constitution are natural rights. The flexibility is in the interpration of which rights constitute a natural right. Certainly that is subject to challenge over time and undoubtly if the right for all men to be free were not embedded in the original interpretation of "natural rights" then at some point it would have been challenged and finally embedded. ------------------------ Now, please address why an "econoimic right" is a natural right. I have posted the definition, so does it fit that definition or doesn't it?

You suggest that "nation of beggars because we cannot grown our own food". Why would that be? If we are a nation producing something more valuable than food, and can trade it for food, how does that make us beggars? So do you apply this economic model to yourself? (ie independance make sense). Do you grow your own food and other essentials?

By promoting efficiency in the market. The prices already do include the cost of shipping that food from further away, even with that it is STILL cheaper to import peaches. As far as "precious and scarce oil" that isn't given away for free, go ask the oil producers in Alberta. Hmm, you seem to think that suddenly there will be a shortage of canned peaches in the supermarket and then people will starve. Not at all like an oar is to a lifeboat, more like a millstone to a neck.

Why the fuss? Canada: CanGro to close; Local peach growers to make tough decisions If it is cheaper to import peaches why wouldn't we just do so? It seems like a sensible decision on the part of the processors. If the answer is that Ontario peaches are better, then why isn't the consumer (and producers by proxy) prepared to pay higher prices for Ontario-grown?

And what is that natural equlibrium point? Obviously the natural equilibrium point for unskilled, unexperienced labour is different and much lower than skilled labour. Also if the minimimium wage legislates a wage which is below the natural equilbrium point, then why is it even necessary, because that would indicate that someone who is getting paid less than the equibrium point, can switch to a higher paying job closer to the equilibrium point. So what you are essentially saying is that if the minimium wage is too high, people will find ways around it or work for cash under the table. This then begs the question, if a minimium wage which is too high is useless because people can find a way around it, and a minimium wage which is too low is essentially useless since people can move to higher paying jobs. Why have minimium wage legislation? Wages going down is an indication that labourers are not supplying sufficient value to the employers or that employers are finding alternatives such as other labour pools or automation. Why should there be an expectation that providing the same labour there should be increased renumeration over time? Unless labour finds a way to continually be more productive, it is natural and expected that wages should go down. OK, but you still didn't respond to my challenge of evidence to back your strongly worded comments.

Any proof of that? Do you have evidence of what employment rates would be like had minimum wages not inceased or even be present? There are many factors which effect employment rates. Wage rates are only one. Economic theory suggest that setting a wage-rate higher than its natural equilibrum point, will affect demand for that labour and hence employment rates.

If you are not a all opposed to a constitution based upon "natural rights", albiet with the caveat that it is dependant upon "society" to interpret what "natural rights" mean, then the only area we diverge and should discuss is whether an "economic right" is a natural right. I could see a right being recognized which guaranteees an individual's right to trade for essentials such as food, water or shelter. IOW, government could not implement laws which impede the ability to acquire basics by trade. For example, it could not pass laws which ban the import of food. I can see this being considered a "natural right" that fits within the definition as I posted it. However, this is far different than a right for society to PROVIDE basics, which I don't see fits within the definition.

You seem to have confused the definition of "natural rights" and societies interpretation of it. A primitive society may not have the capacity to understand the concept and so will interpret it in a limited fashion. A more evolved society will have more cacapity to understand the concept and will have a "better" interpretation of it. That doesn't mean that the concept has changed, only societies understanding of it. Regardless it will still evolve along the set of PRINCIPLES which gave rise to the definition. yes No it is not quite the same thing. I'd be satisifed if society simply implemented a structure so that rights were guaranteed along the principles of natural rights. Of course it would do so to the best ability of its time to understand natural rights. That is quite a different scenario than saying we get an concensus from the population and manufacture rights. I draw an analogy to the Supreme Court system. We have learned and experienced people make judgements about interpretation, with a set of documented principles as guidelines. We don't rly on the general population for consensus in order to interpret whether a situation conforms to principles or not. I'm not sure how "fleshing-out of the body of rights" is any different. You previously seemed to say that virually anything can be guaranteed as a right if we got enough people to agree. Does "fleshing-out" mean that only existing rights can be refined? While I am not looking to divert this thread into a discussion on favourable treatment of certain groups, if you look in the charter you will find that behaviour, such as discrimmination FOR women is permitted as protected behaviour but not FOR men. I would class that as unequal treatment. The same is true for Natives. In you previous post you seemd to say that equal treatment was a fundmental characteristic. You are now justifying why with some groups (Natives) it is " an entirely different issue". Does that mean that if one group has a good reason, it shoudl be able to demand unequal treatment? It more or less waters down your argument that equal treatment is a fundamental characteristic. But I digress.... No not as their "principles" change, they have the authority to modify it as their "interpretation" changes. It may seem like a subtle difference but it is an important one. If a natural right is one which is one we recognize is inherent and independant of society, and we accept that as a principle then that shouldn't change. We should not have society redifining that principle so the principle is no longer the principle it was intended to be. If society redefined the word "cat" to be a dog, would that change the nature of the animal? And what I'm opposed to is a fluid definition which does not depend upon principles but just depends upon enough agreement that anything is possible. A constitution should be based upon a set of principles, not just we mostly all agree so let's write it down and guarantee it. Let me retrace what happened: 1. You said that my "idea of natural rights appeared inflexible and static". 2. I pointed out the example of slavery. 3. You said that was exactly why society needed rights which were "flexible and dynamic". IE when society got around to it, they could change the meaning of rights to abolish slavery. 4. I said that if an inflexible concept of "natural rights" were implemented to begin with slavery would never have been considered a behaviour which conformed. 5. You said that "society's idea of "natural rights" changes over time". Seeming to state that even if natural rights were implemented to begin with as I had suggested, that definition woudl have been subject to change. (Isn't that flexibility?) Which step did I misinterpret?

Ultmately yes, someone from society defines what is meant by natural rights. While the discussion of natural rights has been primarily left to philosophers, I would welcome a codefication of natural rights and the principles by which natural rights are derived. The definitions I have posted are some of the starting points of natural rights. Society can refine the definition, or decide which behaviours fit the definition. There will clearly be some behaviours which no reasonable person can conclude which will meet the definition, and those are not left up to societal interpretation. I, of course, don't because I don't believe rights can simply be manufactured by consensus, nor should any consensus-derived prvilidges be entrenched in the constitution. On that basis, I suppose you would take issue with the fact that the Charter extends priviledges to some groups and not others. For example it extends favourable treatment to Natives and Women. For me this is a troubling assumption. Events happen, people change, and not always for the better. If for example there was a massive resource shortage, I can see that it would be possible to suddenly curtail rights if based upon society's discretion alone. It was not "natural rights" which changed. As I have pointed out, the definition is independant of what society thinks. The only thing that possibly evolved is that society understanding of what constituted a natural right. Regardless basing a constitution on "natural right" would have given the slaves and their advocates a basis for chalenging the status quo far earlier than a constitution based upon societal descretion. Imagine this, a constitition which is based upon the principle of "natural rights" and a judicary which is empowered to support this. An advocate for slaves, challenges the legality of slavery based upon the principle that it is a "natural right" to be free, despite the fact that no one else questioned the morality of it. The judiciary is forced to think about an issue it may not have previously faced. This is very similar to the situation faced by SSM in Canada. In the 90s, a large part of the populace and even parliment did not support SSM. It was challeged in court because the prohibition did not conform to the principles of the Charter, even though discrimmination against homosexuals was not explicity excluded. The court ruled in favour of SSM despite the fact that there was no consensus to extend that right to homosexuals. BTW, if you truly believe that "society's idea of "natural rights" changes over time" then what is your objection to basing a constitution upon it? Afterall doesn't that give it the flexibility you seek? You criticized the concept as "arbitrary" and implied that it was inflexible. You now defend "natural rights" as flexbile because society can evolve its understanding of natural rights over time. Which is it, inflexible and static, or flexible and dynamic?

IMO, Natual Law, anything more should be implemented as a law, and not classified as a right. IMV, you shouldn't be using the word "rights" to define the concept you are taking about. A more fitting word would be "privilidges"since they are awarded, and can be taken away at the discresion of society. IMV, a "right" is an entitlement when cannot (or should not) be taken away. IMV, the constitiution should guarantee rights, law is used to extend priviledges. I'm not following your explaination at all. Why is it an " issue integral to the rule of law"? Please explain. The reason it is tempting fate is you are making judgements about what should or should not be considered a "rigtht" and codifing it in a constitution based upon your assumption of reasonableness of the population based upon the current populaton and make-up and attitudes. You are not looking at either the past or the future to examine what is possible. It is certainly possible o have a radicalized population which could have a narrow view of rights. It has happened in the past, and there is nothing to indicate such a situation would not happen again. That people are "ill-informed" sheep is simply my opinion based upon ancedotal evidence. I bet if you asked 10 random adults in society what a right is and why we should have them, you wouldn't get a satisfactory explaination from 9 of the 10. People simply don't give the issue much though so I have no confidence in leaving the issue of determining rights in their hands. Not at all. If rights were inflexible, it would have been recognized from the outset that slavery violated the natural right of slaves to be free. IOW, there would have been no flexibilty to violate the freedom of the individual by enslaving them for the thousands of years prior to the consensus.

The evidence I was looking for is some evidence to support that society makes decisions regarding rights based upon objective facts and reason, rather than emotion or whim. I understand now that it is simply your personal opinion. I was asking wether a society could limit rights almost entirely and be justified in doing so. In your opinion it can. The way I read that, you then can justify any brutality of a minority simply by getting enough consensus of people to agree with that brutality. I don't believe that most people would agree with you on such a concept of rights. While it was not the question I asked, I am curious on your answer to the first question. Why would unequal rigthts not be justified in your opinion presuming you had sufficient consensus in the population? Perhaps your trust is based upon a more recent snapshot of the political processes. In the long run, perhaps over centuries there are no guarantees of what the politicial process will be nor of what the motivation factors of the populace will be. As seen by 9/11 a population can easily be motivated by fear. There are many other scenarios I can imagine where the population is motivated by non-rational decision making processes. In my view, much of the population are ill-informed sheep. They are eaisly swayed by politicians and events. Putting individual rights into their hands is simply tempting fate. Since much of its principles and opposition is based upon religious beliefs and objections, and much of its religion is riddled with bigotry and fear, I feel quite comfortable saying that bigotry and fear play a huge part in their decision making process on this particular issue. You seem to forget that the slaves endured decades if not centuries of slavery before that debate occured. Furthermore there was no consensus as you have described. Basically a change was forced on the south through the violence of the Civil War. If the US had waited for consensus it may have waited until the 60s before abolishing slavery.

I seriously doubt it. In Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) such a case was fought on the basis that welfare rules was unconstitutional because the regulation violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. Gosselin lost. See also Fraser Forum for an interesting read on the case.

Sean, you may categorically disagree but you have provide no evidience to dispute my contention. I do agree with you that in Canada ultra-religious groups are unlikely to sway consensus, however my comment was not restricted to Canada. My point referred to political systems in general, which in some countries ARE swayed by ultra-religious ideals. So also, by your reasoing that if a society by consensus decided no or very little rights to some of it's citizens, it would be " perfectly justified" in doing so, correct? It may be self-evident to you but it certainly is not self-evident to me. I see many historical incidents where "objective facts, reasons, or principles" are tossed out the window in the face of an emotionial response motivated by fear, hate, and other emotions. Just look at the internment of some groups during WWII. I believe the action had widespread support. Could such widespread support have translated into a constitutional amendment ABSOLUTELY!. The US is talking about a constititutonal amendent to prevent the adoption of Same-Sex Marriage? Is it based upon "objective facts, reasons, or principles"? Not at all, it is based upon bigotry and fear. If we aren't using English dictionary definitions of words, then you are using terminolgy different than anything I'm using and I'm not sure how we can have a constructive discussion. I agree that constituions should be much less flexible than laws. I agree that constitutions should have the ablitiy to change because no constitution is perfect, however I disagree with you in that the principles of what goes into constituonal change should be specific and defined. Consensus from society is only required to determine if a specific constituional amendment fits into those principles on not, assuming it is not altogether obvious already. While both you and I think it should be, there is no "right to die" in the Charter. In Rodriguez v. British Columbia the SCC majority ruled that the right to die was not a protected right. History shows you to be wrong. It certainly is not "impossible for things considered egregious by the society to be done" even when consensus is required. The history of the US and its adoption of slavery for many years proves that. Constitutional Topic: Slavery

The fact that they are "exceptions to the rule" doesn't diminish the fact that they occured in the past and such incidents can continue to occur in the future. Requiring a larger consensus than 50% only reduces the chance of rights being determined by the whims of the majority but doesn't eliminate it. the constitution and the definition of right should NOT be soley determined upon the whims of the populace. There are many populations (for example ultra-religious ones) which will gladly deny some of their citizens certain behaviours because they are guided by religious principles. By your reasoning they are perfectly justified to do so. Please explain what compels society so that it MUST use "objective facts, reasons, or principles" to define the rights. I have asked before and you have not addressed what are those ""objective facts, reasons, or principles" which are used? Yes there is a certain amount of judgement involved because there will always be cases which are borderline, however the existance of borderline cases, doesn't eliminate the fact that the principle of natural laws can be applied to determine most cases. Look at it this way. Laws are the rules of society. The constituion is the set of principles upon which law is based and to which laws must conform. Natural Law and natural rights are the set of meta-principles upon which the constitution should be based. Yes you could state that the natural right to water is as much a natural right as the right to life, and I agree with that. But society doesn't provide you with life, nor should it provide you with water. If you refer back to the definition of "arbitrary", you will see that the support of society or anyone else, isn't relevant to the standard of how arbitrary something is. Society retains the flexibility to determine what is law not what are rights. For example, I believe that each individual has the natural right to die. I don't believe that the consensus of society shoudl be required to grant each individual such a right. So is it your contention that society can NEVER through CONSENSUS impose egregious rules limting the "rights" of its citizens?

I don't see that I'm twisting anything. Yes it is consistant with your earlier posts where you have stated that society and their designate (government) are free to define what a right is based upon nothing more than their wishes. In some of the examples I have pointed out, the government has done exactly that. How is that twisting what you have said? I am simply pointing out the implication of what you have said as it applies to those societies.

Yes, I absolutely don't trust the judgement of society. I have shown you examples above that society judgement sometimes results in the complete loss of individual freedom when left to the discretion of society. You can't be serious Sean. War, capital punishment, abortion, are but some examples in modern society where by society has deemed it is appropriate that someone die. 1930's germany is an example of a modern society where many group's right to life were removed simply by societal consensus. Societal consensus is subject to manipulation, emotion, and whim. Not very long ago after the terrorist incidents of 2001, when people's fear trumped their reason, they were completely willing to give consensus to subvert rights. The dictionary specifices a definition o "arbitrary" as: Regardless of the "substantial" consensus it requires, it it at the whim and discrection of a subset of the members of society. That makes it arbitrary. If in fact it is not arbitrary and is in fact based upon "objective facts, reasons, or principles", then I'd like to understand what those objective facts, reasons, or principles are which society uses to determine what is "fundamental". Not at all. You need a somewhat objective definition or set of principles. The flexibility should only be in the interpretation of those principles. For example if the principle derived from a natural rights is individual is allowed the freedom of speech, the flexibility is in the interpretation of whether shouting "fire" in a theatre is a protected behaviour under that principle. No it absolutely cannot be simply left to the judgement of society to determine what a natural right is. If you agree with the definition of what a natural right is, then it becomes a point of discussion whether a particular right fits within that definition. Some may fit quite easily and clearly which no reasonable person can dispute. Some behaviours may not be as clear. Where a behaviour is not clear as a natural right, I can see cause for society's judgment, but when a behaviour is clearly a "natural right" as defined, no judgement from society is required. I'm really not sure how you can both call the method of determining what is a natural right, both "too rigid and inflexible" and arbitrary in the same post. Natural rights have been determined by principles which I have previously described. This makes them distinctly nonarbitrary. You haven't yet posted a definition of "natural rights" which conflicts with any I have posted and linked to, so I assume that there is no dispute in the definition.

So then, by that presumption, the apartheid of South Africa as enforced by the might of the government was "right", as was the German government's extermination of the Jews, and so on in endless examples I could give. Might never makes right. Rigth is right regardless of might. Might can be be used just as easly to implement "wrong" as it can to implement "right" and redefining what is "wrong" to make it "right" doesn't make it so.

The way you conceptualize society, laws and the constitution virtually any society no matter how brutal or oppressive to its citizens can be legitimized if there is sufficient support within that society. For example, if a society decided to enslave a portion of its citizens because enough of them decided that they do not possess the "fundamental" right to liberty. If a society decides that one minority doesn't the "fundamental" right to live, it can exterminate that minority and still claim legitimacy and respect for human rights, because after all they are the ones who determine what "fundamental" human rights its citizens are entitled to. See the 18th and 19th century American South and 1930s Germany for examples. I cannot see how you vision of a society somewhat arbitrarily determining what "fundamental" rights a person should have, is in keeping with our modern view that each person has inalienable rights which CANNOT be taken away by society. No apology in necessary. The discussion has been nothing but civilized and respectful. While not strictly defined, yes there is a precedence of natural rights which stems from an assumption that each person right to his own person is more important than any other individual's right to behaviour which would be conflict with it. The issues where two individual’s rights to the sanctity of their own person come into conflict is something we struggle with everyday. (For example abortion). While I understand your point that sometimes rights will conflict, it doesn’t render the presumption that natural rights are derived from inalienable and inherent entitlements to self which each individual possesses. This forms the philosophical basis for determining the rights guaranteed in the constitution, rather than an ad hoc determination by society of whether a right should be "fundamental".

Sean, please define what you mean by "fundamental". It would seem that you have substituted the criteria I use for what shoudl be included in the constitution ( "natural rights") for something much more subjective (ie a "fundamental contract"). How do you intend that society determine what is "fundamental" and what is not? If you could kill and enslave others without violating the other's rights you would certainly have the right to do so. The nature of killing and enslaving violates the rights of others. Yes natural rights are those rights we have without human constructs, but also subject to the limitations that it doesn't violate others natural rights. The criteria seems pretty clear to me. I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty with it. No, I believe that there are much more differences between a constitution and ordinary laws. What I stated above was what I believed YOUR position to be. Again what constitutes "fundamental" and why should entitlement to basic provided services not be subjected to the discretion of the majority?

Why "must" society do such a thing? "Rights" as you define them are nothing but contracts within society and as such it is free to just encapuslate its ageements in laws and change them as it sees fit. In your opinion what makes something a "right" or not? Government allows us a deduction from income for RRSP contribution. That is a societal contract. Is that too a "right" and so, must it be enshrined in a constitution? First, those aren't "my" definitions, those are definitions from external sources I have referenced to show that it isn't simply my opinion of what a "natural right" is. If you have different definitions which is something other than your own opinion, please post them. Of course the definition isn't within the context of society, because, BY DEFINITION, (at least according to the ones I have posted), they do not depend upon society, they however are present with or without society. Second, yes there is a test of whether something is a natural right. See the quote "A natural right is a universal right inherent in the nature of human beings and is not contingent on ethics, human constructs, laws or beliefs.". If one has the the right to a behaviour, quite independant from the existance of society, it is a test of a natual right. Can one breathe, speak one's mind, believe in one's choice of god, all without society, laws, or any other constructs being present? Of course you can. These make them natural rights, not ones "given" by society, but ones acknowledged and respected by society As I suspected, the only real difference, (in your view) between constitution and law, is how difficult and how often those contracts change. So then, why would society want to bind itself into a more inflexible arrangement when it had the choice of a more flexible one?