Renegade

Yes we already have such a framework. That framework determines who can pass laws and what the consensus required is (ie a majority government). It is a moot point on whether that framework is defined in the constitution or other legaly binding documents. I don't dispute the need for a constitution. It is fine to bind future generations to respect natural rights which each individual has anyway due to the nature of their existance. It is NOT fine to bind future generations to social contracts which denote an entitlement to some at a cost to others, especially since those entitlements can be freely determined by those future generations themselves through the use of their voting power. Only in the way that you define rights. You have igored the external quotes which I provided showing that the rights I am referring to do not depend upon society. As before we are talking about completely different things. You are referring to a set of contractual guarantees, I am referring to a set of intrinsic freedoms we each are entitled to. I don't see how we can agree on this since we differ substantially on the purpose of the constitution. Personally I don't see the difference between how you have defined the constitution and a law passed by parlament (except perhaps in the level of agreement needed to enact changes). Not at all. Things which are a matter of policy are subject to change. Once enshrined in a constitution, it is notoriously hard to change. I see no reason to distort the purpose of the constitution so that the flexibility to determining what is policy, is lost.

Sean, good summary. There is a fundamental reason why I don't believe community-based contracts should be enshrined in the constitution. It is one thing to have rights we have with or without society (ie natural rights) guaranteeed in a constitution, it is another thing to enshrine entitlements which bind not just parties making the agreement, but even future generations to a set of obligations they have not been a party to. Those obligations are best determined on a perodic basis (ie elections). Yes and no. As stated in the definitions I have previously posted for a right to be "natural" it should exist even outside the context of society. I am aware that there are others who's concept of rights are really anything that society decides to guarantee its members, however that would not meet the definition of "natural rights" (at least not by any definition I've seen of "natural rights"). This is somewhat the point. As it applies to economic rights, we have not agreed to provide economic rights to basic necessitites as an a guaranteeed entitlement so no such right exist. Since it is not a natural right (since it depends upon agreement by society), for it to be included in a constitution there needs to be a compelling reason. I see no compelling reason since access to basic needs is already being met anyway by policy of virtually all of the governing parties.

Certainly, but the altruisim becomes a bargain between the two, rather than a right. Yes, but you'll find just as much if not more predatory behaviour than altruism.

Not at all. Taller people may be able to pick fruit shorter people cannot. People who due to their physical proximity to the ocean may have access to fish, other may not. And so on. Yes indeed. The first person would have the choice of either ceding access to some of the resources to the second person, hiring the second person, or killing the second person. Of course all of this is meaningless unless the first person an enforce exclusive domain of the island.

If by artifically, you mean by the use of force, you ignore that in nature the use of force is quite common and even expected in maintaining the usual inequalities of life. See the animal kingdom for examples. Obviously if they don't care, then why even bother with legal justificaiton since if they have power they can write whatever laws they want to. What it comes down to what you are saying is that those who have the ability to use force, write the rules, and can thereby justify anything under the rules they write.

Are you expecting that they have the right to all resources? How about if they had access to some resources? What about if the only resource they had access to was their own labour? Personally I can agree that they have access to their own labour and freely trade that labour. The "right to expect to be provided sustainance" is not so much a "right" but an offer to trade their right of access to their own labour in return for baisc necessities.

Wow, Leafless I'm impresed at how far you've advanced from the days when you gave these excuses for your own lack of the use of quotes. link link

So let's expand the scenario and now add a second person to the island. Assume the original person can more than provide for him self through his kowledge of the use of resources (farming, fishing, hunting, etc). Also assume that lack of available resources is not an issue and that the individuals are aware of each other's existance. If the second person is lacking the basic necessities because he doen't have the same knowledge or skill that the first person posesses, does he have the "right" to demand that the first person feed/clothe/shelter him? Then you are no longer referring to "natural rights" as I have shown you the difference between your concept and the definition. No I don't think the government can or should ensure any of this. All it needs to ensure is that there are no inhibitors to freedom of trade, so that an individual is free to trade his labour for the basics. If an individual doesn't have anything of value to trade for the basics, it is the indivdiual's problem not the governments or anyone else.

Quite concieveably, they may not be successful in being able to provide the baisc necessities of life. Their success in providing the basic necessities depends upon them being successful in trading their labour, knowledge, or other resource of value for those necessities. There is never a guarantee that they must be successful in that trade. Absolutely becaue "artifical economic rights" are not rights at all, they are simply a claim of economic power, no more a right, than the claim of devine right of kings to govern. How they reconcile these issues has more to do with how solutions to inevitible problems are negotiatied and implemented rather than a specific entitlement to an "economic right". As I've said they only claim that they have an "economic right". In general people will use violence and force to try and have implemeted any situation or set of laws which they favour. The question at hand is do they have a philosphical justification for that claim. We have introduced artifical constructs which distort the concept of "only the fittest will survive". It is far from certain that this is true.

We agree that in this scenario the man possesses no such right. By your assertion in the scenario above, that the man has no economic rights except within the context of society, you contradict your contention that "economic rights are natural rights". By definition natural rights do not depend upon a society or others being present to provide those rights. See the following: Natural right(Wikipedia) Natural right Since you agree that economic rights depend upon human constructs (ie society and government) to implement them, they CANNOT be natural rights. They are also not valid "eveywhere" (since as you have stated, absent society no such right exists). I do agree with your statement that "people have an inherent right to the basic necessities of life". But to me that statement means that they have the inherent right to provide the basic necessities of life for themselves.. They possess no inherent right to have others provide for them.

Sean, well put. This is the crux of our disagreement. I have said that I don't believe economic rights are natural rights. Do you have any justfication why they are? If there was one man on an island and he was dying of thrist because there was no water, who is infringing on his economic rights?

Unfortunately Jerry, it would seem that people feel that one of the rights given to government by the people is the right to define what rights its people are entitled to.

Sean, At this point we are diverging on the semantc definition of rights. Your position is that right only exist with a guarantee of enforcement. My position is that rights are rights regardless of whether there is the means to enforce access to those rights. So who is (pardon the pun) "right", since a "right" is a theoretic construct subject to our own definitions. The definition of a "right" which is closest to construct I am referring to is "Natural Rights". I agree that mandate of government is to enforce rights. I have never said that people "should" have rights. I'm saying they already do, simply by the nature of their existince. The government "should" enforce those rights and governments such as China come under criticism, not because its people don't have rights, but because the government doesn't recognize or enforce the inherent rights its people have. ------------------------------------- Back to the issue of economic rights. I believe that the only rights which the government should be obligated to recognize and enforce are the "natural rights" which exist with or without government. Economic rights is not one of those because by definition it existance depends upon the existance of government and it is not a "natural right"

Yes it should, and I agree that the rule of law is a fundamental obligation of government. However I think there are three separable concepts: 1. The rights themselves which exist with or without government. 2. The enforcement of the rights (which for the most part we delegate to government). 3. The government as the trangressor of individual rights. Documents such at the Charter are primarily used to acknowledge the rights of individuals and to address the issue of government being trangressor of individual rights. It is "guaranteed" the same way it is now. IOW, it is subject to the power of enforcement, regardless of if that power come from government or myself. You seem to hold the position that rights do not exist unless the government grants and guarantees them. Let me ask, if the government of a country (say China) doesn't grant or guarantee a set of rights to its population, does that mean that its population doesn't have any rights? Should we have any recourse to protest that Chinese government is violating the rights of its people when by your position they don't have those rights to begin with as they were never granted by the government.

Yes. Who, or what obliges the government to uphold their own laws? In fact the decision to uphold a law is entirely at the descretion of the government's own employees (namely the police and prosecuters). Complelety disagree. The rights exist whether or not there is a government. The government simply acknowledges the rights we all already have and agrees to enforce our access to those rights. If I had my own ability to enforce my right to free speech, would I still have the right to free speech? Agree with you here. It is part of the mandate of government to ensure that rights can be freely exercised, however for the most part since it is only government that has the ability to curtial an individual's rights, what this obligation means is simply that government must restrain itself so as it doesn't infringe and individual's rights.

It may have been extensively discussed however there is not any consensus that positive rights should be guaranteed in the same way negative rights are. IMV the Charter should not impose any rights which impose an obligation for the government. For example the right to an interpreter should not be a right which means that the government should have to pay to supply one, only that they have access to one at their own cost. No. I don't believe there is an obligation to protect controversial groups while protesting. I belive that is done simply to preserve order and to maintain current laws. Do you have any cite or precedent that shows that the protection of controversial groups is a fundanmental obligation off the government to preserve freedom of speech? I'm saying that for a right to be a "right" it exists with or without government. Anything else is simply a service provided by government. It it fundamental to the question of "What is a right?"

By well-established do you also mean well-accepted or only well discussed? Have a look at this article:Rights vs. Wishes Yes I understand that you feel that, but you have presented no justitication that economic rights are rights in the same manner as other rights. Even in the absence of government individuals still have the other rights (eg does it take the presence of government for me to have religious freedom?). The reason the other rights are established as rights is simply because government has the power to intefere with those right via the laws it makes. In the absense of government who would uphold an individual's "economic rights". If the answer is nobody, then it would indicate that such a "right" is no right at all but is in fact a service provided by government. So if I understand you, the meaning of "basic necessitiy" is the minimial amount of nourishment and shelter requred to keep someone living?

Unlike economic rights, rights defined under the charter do not imply a specific cost obligation by the government. For example, your right of freedom of speech does not imply that the government must pay for a billboard so you can publish your ideas. IMV, no right should imply a cost obligation on the government, it should simply govern the restrictions which government can put on us or we can put on each other.

No one has even shown that anyone is entitled to the "positive rights" which you speak of. The issue is beyond the level it would cost to provide those services. It is whether those services should be forced as on obligation or is it at the discresion of the government. Moreover, no one can guarantee that the cost would not be substantial. If water suddenly becomes in short supply, the cost could indeed be substantial. Even the line you draw is murky. The level of what is a "basic necessity" is subject to change. I would submit that a common definition of what is a "basic necessity" is very different today then it was 2000 years ago.

Why is it the govenment's responsibility to do so? Your phrasing suggest that the government must take some action which implies a cost that must be borne by taxpayers. Why is is a "right" to be able to impose a cost on individuals who may or may not be willing to bear those costs. I don't see this a s mandate of government. If someone lives in an area where there is no water and it is expensive to provide water, why is it an obligation of the rest of the citizens to subsidze the cost ot water to an "affordable" level. Why isn't it simply an obligation of that individual to move to an area where water is more affordable? Why? As much as you think there shoudl be a obligation of government to provide baseline services, I think the obligation rest with individuals to provide for themselves. How about a clause which says that "no one has the right to intefere with the free exchange of water". The way you want phrase it, implies a proactive obligation by the government. I dont' believe government shoudl be under any such obligation. A government is under no obligaiton to provide anything execpt what it has agreed with its citizens at election time. BTW, if what you are proposing is such a great idea, why stop at water. Why not obligate government to provide a house with a backyard, a car , and a flat-screen TV. I mean, why stop at necessities?

I fail to see why anyone has the "right" to have their basic needs such such as food, shelter, and water provided for by another. I think it makes sense that they have the right provide to those basic needs themselves, and only when the government takes away the ability to provide for onself is the government obligated to provide for one's basic needs. (For example during imprisonment). I believe existing rights are sufficient to ensure that government doesn't intefere with our opportunities for providing for ourselves. If by "economic rights" you are referring to the right to welfare. I don't believe anyone has such a right. Welfare is provided at the discretion of society and it not a "right" that anyone is entitled to. Any "right" is enforcable by courts if it is written into the Charter. The division of responsibility between governments is pretty clear. I think most of what you describe falls to provincial responsiblity with some of it delegated municipally.

It would be helpful Hyru, if you defined what specificly you mean by an "economic right". Yes you are right that it isnt in the charter, but what exactly is it?

Why? The primary beneficiary of the education is the recepient. They should consider it an investment in themselves which will pay back in the incomes they will receive. IMV, it is the combined responsibility of the individual and the parents to make themselves valuable so that they derive future income. The responsibility of the individual is to actively consume the education and then together with the parents pay for the educational investment. I also assume you mean education which is specificly applicable to a career which generates employment income. An education which doesn't result in a valueable skill, is economically, a waste of money. It requires more. It also requires picking a career choice which provides skills of value and it requires adapability as conditions change so that the individual still remains of value as the skills they once learned becomes obsolete. So that indicates that investing in training is not valuable for a business because it cannot guarantee they can retain the asset they invest in. The army has a program where they pay for education costs in return to an enforcable commitment of service. Such an option is not available to business under employment law. Maybe if restrictions were removed so that businesses were able to offer and enforce long-term employment cotracts, they would be more willing to invest in the training of future employees. Isn't a mechanism by which the government gets its money back, called a "loan"? Educational loans are available today. Unless the individuals who consume the subsidized education are somehow paying more taxes than those who did not, they are not paying the government back for the cost of education and training.

No. Everyone can usethe brush and colour of paint of their own choosing, because they are expected to paint themselves. I suppose if NOBODY could afford kids that woudl be true. Many however can afford to have kids and mother nature has ensured that they also have the desire to have kids so the scenario that "humankind will disappear from the face of the earth" is unlikely in the extreme. I would venture that humankind is more likely go disappear from existance due to the excesses of having too many kids, than the risks of people not having kids.

The answer is for people to take responsiblity for their own career choices and underatake sufficient education and training so that they are in occupations which are in demand. The other part of the answer is for people is not to have kids which they can't afford.