Canadian History - Economic Inequalities?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In this debate folks have forgotten a very crucial element, that of the structure of our society. In our society we have the government creating law, but let us not forget the judicial system which enforces the laws. It is that corner of civil administration that we need to look into in order to preserve and protect the citizenry, not the elected administrators of government.

WE must not forget the roles being played and their affect on society. Our entire structure of government has been and still is flawed in this regard. No form of government is perfect and all need revisions and modifications from time to time, but the foundation of good government has always been that of the constitutional framework under which the entire basis for a society is based. Henceforth the legal structure is the key to society, in other words the rule of law is the basis for government in the first place.

To take this a step further it is the willingness of the citizens to accept a set of laws that makes the functioning of government possible for without the consent of the people, no set of laws can be enacted without revolt. Therefore the people are supreme in their ability to determine the power and authority of government through constitutional means. Which is to say that a majority of people approve a set of common laws that can be accepted as the foundation of the society in which we decide to live. Those common laws which we accept as the rule of law in our society determine the scope of government. This is where we have gotten ourselves into trouble.

Currently the scope of government has taken liberties with the population to the point where our rights are subject to the approval of government, this is of course completely backward from what it should be. The government should have only the rights granted to it by the people. The government is no more than a legal citizen, it is not a natural citizen and therefore it should be correctly placed as a servant or instrument of the people not its master. Until we resolve this situation the entire question of rights is a moot point because we have given over power and authority over us to government. We have taken much for granted and been lax in our own responsibility of due diligence to the extent that we have forfeited our democratic rights. We can of course change the situation but only after the democratic disease of apathy has been put to rest. Until then we are literally pissing into the wind.

[Renegade]

If there was no government, there would be no rights because there would be no authority to guarantee them. For example, if there was no government and you wanted to speak against a certain group, but members of that group would kill anyone who spoke against them and there was no government to protect you, would you have freedom of speech? With government, the "power of enforcement" protects everyone equally, but, without government, some, perhaps most, people would have little or no such power.

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".

If the government does not guarantee any rights, or does guarantee rights in theory but does not respect the rule of law, then the people would indeed have no rights. They would be entirely subject to the discretion of the government, without limitation. I understand what you are saying about the people possessing inherent rights. To say that the people should have rights does not mean that they do have rights. In response to your example, the people of China should have rights, but they obviously have very few, if any, rights in actuality.

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"

[Renegade]

The government should have only the rights granted to it by the people.

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.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

True enough, it would also seem that people believe we live in a democracy, but that does not make it true. Soon enough that little fact will become known to citizens. When that happens the government will discover just exactly what democracy means. It will be the end of the current form of government, a new system shall rise from the ashes of what is destroyed. Make no mistake, it will be literally destroyed.

[Sean Hayward]

Thank you for articulating my argument in one sentence better than I was able to: rights only exist with a guarantee of enforcement. In other words, rights only exist in reality if they are backed up with a guarantee that the people will be able to freely exercise those rights.

There are two obviously different definitions of "rights", that of natural or inherent rights and that of guaranteed or granted rights. Both are valid, but are very different concepts, as one refers to a theoretical "what should be" and the other refers to an actual "what is".

The people of China have rights, if using the first definition, and don't have rights, if using the second definition. An optimal society would have all of its natural rights guaranteed, and a distinction between the two definitions of rights would be unnecessary. The problem is that there is no definitive authority to decide on what is contained under the heading of "natural rights", other than the society itself.

One could argue that certain economic rights are natural rights, that they are possessed inherently by all people and have been infringed throughout history just as other human rights have been infringed, and that they should be entrenched in order to make a better society.

[Renegade]

Thank you for articulating my argument in one sentence better than I was able to: rights only exist with a guarantee of enforcement. In other words, rights only exist in reality if they are backed up with a guarantee that the people will be able to freely exercise those rights.

There are two obviously different definitions of "rights", that of natural or inherent rights and that of guaranteed or granted rights. Both are valid, but are very different concepts, as one refers to a theoretical "what should be" and the other refers to an actual "what is".

The people of China have rights, if using the first definition, and don't have rights, if using the second definition. An optimal society would have all of its natural rights guaranteed, and a distinction between the two definitions of rights would be unnecessary. The problem is that there is no definitive authority to decide on what is contained under the heading of "natural rights", other than the society itself.

Sean, well put.

One could argue that certain economic rights are natural rights, that they are possessed inherently by all people and have been infringed throughout history just as other human rights have been infringed, and that they should be entrenched in order to make a better society.

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?

[Sean Hayward]

To your example first. If there was one man on an island and he is dying of thirst, who would be infringing on his right to water? I would start by saying that the economic rights cannot be "infringed" in the same way as traditional rights because they are positive rights rather than negative rights, and so the right demands action, rather than to refrain from action. If the man was part of a larger society, then the society would have the obligation to provide him with water. If he was not part of a larger society, then he would have no right to water because the very concept of rights does not make sense in the context of a single person. So my final answer to your question is: the man would have no such right because rights exist only in societies of more than one person.

I believe that certain economic rights are natural rights. This is a philosophical position on the fundamental question of how a society should operate. The people have an inherent right to the basic necessities of life. I believe that this is a concept present in human thought since the earliest days of civilization. What constitutes a "basic necessity" is subject to debate.

[Renegade]

To your example first. If there was one man on an island and he is dying of thirst, who would be infringing on his right to water? I would start by saying that the economic rights cannot be "infringed" in the same way as traditional rights because they are positive rights rather than negative rights, and so the right demands action, rather than to refrain from action. If the man was part of a larger society, then the society would have the obligation to provide him with water. If he was not part of a larger society, then he would have no right to water because the very concept of rights does not make sense in the context of a single person. So my final answer to your question is: the man would have no such right because rights exist only in societies of more than one person.

We agree that in this scenario the man possesses no such right.

I believe that certain economic rights are natural rights. This is a philosophical position on the fundamental question of how a society should operate. The people have an inherent right to the basic necessities of life. I believe that this is a concept present in human thought since the earliest days of civilization. What constitutes a "basic necessity" is subject to debate.

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:

A natural right is the concept of a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs.

The theory of natural law, a law whose content is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere, is derived from natural rights.

Natural right(Wikipedia)

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. The right to breath, for example, cannot be legislated away, nor does it need to be granted on ethical grounds by a government or church.

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.

[MontyBurns]

All of this "rights" stuff makes me confused.

[Drea]

All of this "rights" stuff makes me confused.

No big surprise there Monty... the rightwing tends to only understand very clearcut "rules" -- black and white; with us or against us; good or evil... very clearcut, very simple.

[eyeball]

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.

So how do people provide their basic necessities of life if those necessities become enclosed within private ownership and the economic rights of private or even public owners (think national or provincial parks)? Do inherent natural rights trump artificial economic rights? In a world where food riots and forclosure are becoming the norm and the tragedy of the commons is replaced with the tragedy of enclosure how are beggers and choosers going to reconcile these issues? I suspect the line between these will get blurry as more dispossessed people give up on society and government and choose to excersize their inherent rights and choosers beg society and government to force the dispossessed to respect their economic rights.

Whatever else happens it probably goes without saying that only the fittest will survive.

[MontyBurns]

-- black and white; with us or against us; good or evil... very clearcut, very simple.

Yes. Keep things simple. We don't need to stress our brains thinking about a bunch of confusing nonsense.

[Sean Hayward]

Yes, we agree that in the specific scenario the man possesses no such right. However, I believe that the entire concept of rights, not just economic rights, is not applicable to a single person completely isolated from every other person. The concept of rights only makes sense if there are others in the society with whom conflicts may arise. Saying that the man on the island has rights does not make sense because he is completely alone, and he therefore possesses absolute freedom and access to any resources that exist within his domain.

Yes, economic rights are dependent upon human constructs to exist, and so are all other rights. I agree with you to some extent that the people must provide the basic necessities for themselves, but my version of economic rights would ensure that the people have a right to have access to these resources. In other words, the government would have to ensure that the basic necessities are available and affordable for all of its people to access and make use of.

[Renegade]

So how do people provide their basic necessities of life if those necessities become enclosed within private ownership and the economic rights of private or even public owners (think national or provincial parks)?

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.

Do inherent natural rights trump artificial economic rights?

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.

In a world where food riots and forclosure are becoming the norm and the tragedy of the commons is replaced with the tragedy of enclosure how are beggers and choosers going to reconcile these issues?

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".

I suspect the line between these will get blurry as more dispossessed people give up on society and government and choose to excersize their inherent rights and choosers beg society and government to force the dispossessed to respect their economic rights.

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.

Whatever else happens it probably goes without saying that only the fittest will survive.

We have introduced artifical constructs which distort the concept of "only the fittest will survive". It is far from certain that this is true.

[Renegade]

Yes, we agree that in the specific scenario the man possesses no such right. However, I believe that the entire concept of rights, not just economic rights, is not applicable to a single person completely isolated from every other person.

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?

The concept of rights only makes sense if there are others in the society with whom conflicts may arise. Saying that the man on the island has rights does not make sense because he is completely alone, and he therefore possesses absolute freedom and access to any resources that exist within his domain.

Yes, economic rights are dependent upon human constructs to exist, and so are all other rights.

Then you are no longer referring to "natural rights" as I have shown you the difference between your concept and the definition.

the government would have to ensure that the basic necessities are available and affordable for all of its people to access and make use of.

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.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Renegade

[eyeball]

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?

No, not as long as access to the natural resources is open to all. If the second person however is excluded by law from accessing these resources then they should have a right to expect to be provided sustainance, especially if there is only one island.

[eyeball]

In the context of the necessities of life access should be a matter of economic heritage. I think most people can accept the usual inequalities of life but c'est la vie just doesn't cut it when inequality is artificially imposed and maintained.

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.

Who cares if they have a legal justification and a government willing to enforce it?

Edited April 14, 2008 by eyeball

[Renegade]

No, not as long as access to the natural resources is open to all. If the second person however is excluded by law from accessing these resources then they should have a right to expect to be provided sustainance, especially if there is only one island.

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.

[Renegade]

In the context of the necessities of life access should be a matter of economic heritage. I think most people can accept the usual inequalities of life but c'est la vie just doesn't cut it when inequality is artificially imposed and maintained.

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.

Who cares if they have a legal justification and a government willing to enforce it?

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.

[eyeball]

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.

This pretty much sums up Canadian History and the reason so many economic inequalities exist.

Are you expecting that they have the right to all resources? How about if they had access to some resources?

In the absence of any legal exlusions they should have equal access to the same resources anyone else has.

What about if the only resource they had access to was their own labour?

Are we still talking about the second person? If so I'd have to assume access to the natural resources of the island were the exclusive domain of the first person. If this is the case then the second person would have to kill or otherwise force the first to hire him.

[eyeball]

At this point, the first person should probably see the utility of altruism. You'll find that in the animal kingdom too.

[Renegade]

In the absence of any legal exlusions they should have equal access to the same resources anyone else has.

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.

Are we still talking about the second person? If so I'd have to assume access to the natural resources of the island were the exclusive domain of the first person. If this is the case then the second person would have to kill or otherwise force the first to hire him.

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.

[Renegade]

At this point, the first person should probably see the utility of altruism.

Certainly, but the altruisim becomes a bargain between the two, rather than a right.

You'll find that in the animal kingdom too.

Yes, but you'll find just as much if not more predatory behaviour than altruism.

[Sean Hayward]

Our disagreement has its foundation in differing concepts of what a constitution (and the rights guaranteed therein) is and should be. The two concepts are those of the libertarian ideology and the community-oriented ideology.

The first ideology sees a constitution as a document that simply outlines the structure of, and restricts, government, so as to maximize individual freedom within a society. It emphasizes the defence of the individual against government oppression. There is an emphasis on negative rights and rejection of positive rights. I understand and respect this ideology, but I prefer the other.

The second ideology sees a constitution as not only a document to outline and restrict government, but also as a sort of contract between the members of society. Both negative and positive rights are emphasized. This type of constitution outlines how society, not only government, fundamentally operates, including the provision of certain economic rights to ensure that basic necessities are available.

As it is impossible to produce a definitive list of natural rights, it is up to the society to decide what rights it guarantees to its members. In a society where certain resources are unavailable, the right to those resoucres would obviously not be guaranteed. In response to your new example, the right to basic necessities would only exist if the two people on the island enter into a society together and agree to abide by fundamental laws or rules, a primitive constitution.

[Renegade]

Our disagreement has its foundation in differing concepts of what a constitution (and the rights guaranteed therein) is and should be. The two concepts are those of the libertarian ideology and the community-oriented ideology.

The first ideology sees a constitution as a document that simply outlines the structure of, and restricts, government, so as to maximize individual freedom within a society. It emphasizes the defence of the individual against government oppression. There is an emphasis on negative rights and rejection of positive rights. I understand and respect this ideology, but I prefer the other.

The second ideology sees a constitution as not only a document to outline and restrict government, but also as a sort of contract between the members of society. Both negative and positive rights are emphasized. This type of constitution outlines how society, not only government, fundamentally operates, including the provision of certain economic rights to ensure that basic necessities are available.

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).

As it is impossible to produce a definitive list of natural rights, it is up to the society to decide what rights it guarantees to its members.

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").

In a society where certain resources are unavailable, the right to those resoucres would obviously not be guaranteed. In response to your new example, the right to basic necessities would only exist if the two people on the island enter into a society together and agree to abide by fundamental laws or rules, a primitive constitution.

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.