What are the most important things for society?

[August1991]

The grocery store already has a lot of the worst options eliminated for you. You can't buy uninspected items, for example. You can't buy alcohol. I believe as well that certain types of food are not allowed to be sold because they're unhealthy.

Also, items have to be labelled so you know what is in them (fat, sugar content etc.). I don't know if I could say what would happen if everyone voted for 0% social programs.

And all of this operates on a legislative foundation that makes sure that everything runs well: food inspection, truth in advertising laws, and anti-monopoly laws.

That being said, people still make bad choices. There's too much sugar and fat in the Canadian diet and too much processed food. Too many french fries.

These issues all concern information, and its accuracy. First, I'm not so certain that governments help us to know the truth. (Can the State help single people to find a suitable marriage partner? For such a critical matter, would the State's involvement be helpful or just confuse matters more?) Second, most of your examples were solved without the government. The legislation is after-the-fact.

There used to be a notion of 'noblesse oblige', which evaporated when governments started taxing wealthy individuals in order to create systems for the public welfare. Over the past thirty years, the wealthy have come to see access to billions of consumers as a natural right and though they have greatly profitted from the new order.

We create a system whereby Bill Gates can profit, and so do the rest of us. If we taxed Bill Gates at 90% (As would have happened under Eisenhower) then maybe he wouldn't take the risks required to create innovation. If we taxed him at 0%, then the government wouldn't get the revenues required to maintain the public infrastructure.

Michael, your post has made me think and wonder about a question. I'll start a new thread in the Moral/Religion category.

[geoffrey]

My most important things to society:

- Food to keep you from starving to death

- Water that isn't too toxic and contaminated to drink

- Freedom from oppressive governments

- Law and order (which we agree with)

Once you have these, the State has no further obligation to you.

Now that's a strange view of the State. It should provide us essential items only. (Frankly, I'm not sure I'd trust the State for anything essential.)

Not saying the State should provide them exclusively. Just everyone should have access to food and water. Past that, work for it.

[Michael Hardner]

These issues all concern information, and its accuracy. First, I'm not so certain that governments help us to know the truth. (Can the State help single people to find a suitable marriage partner? For such a critical matter, would the State's involvement be helpful or just confuse matters more?) Second, most of your examples were solved without the government. The legislation is after-the-fact.

Actually, they can.

Martin's Liberals made decisions concerning campaign funding which moderated television advertising by political parties - a good thing in my opinion. Mr. Harper, being more an idea man than a politican, seems to want to go more in that direction.

The state can't improve the quality of information, but it can create conditions whereby better information comes out.

Michael, your post has made me think and wonder about a question. I'll start a new thread in the Moral/Religion category.

I look forward to it.

[Renegade]

I believe many rich people (but not all) earned the money that they have, however, it is impossible for someone to be rich without a society that supports them in their endevours. In other words, all rich people have an obligation to society that made their wealth possible. Any wealthy person who thinks they have no obligation to society does not deserve the wealth they have.

This sounds very much like the argument that the mafia makes to the local proprietor. The proprietor is only making a profit because the mafia lets him keep his money, therefore he ows them a cut.

Frankly this argument does not reflect reality. People in society exist in a symbiotic relationship. Society sets the "rules of fair play" and people play. Some win and some lose. Society benefits in that the things the winners create are generally useful for society. For the "winners" the prize is riches. Neither is acting because of a sense of obligation to the other and neither has any.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with wealth inequality in society provided society ensures equality of opportunity to all members of society. The need to ensure equality of opportunity is how I judge the worth of all government spending.

It is idealistic to believe that all members have equal opportunity. Some members have the benefit of family riches, some have talents, some have intelligence, some have physical beauty. All this results in some having advantages over others. All that society needs to do is ensure that it does not impose additional barriers. It does that through legislation such as the charter of rights which ensures no group is discrimminated. Beyond that, I don't see that society has the responsibility to ensure equality of opportunity.

[Renegade]

The feedback mechanisms that are at work in distribution of orange juice are infinately more effective than a yearly survery of taxpayers. If orange juice demand goes up the orange juice suppliers are able to immediately able to increase production to meet demand. They don't have to wait 12 months to get approval to spend the extra money. The converse is also true if demand for orange juice goes down.

Let's look at an analogous situation. A charity (United Way, let's say), does a yearly drive with its constituents. It set targets, it creates a campaign to educate people, and mobilizes to create sufficient justification so that people donate. There are not the huge swings you describe despite the fact that people indepandantly decide what they will contribute. Moreover, when they do fall short of their target, their constituents are in fact giving them a message that they must cut back.

And we would not have Bill's software either if we didn't agree to protect property his rights - because he never would have organized Microsoft in the first place.

Agreed. But there is a symbiotic relationship. Just because society benefits from the innovation stimulated by intellectual property rights does not mean that Gates owes nothing to the society that made his personal wealth possible.

Why does Gates owe more than the usefull software he provided? What does society owe Bill more than the price paid for the software?

[Riverwind]

This sounds very much like the argument that the mafia makes to the local proprietor. The proprietor is only making a profit because the mafia lets him keep his money, therefore he ows them a cut.

You make it sound like property ownership is a natural law - it isn't. Property ownership is a social contract with rules determined by society.

Society sets the "rules of fair play" and people play. Some win and some lose.

Agreed. But an important part of those "rules of fair play" includes an obligation to pay taxes to support common infrastructure.

It is idealistic to believe that all members have equal opportunity.

Agreed. But society has a duty to level the playing field as much as possible. Free primary and secondary education and subsidzied post secondary education are essential for this reason.

[Riverwind]

There are not the huge swings you describe despite the fact that people indepandantly decide what they will contribute. Moreover, when they do fall short of their target, their constituents are in fact giving them a message that they must cut back.

A large percentage of the donations are 'undirected' and the United Way can distribute them as they please. In addition, I believe the United Way encourages people to make undirected donations. So I don't believe the United Way is a good example of what you are proposing.

Why does Gates owe more than the usefull software he provided? What does society owe Bill more than the price paid for the software?

Society has an obligation to protect the copyrights that Gates owns on that software. In return for that protection Gates has an obligation to contribute back to society through taxes.

[Renegade]

You make it sound like property ownership is a natural law - it isn't. Property ownership is a social contract with rules determined by society.

I disagree 100%. Property ownership is a natural right in the same way the freedom of religion is a natural right. Our society does not "grant" us these rights, it simply acknowledges that we have them and guarantees their protection as was done in the Charter. It is unfortunate that we did not address property rights in the charter. We should have. Other countries have done so.

But an important part of those "rules of fair play" includes an obligation to pay taxes to support common infrastructure.

We pay taxes for operational purposes. (ie to pay for the services provided and consumed) not because they are part of the rules of fair play.

But society has a duty to level the playing field as much as possible. Free primary and secondary education and subsidzied post secondary education are essential for this reason.

I disagree. Society has no such duty to create a level playing field. If it did it would enact laws saying that parents couldn't send their kids to private school, or for extra music lessons, or pay for braces to straighten their teeth. As a practical matter society provides basic education because it feels it is an investment which will pay off in a more productive workforce, not because of an obligation to "level the playing field"

What you and I are both presenting are our opinions and perceptions. These are not positions which can be substantiated with evidence on either side.

A large percentage of the donations are 'undirected' and the United Way can distribute them as they please. In addition, I believe the United Way encourages people to make undirected donations. So I don't believe the United Way is a good example of what you are proposing.

If you feel that United Way is too general, substitute "Daily Bread Food Bank" or "Run for the Cure" or any other charity who's target is more specificly directed. Either way, the point remains the same.

Society has an obligation to protect the copyrights that Gates owns on that software. In return for that protection Gates has an obligation to contribute back to society through taxes.

Gates has already paid society back for the protection of the copywright by providing society software which makes it more productive. Beyond that the obligation to pay taxes is no different for Gates than anyone else. He pays taxes to pay for the services the government provides.

[geoffrey]

Society has an obligation to protect the copyrights that Gates owns on that software. In return for that protection Gates has an obligation to contribute back to society through taxes.

Gates has already paid society back for the protection of the copywright by providing society software which makes it more productive. Beyond that the obligation to pay taxes is no different for Gates than anyone else. He pays taxes to pay for the services the government provides.

Such as the legal system that protects his copyrights.

[Renegade]

Such as the legal system that protects his copyrights.

Sure, but that service benefits everyone producers and consumers. So everyone pays. The entire cost of this system is not in the system provided it is in the enforcement. The infrastructure to enforce such a system (ie police and courts) is not exclusive to copyright law, but to laws in general. It is only fitting that everyone pay for it.

[Riverwind]

I disagree 100%. Property ownership is a natural right in the same way the freedom of religion is a natural right. Our society does not "grant" us these rights, it simply acknowledges that we have them and guarantees their protection as was done in the Charter.

All rights are social constructs that only have the meaning that society chooses to give them. We have the charter rights because we, as a society, decided that certain rights were necessary to protect the integrity of the institutions of the society. Our charter itself includes a notwithstanding clause because the authors of the document recognized that individual rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the needs of society.

You could make an argument that there is some old man in the clouds that hands out rights and if a society chooses not to recognize those rights then that society is violating the natural rules set by the old man in the clouds. However, that would simply turn a discussion about rights into discussion about theology. More importantly, it does not change the fact that the only rights that actually exist are those rights which society chooses to grant.

I cannot think of any society that grants absolute rights to all types of property. Even societies that have property rights in the constitution do not grant absolute rights to property owner - they only ensure that the gov'ts powers of expropriation are used fairly.

[Renegade]

I disagree 100%. Property ownership is a natural right in the same way the freedom of religion is a natural right. Our society does not "grant" us these rights, it simply acknowledges that we have them and guarantees their protection as was done in the Charter.

All rights are social constructs that only have the meaning that society chooses to give them. We have the charter rights because we, as a society, decided that certain rights were necessary to protect the integrity of the institutions of the society. Our charter itself includes a notwithstanding clause because the authors of the document recognized that individual rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the needs of society.

You could make an argument that there is some old man in the clouds that hands out rights and if a society chooses not to recognize those rights then that society is violating the natural rules set by the old man in the clouds. However, that would simply turn a discussion about rights into discussion about theology. More importantly, it does not change the fact that the only rights that actually exist are those rights which society chooses to grant.

I cannot think of any society that grants absolute rights to all types of property. Even societies that have property rights in the constitution do not grant absolute rights to property owner - they only ensure that the gov'ts powers of expropriation are used fairly.

I certainly am not arguing that we were given rights by some devine power, but I adamantly reject the notion that society at its discretion gives us our rights.

If society has the ultimate decision on what rigthts we should or shouldn't have, then by what power does an organization like Amensty International have to condemn countries for violating rights? If it is up to a country what rights it gives it citizens, and the country itself decides that its citizens have little or no rights, then an organization like AI doesn't have justification for monitoriing rights abuses.

Similarly when Canada or the USA condemn China or Korea for rights abuses, what right do we have? Afterall by your argument it is up to Korea or China to decide the rights of its citizens.

I don't agree with this argument. I believe every living being has rights, property rights being one of them. Because we have invented the concept of money, it lets us extend our property rights in ways which were not physically possible before, but nevertheless the intrinsic right remains.

[Riverwind]

I certainly am not arguing that we were given rights by some divine power, but I adamantly reject the notion that society at its discretion gives us our rights.

How can it be any other way? Even if you accept the principle that certain rights are fundamental then there must be a way to resolve conflicts between rights. For example, a property owner that tries to exercise his right to build a rendering plant in a residential neighborhood is infringing on the rights of the other property owners in the neighborhood by reducing property values. Or a religion that requires sex with children in religious rituals would violate the the rights of those children.

In these cases, society must step in an provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts of rights. The end result is all rights are limited by how a society chooses resolve conflicts and that no single right can be considered absolute.

When it comes to property rights you will probably find that the overwhelming majority of people support the idea of property rights but would not agree that property rights should always take precedence all other rights.

[Renegade]

How can it be any other way? Even if you accept the principle that certain rights are fundamental then there must be a way to resolve conflicts between rights. For example, a property owner that tries to exercise his right to build a rendering plant in a residential neighborhood is infringing on the rights of the other property owners in the neighborhood by reducing property values. Or a religion that requires sex with children in religious rituals would violate the the rights of those children.

I agree with the concept that there needs to be a way to resolve conflicts between rights, so no argument there. The way I see it the rights are fundamental to us as beings, society acknowledges those rights and agrees to protect them in the Charter of Rights, our justice system mediates between rights conflicts, and our law enforcement upholds our rights.

In these cases, society must step in an provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts of rights. The end result is all rights are limited by how a society chooses resolve conflicts and that no single right can be considered absolute.

Again no disagreement here.

When it comes to property rights you will probably find that the overwhelming majority of people support the idea of property rights but would not agree that property rights should always take precedence all other rights.

I agree again. I don't beleive that property rights always take precedence, however in the absence of a rights conflict property rights must be upheld. In the situation we were discussing above I didn't see a rights confilct, perhaps you can elaborate where you saw one.