A question of “rights”.

What rights does each person have? Do they include “property rights” and what do these include? Whose rights take precedence in The Stronach Foundation for Economic Rights?

Alternative interpretations.

I contributed to the creation of the Statement of Principles in late 2023 and early 2024 as part of a small team assembled for that purpose.

In it, the sentence “Every person has a body, mind and will of their own” is presented as an inalienable truth. For me, it remains the central idea of the entire document around which every other idea orbits.

That statement is followed by “This guarantees them...” and a list of seven rights and freedoms are derived from that fundamental truth. These rights essentially safeguard each person’s ability to “survive & thrive” within civilized communities of people who respect and honour those same rights for everyone else, equally.

Assets understood as “property”.

One’s body, mind and will are understood to be instrinsic personal assets “owned” by and inseparable from each individual. They are instrumental to each person’s ability to “survive & thrive”. Extrinsic assets are those created, earned or acquired legitimately throughout one’s lifetime. Success depends on the wise application of those intrinsic assets to be productive, establish security and build prosperity. Since intrinsive assets are different for everyone, it is understandable that each person’s strategy and ability to acquire extrinsic assets will vary.

Elon Musk won the intrinsic assets lottery.

How much of Elon’s wealth (extrinsic assets) was due to dumb luck? Conversely, how much was due to his consistent ability to use his intrinsic and extrinsic assets more wisely than everyone else?

Does Elon Musk have a moral and ethical duty to give his wealth to other less fortunate persons? Or, is it more just that he employ his assets for other purposes according to his personal judgements?

Libertarians like me believe that each person deserves the right to protect and defend his or her person & property from unwanted harm and/or aggression imposed by others, including by government fiat.

This right applies to both intrinsic and extrinsic assets.

During a recent ZOOM meeting…

A friend expressed his belief that, under Canada’s constitutional monarchy, the protections for the “assets of persons” must be agreed upon by Canadian citizens and followed accordingly. Agreed upon how?

The existing Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms avoids any mention of individual property rights much less provides for them. Instead, it defines all manner of non-property rights.

My friend and I agree that the federal Charter is an imperfect document and that Canada’s responsible public instutions have failed to defend and protect our constitutional rights enumerated therein.

Implied in the federal Charter, the Government of Canada holds supreme authority over all matters concerning person & property privileges. It can exercise its constitution authority to allocate our extrinsic assets according to parliamentary and non-parliamentary edicts. Upon my reading of the Charter, it was clear to me that its authors held an authoritarian conviction that state’s rights were always to be superior to individual rights, and that this fact must never to be challenged.

Frank’s vision.

The Stronach Foundation for Economic Rights was written in a manner sympathetic to my friend’s belief that a constitution should guide how our government custodians should administer our assets. Since explicit provisions for person and property rights were omitted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Stronach offers his seven policy proposals in an attempt to amend the economic shortcomings of the federal Charter according to his personal beliefs.

Among Frank’s suggestions, he proposes that workers have a right to share in the profits of their employers, and that students have a right to nutritious organic food provided at school. These are certainly admirable goals, but are they realistic, achievable and shared by all? HOW would they be achieved? WHO PAYS the costs and do they agree willingly?

The devil is always in the details.

After reading Stronach’s 7 Economic policy proposals, I am unclear about the extent to which Frank expects them to be implemented by government edict. I also wonder if he intends they be delivered, at least partially, by existing or new gover departments. Some questions:

1. Will business owners be forced by law to share profits with employees? Or will they be encouraged to consider an employee profit sharing program voluntarily as part of a recommended, competitive business strategy? In other words, how much state coercion does Frank expect? Or does he envision a non-government consulting/education services operation provided to business owners on a fee basis? Or something else?

2. How does Frank envision the rollout of a “nutritious food program for students”? Will it be wholly funded by taxation and delivered by government employees (likely unionized)? OR maybe it will only be partially subsidized by tax dollars and operated in some yet-to-be-determined public-private partnership arrangement? OR it could be funded by parents who engage and pay for the services of non-governmental service providers? What are the details of these options, who makes the decisions, and how will service quality be measured and monitored?

3. The title doesn’t fit. The words “economic entitlements” seem more appropriate than “economic rights” because ‘person & property rights’, as described above, appears not to have been considered. Are taxpayers and business owners expected to pay? This will certainly be the case if government authorities plan the programs, create the rules and/or approve the funding.

Recall Legislation.

During the ZOOM meeting, a discussion about recall legislation arose as a means to repeal some unpopular items of legislation. There was interest among some attendees but one speaker suggested that it was not as easy as it may appear to get it passed into law and to put processes in place to implement it effectively.

As another option to implement “the consent of the governed”, I suggested the ideas expressed in the 10-episode Substack series called Digital Direct Democracy (DDD). The ideas proposed therein were inspired by one undeniable truth:  “Every person has a body, mind and will of their own” and that these assets applied judiciously enable us to “survive & thrive” under the circumstances we encounter throughout life. In an ideal scenario, these assets yield the best results under the requisite Conditions for a Civil Society: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM to make Informed Choices while RESPECTing the rights of others to live peacefully within communities governed by FAIR laws (unbiased rules).

Those 10 Digital Direct Democracy episodes describes how every person can utilize a truly democratic mechanism to exercise their Freedom of Informed Choice a genuine Civil Society.

It empowers every person to make choices whether to accept or reject many discretionary government programs based on the value they may receive.

An analogy will help.

Imagine you are shopping in a supermarket. You browse the isles looking for products and fill your basket with only items that meet your purchase criteria. You are shopping only for you and your family, and you see many other shoppers doing the same. When you finish shopping, you pay the bill and receive a printed list of all purchases and prices paid.

Now imagine that you are strolling down an isle of shelves stacked with  government programs and services.  There are no price tags for your choices and you continue to fill your basket knowing that you will be able to leave the government store without obtaining the permission of a cashier. Months later, your tax bill arrives. Your memory fails to associate it with all the acquisitions you made and there is no list with the prices paid. The acquisitions seemed “free” at the time but sticker shock sets in as you see how much you owe.

After completing your annual tax return and reflect on all of the other tax payments you’ve made, you realizethat you are remitting 55% of your annual earnings to various government entities. This represents the single largest item in your budget. Wishfully, you think:

Wouldn’t it be nice if I could reduce my tax burden to 25% and keep 75% for me and my family?

But then you remember. 

You had learned about Digital Direct Democracy some months ago and didn’t take it seriously at the time.

A discussion about rights and entitlements is a legitimate topic for people with Freedom of Speech who are facing than unacceptably high rise in the cost of living. Feel free to join in!