The inflation of need-based claims in “equity” and popular social justice talk inevitably leads to perpetual conflict, and the exertion of arbitrary power over various societal institutions
"employers engage in an exchange with their employees"
Indeed: since work has *disutility* for the individual, they engage in it precisely for the purpose of *producing* goods (services included) which they can *exchange* for other goods which they *consume* in the process of satisfying their various needs.
Seen through this 'lens', anyone who doesn't engage in such production of goods (work) is *excluding herself* from full & equal participation in society: *someone* has to produce (by working) those goods which she consumes to satisfy her needs, 'basic' or otherwise.
Accordingly, full & equal participation in society *includes* participating in production of goods (work): exclusion from consumption (satisfaction of 'needs') is *self-inflicted* by those who exclude themselves from the production of goods (work).
*Everyone* has a 'basic' need for water; but that water has to be produced in some manner. One has the option of walking down to the river with a pail & producing the good (potable water) thus. But economic specialization increases productivity: Ann can cut Bob's hair in exchange for a pail of water which Bob collects form the river in wheelbarrow-mounted barrel by which method Bob can bring more water that what a pail can hold (increased production through investment in capital goods, i.e. wheelbarrow & barrel). Of course Bob exchanges most of the water in the barrel for other goods (he uses only one pail's worth himself).
The choice is Ann's regarding in what manner she implements her full & equal participation in society, but both choices involve work: carrying water by the pail, or cutting Bob's hair. If Ann doesn't engage in production (work), then her participation in society is *not* full & equal: a state which can't be remedied by providing her with goods, whatever amount of them she receives *gratis* because of her 'needs'. Actually, providing her with *any* amount of goods *gratis* leads to *injustice*: & the more goods she receives *gratis*, the greater the injustice is.
I understand that such economic analysis is fundamentally incompatible with rights-based legal analysis & with contemporary public policies created through the political process, but numerous *wicked problems* are caused by eschewing it.
"Indeed: since work has *disutility* for the individual, they engage in it precisely for the purpose of *producing* goods (services included) which they can *exchange* for other goods which they *consume* in the process of satisfying their various needs.... Ann can cut Bob's hair in exchange for a pail of water which Bob collects form the river in wheelbarrow-mounted barrel by which method Bob can bring more water that what a pail can hold (increased production through investment in capital goods, i.e. wheelbarrow & barrel)."
Agreed. Unfortunately, much of the academic research on rights and social-justice-related issues is seriously biased in that it starts the analysis from the point of view of how goods should be distributed/awarded, and ignores the production side of the equation completely. Generally, there's a rampant misunderstanding of the basics of how economic systems work, and ill-informed analysis as a result.
(although I wouldn't say that economic analysis is fundamentally incompatible with rights-based legal analysis, only that much of existing analysis systematically ignores it).
The more radical/Marxist-oriented side of the spectrum implicitly denies the notion of productivity and mutually beneficial exchange altogether as a metaphysical impossibility, not just as an empirical observation regarding some particular economic exchanges (I think--typically they don't explicitly say that as they're unaware that they're making that misguided assumption and unwilling to debate it). Hence any situation of economic exchange is assumed to be inherently exploitative, and who is the party doing the exploitation is arbitrarily determined based on who appears as the "strong"/"privileged" party on a superficial examination.
On a more psychological level, I suspect that many of the more radical activists simply had the misfortune of being raised by parents who didn't do their job, ie meet their physical/emotional needs as infants. As a result, they keep looking for society to do that as adults. That's tragic, but society at large cannot be dragged into this dysfunction, which will only lead to more injustice, as you pointed out.
I grew up in Communist Hungary (where we were *building socialism*), so I'm aware of that side. The main sleight-of-hand in (classical) Marxist economic theory is the *labour theory of value* which is easily demonstrated bunk; newer versions don't fare any better. Here is an introductory HS level textbook into economics; this ought to be taught to everyone, even if they reject it later in life: https://cdn.mises.org/essons_for_the_young_economist_murphy_0.pdf
"I suspect that many of the more radical activists simply had the misfortune of being raised by parents who didn't do their job, ie meet their physical/emotional needs as infants"
Sounds plausible (Dr. Gordon Neufeld has a reasonable version of attachment theory). Of course this is a huge interdisciplinary area, starting at least with Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (1951). Andrew Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" is very hard-hitting, but it isn't easy reading at all. Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" (1987) is significant because it analizes the state of higher education some 35 years ago, but the title shows that he foreseen the demise of liberal arts education & the rise of nihilism paving the way for radical-extremist ideological & moral currents. And nowadays school boards in Canada offer elective summer camps for budding activists ('agents of change') from *kindergarten* to Grade 8.
What's ignored/confused in much of this discourse is that not all rights are the same, even if they have some common features. You don't have a right to healthcare in the same way that you have a right not to be punched in the face by random individuals on the street. The claims must be much more nuanced to even be comprehensible and make sense.
Excellent analysis; thank you.
"employers engage in an exchange with their employees"
Indeed: since work has *disutility* for the individual, they engage in it precisely for the purpose of *producing* goods (services included) which they can *exchange* for other goods which they *consume* in the process of satisfying their various needs.
Seen through this 'lens', anyone who doesn't engage in such production of goods (work) is *excluding herself* from full & equal participation in society: *someone* has to produce (by working) those goods which she consumes to satisfy her needs, 'basic' or otherwise.
Accordingly, full & equal participation in society *includes* participating in production of goods (work): exclusion from consumption (satisfaction of 'needs') is *self-inflicted* by those who exclude themselves from the production of goods (work).
*Everyone* has a 'basic' need for water; but that water has to be produced in some manner. One has the option of walking down to the river with a pail & producing the good (potable water) thus. But economic specialization increases productivity: Ann can cut Bob's hair in exchange for a pail of water which Bob collects form the river in wheelbarrow-mounted barrel by which method Bob can bring more water that what a pail can hold (increased production through investment in capital goods, i.e. wheelbarrow & barrel). Of course Bob exchanges most of the water in the barrel for other goods (he uses only one pail's worth himself).
The choice is Ann's regarding in what manner she implements her full & equal participation in society, but both choices involve work: carrying water by the pail, or cutting Bob's hair. If Ann doesn't engage in production (work), then her participation in society is *not* full & equal: a state which can't be remedied by providing her with goods, whatever amount of them she receives *gratis* because of her 'needs'. Actually, providing her with *any* amount of goods *gratis* leads to *injustice*: & the more goods she receives *gratis*, the greater the injustice is.
I understand that such economic analysis is fundamentally incompatible with rights-based legal analysis & with contemporary public policies created through the political process, but numerous *wicked problems* are caused by eschewing it.
(for the concept of 'wicked problem' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem)
"Indeed: since work has *disutility* for the individual, they engage in it precisely for the purpose of *producing* goods (services included) which they can *exchange* for other goods which they *consume* in the process of satisfying their various needs.... Ann can cut Bob's hair in exchange for a pail of water which Bob collects form the river in wheelbarrow-mounted barrel by which method Bob can bring more water that what a pail can hold (increased production through investment in capital goods, i.e. wheelbarrow & barrel)."
Agreed. Unfortunately, much of the academic research on rights and social-justice-related issues is seriously biased in that it starts the analysis from the point of view of how goods should be distributed/awarded, and ignores the production side of the equation completely. Generally, there's a rampant misunderstanding of the basics of how economic systems work, and ill-informed analysis as a result.
(although I wouldn't say that economic analysis is fundamentally incompatible with rights-based legal analysis, only that much of existing analysis systematically ignores it).
The more radical/Marxist-oriented side of the spectrum implicitly denies the notion of productivity and mutually beneficial exchange altogether as a metaphysical impossibility, not just as an empirical observation regarding some particular economic exchanges (I think--typically they don't explicitly say that as they're unaware that they're making that misguided assumption and unwilling to debate it). Hence any situation of economic exchange is assumed to be inherently exploitative, and who is the party doing the exploitation is arbitrarily determined based on who appears as the "strong"/"privileged" party on a superficial examination.
On a more psychological level, I suspect that many of the more radical activists simply had the misfortune of being raised by parents who didn't do their job, ie meet their physical/emotional needs as infants. As a result, they keep looking for society to do that as adults. That's tragic, but society at large cannot be dragged into this dysfunction, which will only lead to more injustice, as you pointed out.
"I wouldn't say that economic analysis is fundamentally incompatible with rights-based legal analysis"
You're right, but the rights forming the basis of the legal analysis must be chosen carefully. For an incisive discussion of the problem, see https://fee.org/articles/is-health-care-a-human-right/
"The more radical/Marxist-oriented side"
I grew up in Communist Hungary (where we were *building socialism*), so I'm aware of that side. The main sleight-of-hand in (classical) Marxist economic theory is the *labour theory of value* which is easily demonstrated bunk; newer versions don't fare any better. Here is an introductory HS level textbook into economics; this ought to be taught to everyone, even if they reject it later in life: https://cdn.mises.org/essons_for_the_young_economist_murphy_0.pdf
"I suspect that many of the more radical activists simply had the misfortune of being raised by parents who didn't do their job, ie meet their physical/emotional needs as infants"
Sounds plausible (Dr. Gordon Neufeld has a reasonable version of attachment theory). Of course this is a huge interdisciplinary area, starting at least with Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" (1951). Andrew Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" is very hard-hitting, but it isn't easy reading at all. Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" (1987) is significant because it analizes the state of higher education some 35 years ago, but the title shows that he foreseen the demise of liberal arts education & the rise of nihilism paving the way for radical-extremist ideological & moral currents. And nowadays school boards in Canada offer elective summer camps for budding activists ('agents of change') from *kindergarten* to Grade 8.
Agreed!
What's ignored/confused in much of this discourse is that not all rights are the same, even if they have some common features. You don't have a right to healthcare in the same way that you have a right not to be punched in the face by random individuals on the street. The claims must be much more nuanced to even be comprehensible and make sense.
Thanks for the references!