Why Are Certain Human Conditions Considered Rights and Not Privileges?

Assuming that humanity’s communal social order is its primary survival strategy, then the ability to maintain a harmonious community is a benefit to continued survival of both the community and the individual. Out of the period of 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries’ Age of Enlightenment; it was accepted that certain human conditions must be treated as inalienable rights available to all. As stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and certain rights are part of “natural law”, including, but not limited to the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Just by the act of being born, equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are an inalienable right that are our inherited legacy and transcends social position, social and family affiliation, geographic location, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or lack thereof, intelligence or lack thereof, health or lack thereof, and wealth or lack thereof.

Given that “natural law” automatically endows the holders with inalienable rights, then what about the alienable rights bestowed onto members of a community that are not included in as inalienable? As cognitive entities, driven by human need and the reliance on community; to maintain community harmony, communities extend additional rights to its member via social contracts. These rights are best represented by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments, whereas the amended rights are neither natural nor inalienable, but are perceived rights that are ceded to all citizens. These differ from community to community and culture to culture. Keeping in mind that it is advantageous to maintain social harmony; it only follows that alienable rights are ceded based on maintaining such social harmony. In any society or culture where there is too great a disparity of distribution of the rights between the social elements, then such disparity leads to disharmony and the social group’s continued survival is threatened.  It then becomes advantageous to cede and maintain a minimum level of alienable rights afforded to each individual and social community; thus reducing the disparity between members and maintaining the social harmony. The ceding of alienable rights becomes a critical variable to the long term well being of the individual and society at large. The greater the disparity of rights distribution the greater the social disharmony and the inverse is also true; the smaller the disparity the greater the social harmony. Disparity often is manifested through access to resources including wealth, power, food, shelter, health care and education. Enlightenment thinkers saw it as necessary to reduce disparity by sharing between the “haves” and the “have-nots” through social contracting.  

What has evolved is the concept of alienable rights verses alienable privileges. Both alienable rights and alienable privileges are granted through the social contract process. Alienable privileges are benefits afforded by the common society to individuals and communities that meet certain conditions. Privileges, by their very nature, are not afforded to all members of a given society. The dividing line between alienable rights and alienable privileges is diffuse and mutable. In modern societies the line between rights and privileges has become a constant point of contention resulting in a continuing debate. Societies and communities with a low threshold for qualification for available alienable privileges are subject to very low levels of social disharmony and greater degrees of general happiness; whereas societies with high thresholds are subject to higher levels of disharmony and lower degrees of general happiness. Alienable privileges are subject to criteria such as birth placement, social position, race, wealth levels, power levels, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. The principles on which societies are founded are the starting points for negotiating and renegotiating social contracts. The tension and flux between rights and privileges creates dynamic social pressures to move alienable rights to the category of privilege and vice versa. One of the criteria in question is who deserves rights or privileges and who doesn’t.

Debate continually rages over who are the “deserving poor” and who are the “undeserving poor”. The poor is defined as those who lack the means to be self-sustaining or lack access to resources that would elevate them from their impoverished status. The most common definition cited is that the “deserving poor” are those individuals or elements within a society who find themselves impoverished by circumstances out of their control. On the other hand the “undeserving poor: are those individuals or elements within a society who find themselves impoverished by their own actions or lack of actions. However, this presupposes that the impoverished and the wealthy came to their positions on merit alone. In a true merit system all participants begin at the same point and success or failure is based on merit alone. The reality is that societies with high thresholds to privilege are not truly merit societies. Wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty based on access to privilege. In a society where the wealthy and powerful control alienable rights and privilege; they then directly control who is impoverished and who is not. Where certain levels of basic needs are seen as privileges and the threshold to those privileges are set high, then high levels of permanent impoverishment is certain. The progenitor, who was a member of the “undeserving poor”, condemns their progeny to impoverishment and the status of “deserving poor”. If it were guaranteed that all members of a society would have their basic needs met by virtue of inalienable or alienable rights, then impoverishment, theoretically, would not exist and the society would come closer to a true merit based system and a more stable and harmonious society. However, to become a truly merit based societal system, the other end of the wealth and power spectrum must be addressed; “deserving wealth” and “undeserving wealth”.

Clearly if the concept of “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor” exists; then it is also clear that the concept of “deserving wealth” and “undeserving wealth” also exists. By definition “deserving wealth” are those who achieve wealth based on merit alone and without benefit of privilege.  Those of “undeserving wealth” come to wealth, not through merit, but through privilege granted only to the few. They do not begin the journey to success at the same point as the “deserving wealthy”. The “undeserving wealthy” is guaranteed success through privilege. For example: Someone born to a wealthy family will have the advantage and privilege of high status and access to resources others do not. They will be educated in the best institutions and via social network will gain positions available to only a select few. The “undeserving wealthy” is reaping the benefits of one of their progenitor’s who had earned wealth by virtue of merit. Therefore, the progenitor who was “deserving of wealth” spawned progeny who were “undeserving of wealth”. Some argue that one of continuing benefits of being “deserving of wealth” is that a legacy is created for one’s progeny, insuring a long term individual survival advantage.   However, such a survival advantage may prove to be counterproductive; creating progeny incapable of sustaining such privilege and advantage. Only through the unfettered merit system does the “cream rise to the top”. An effective argument can be made that wealth, power and privilege should end at each generation; requiring the succeeding generation to reassert and establish themselves through individual effort; resulting in a much stronger general society. A society that requires only those less endowed with wealth and power to “pull themselves up by their boot straps” to achieve success; is a society that is fundamentally unjust.

Unjust societies will eventually fail causing dangerous social environments. The monarchy of the Russian Empire is a clear example of the unjust society. Its injustices caused it to eventually fail only to be replaced by a dangerous unjust society claiming to be based on Marxism, which also eventually failed. With the rebirth of the Russian Republic, it is searching for a societal system which will preserve and protect the Russian society while alleviating the gross injustices endured for over half a millennium. It is unclear how long it will take to achieve such a system.  The long term prognosis for the continuation of the United States is only slightly better than the unstable Russian Republic. Whereas, in other industrialized democracies, social injustices are being addressed and alleviated; the United States is increasing the disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, thus increasing social injustices. The shifting of the means of production to increase the return on capital investment is rapidly creating additional individuals and families to the “deserving poor” and the “undeserving wealthy”. As this disparity grows, it is certain that social disharmony will escalate in the United States. Recent elections, 2008 Presidential Election and the 2010 Midterm Elections are prime examples of the growing discontent. It will only be a matter of time before social contracts are renegotiated in order to curb the growing social disharmony. However, until such time the United States will be in store for growing instability and radicalization of factions.

The primary counter argument to creating a “just society” is the cost in wealth and power to the holders of such. To create a just society those who have benefited should be the ones to bear the burden of the social costs resulting from societal injustices created by their actions. In an organized society the remuneration is accomplished through taxes and redistribution to those in need. Obviously those responsible for the disparity resist as much as possible, in an attempt to retain as much of their wealth and power as possible.  Therefore, it is to the benefit of society to initiate redistribution systems through progressive taxation, duties, tariffs, increases in corporate taxes, and redirect the proceeds to address the social injustices including social costs.

Whether a society chooses to enact policies and legislation to address social injustices and to permanently address the condition by ceding alienable rights must be addressed by continuing debate over values and it must be eventually judged worthy to be given permanent status.

In the specific case of health care, as to whether to remain as an alienable privilege or changed to an alienable right; moral principles must be addressed.  By continuing health care as a privilege, then one is making the moral decision that some lives are worth more than others. If a society deems that some lives are worth more than others, then that society is in direct violation of “natural law” and the concept of inalienable rights; the right to life. If one persists that health care doesn’t deserve the signification of alienable rights, then it could be argued that the concept and assumption of inalienable rights is incorrect and the founding principles should be abandoned.