I guess my primary concern would be the equality of people, humans. As far as properties being equal I think this would refer to rights of access to basic needs, food, water, shelter the freedom to make decisions about how one lives their life. Even more so I consider access to the internet a basic human right so that would need to be there as well, although to some extent it is implied it must also be stated.
And what if there is not enough food to feed everyone? Say a global disaster results in enough food for only 50% of the people to eat enough to barely live?
Rights can only be sourced from what people have to give. If you grant me the right to food and I grant you the right to food, but neither of us have food then that is fraud. It would be like me selling you a bridge in Brookland.
Let me state it another way, would you sign a contract where you were on the hook to personally provide everyone else in the world with food? Because that is exactly what signing such a contract would do to you.
Even if they were obligated to provide you food as well, it wouldn't matter because if you both had food then the clause is pointless.
Well production of food is technically limited to only those who own land. Or those who can rent land to produce food, But I do certainly recognise your point interms of signing a constitution that guarantees access to food.
By what definition of Equality?
What properties should be equal? What things may be different?
I guess my primary concern would be the equality of people, humans. As far as properties being equal I think this would refer to rights of access to basic needs, food, water, shelter the freedom to make decisions about how one lives their life. Even more so I consider access to the internet a basic human right so that would need to be there as well, although to some extent it is implied it must also be stated.
And what if there is not enough food to feed everyone? Say a global disaster results in enough food for only 50% of the people to eat enough to barely live?
Rights can only be sourced from what people have to give. If you grant me the right to food and I grant you the right to food, but neither of us have food then that is fraud. It would be like me selling you a bridge in Brookland.
point taken.
Let me state it another way, would you sign a contract where you were on the hook to personally provide everyone else in the world with food? Because that is exactly what signing such a contract would do to you.
Even if they were obligated to provide you food as well, it wouldn't matter because if you both had food then the clause is pointless.
Interesting, in this constitution then do we need to answer the question of who does produce the food?
No, we just need to recognize the process by which ownership of food is determined and the process by which title to food may be transferred.
Yes.
Hmm. Interesting. My guess is I'll need to ponder on this.
Well production of food is technically limited to only those who own land. Or those who can rent land to produce food, But I do certainly recognise your point interms of signing a constitution that guarantees access to food.