<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Happy Bastille Day</title>
	<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/234</link>
	<description>Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Hanno Kaiser</title>
		<link>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/234#comment-1949</link>
		<author>Hanno Kaiser</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/234#comment-1949</guid>
		<description>Note the interesting disconnect in the first Article:&lt;blockquote&gt;1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.&lt;/blockquote&gt; The first sentence addresses equality before the law. The second sentence deals with a much broader sense of equality, that is, "social distinctions." (Unless &lt;em&gt;distinctions sociales&lt;/em&gt; refer to a set of attributes, e.g., nobility, that are somewhat more clearly defined by the historical context.) Those social distinctions may be founded &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; upon the general good. That reads to me like a license for large scale redistribution (and a carte blance for expropriation), as it is not hard to imagine that individual success, for example, may indeed lead to social distinctions that are not &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; founded upon the general good. If I were to draft this article, I would substitute the second sentence with a minimal welfare principle that would give a &lt;em&gt;right&lt;/em&gt; to assistance, but not cast a shadow of suspicion over success by requiring a general-good-justification for every "social distinction." For example: "Every citizen has a right to welfare, necessary to enable a life in dignity."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Note the interesting disconnect in the first Article:<br />
<blockquote>1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.</p></blockquote>
<p> The first sentence addresses equality before the law. The second sentence deals with a much broader sense of equality, that is, &#8220;social distinctions.&#8221; (Unless <em>distinctions sociales</em> refer to a set of attributes, e.g., nobility, that are somewhat more clearly defined by the historical context.) Those social distinctions may be founded <em>only</em> upon the general good. That reads to me like a license for large scale redistribution (and a carte blance for expropriation), as it is not hard to imagine that individual success, for example, may indeed lead to social distinctions that are not <em>only</em> founded upon the general good. If I were to draft this article, I would substitute the second sentence with a minimal welfare principle that would give a <em>right</em> to assistance, but not cast a shadow of suspicion over success by requiring a general-good-justification for every &#8220;social distinction.&#8221; For example: &#8220;Every citizen has a right to welfare, necessary to enable a life in dignity.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
