Why not just right not to be poor
I have lost count of how many different rights I have. And how many different government agencies there are, to protect and enforce my rights. Now some people, well intentioned and good people I guess, want food to be a right.
Surely the poor need one right: right not to be buried under an avalanche of rights and schemes.
Before some of us climb our morally superior high-horses, and proclaim to be holier-than-thou, let us acknowledge that all of us feel equally pained by the deep and wide poverty around us. By the fact that hunger is a real issue. Everyday millions, that too millions of innocent children, go to bed hungry. We must make haste to make hunger history.
So instead of all these positive rights (Negative and Positive Rights, Isaiah Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty) why not just one positive right:
right not to be poor.
Say, person A is considered poor if he earns below Rs X per month. Then why not just give A, Rs X or multiples of X. Multiples to be decided by democratic institutions.
By not taking this approach, we flood society with campaigns, departments, layers of bureaucracies for monitoring, enforcing, etc. etc. Check out Right to Food Campaign
See how many departments, schemes and audits they have listed. All this just for one “right”: food. I suspect not more than a handful of people know the existence of such schemes, their rules and regulations, how to avail of benefits, etc. Surely these schemes provide ample employment to scheming NGOs and officials, no pun intended. One can only imagine who the real vested interest is.
Last decade was all about right to education. All the people who campaigned for right to education have a moral obligation to list the results of making education a right. How many thousands of crores have been spent? More importantly how many children actually got educated because of their new found right?
The problem with such a debate is that proponents of making everything they consider dear a right, start accusing others of being less caring, instead of being objective about their achievements and progress.
Not to trivialise the issue, there are nuances to the poverty debate. Income versus asset, etc. But none of these schemes really do anything in those aspects. These schemes are all meant to be ameliorative. No food, give food. No education, give education. No colour TV, give colour TV.
We are not talking about building asset, bank balances, trust funds for children, etc. So let us not go there.
If you change this into: right to be rich (ala Causes of wealth, not causes of poverty), then the debate gets even more complicated. You have to drag poor late Lord Peter Bauer in this. Poor guy, let him rest in peace, for now.
All positive rights activists must do an objective and ruthless accounting of their achievements. If they are honest, all these rights must be folded into one: right of NGOwallas, activists and officials to be perennially employed, at the expense of others, in the name of the poor.
