This morning’s Hamilton Spectator carries the happy news that another form of oppression is about to be lifted across the pond: EU: Vacations are a right, not a luxury. I last travelled overseas in 2006. Because I have reason to believe I can claim European citizenship (through Cyprus and/or the United Kingdom), perhaps it’s time to take action to end my four-year-long oppressed state — with the emancipating assistance of European taxpayers, of course.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 9:10 AM
April 20th, 2010 | 9:57 am | #1
Wow…craziness.
When I lived in Germany in the early 90′s, the government mandated a minimum 28 working days/year from the moment you started working at job.
That’s got to be hard enough on employers, but this..this is just way too European even for the Europeans.
Give it a bit, like 10 years, and if it flies in Europe, it’ll be happening here in the Great White North.
April 20th, 2010 | 7:18 pm | #2
Has anyone told Obama?
This, after all, a positive liberty, no?
April 20th, 2010 | 9:18 pm | #3
“with the emancipating assistance of European taxpayers, of course.”
Yes. I am against centralized, state-run health care–here in the U.S. However, while in Wales as a visiting, non-citizen, non-resident student, I did get a free walk-in doctor’s exam (within an hour), a prescription, and (expensive) medicine (within another half-hour).
Thanks, U.K. citizens. But I still don’t want it here.
April 20th, 2010 | 9:19 pm | #4
P.S. All of that was free to me, I meant to say.
April 21st, 2010 | 8:17 am | #5
Half a billion dollars – just chalk it up – that’s a few days (net) money from UK taxpayers to the EU. it might also help reduce the subsidies to Southern Italy, etc that are poorer than the northern countries. Plus we up in the north get a holiday out of it (I would say free, but that’s not quite true, given that the northern countries are net contributors to the EU). It’s not the worst EU policy by a long shot (the Common Fisheries Policy must be amongst the worst, filling the North Sea full of dead fish that have to be thrown back as quotas are reached and giving the Spanish new boats with which to take the fish that the British fishermen want, bankrupting them)
Craig – the Welsh assembly use some of their budget to provide for free prescriptions (ditto the People’s Republic of Scotland) – the English (unless they live near the border and can get to a non-English doctor and pharmacy) aren’t so lucky – they have to pay for theirs.
Hopefully the UK elections in a couple of weeks will mean that we get a referendum on the EU in the next year or so, which will cause the UK, and, depending on the way the vote goes, the whole of Europe, to have a discussion on statism and democracy. The most likely ‘winners’ (well the ones who are most likely to get the most votes, which seems to mean nothing as for the actual result thanks to lots of factors) have a manifesto that pushes for bigger society rather than bigger state, better accountability and democracy. It’s a long way off small-state and better representation of the people, but it’s at least beginning to ask the right questions.
April 21st, 2010 | 8:46 am | #6
As I’ve written before, I am not one to make sweeping denunciations of the welfare state, nor would I lump the health care issue together with this rather frivolous claim to a right to an overseas holiday. As long as soteriological claims are not made for its efforts and as long as it does not flirt with insolvency in so doing, I have no difficulty with the state providing essential services to the public, even access to basic health care. I do object, however, to any state claiming a monopoly over such fields.
For example, governments might well provide directly for public education. But given that they are doing so with tax revenues from the general public, they should not discriminate against private educational initiatives. Hence I would favour some form of voucher system to provide for educational choice. A similar approach might be taken with respect to health care as well.
April 21st, 2010 | 10:52 am | #7
Can we just get the money if we don’t want to vacation overseas?
April 21st, 2010 | 7:30 pm | #8
I am not one to make sweeping denunciations of the welfare state
Why not? These are the “positive rights” that are growing by leaps and bounds. And just look how peaceful Europe has become! :-)
April 22nd, 2010 | 8:57 am | #9
Why not? Because sweeping judgements are rarely helpful, especially if we are speaking of something as complex as the welfare state. There is quite simply too much that comes under this label, and to reject all of it out of hand is excessive. Examples: road maintenance, garbage collection, schools, public parks, public hospitals, what we in Canada would call Crown corporations (public corporations in the States), old-age pensions, social assistance, health care, &c. Few of these are central to the normative task of government, but in so far as government undertakes to provide them, it should do so equitably and, as indicated above, it should not claim a monopoly over them.
You are correct to use the term positive rights. The right to access a particular service may be a positive right, i.e., in accordance with the law, but to label it a human right, i.e., preceding or basic to positive law, may not be warranted. I think this particular case is one in which positive and human rights have been improperly conflated by EU officials.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact