Rights for Sale

Tsilly Dagan, Talia Fisher
{"title":"Rights for Sale","authors":"Tsilly Dagan, Talia Fisher","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1481274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individuals enjoy a host of rights in relation to the government, including voting rights, the right against self-incrimination, the right to public education, pollution quotas, as well as various subsidies and tax attributes. Should individuals be able to sell these public entitlements to others? Markets for voting rights or tax attributes may seem inconceivable. Yet for pollution quotas, trade between polluters who do not fully utilize their quotas and those who wish to utilize the surplus seems natural, and is actually encouraged. Can the differences in treatment be normatively justified? This Article challenges existing conventions regarding the inalienability of public entitlements. Public entitlements are usually considered from the vertical perspective of individual vis-a-vis government. We move the spotlight to the neglected horizontal (individual-individual) perspective, focusing on the question of their alienability. By showing that there is nothing inherently inalienable about public entitlements, we offer new insights with regard to both alienability and public entitlements: Expanding the horizons of the alienability discourse beyond the traditional contexts of taboo markets (such as organs, babies, and sexuality) to the unexplored terrain of public entitlements dismantles the simplistic binary treatment of alienability, opening up nuanced variations; Viewing public entitlements through the prism of alienability reveals an overlooked potential for their use as public policy instruments.","PeriodicalId":315164,"journal":{"name":"Edmond J. Safra Research Lab Working Paper Series","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Edmond J. Safra Research Lab Working Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1481274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Individuals enjoy a host of rights in relation to the government, including voting rights, the right against self-incrimination, the right to public education, pollution quotas, as well as various subsidies and tax attributes. Should individuals be able to sell these public entitlements to others? Markets for voting rights or tax attributes may seem inconceivable. Yet for pollution quotas, trade between polluters who do not fully utilize their quotas and those who wish to utilize the surplus seems natural, and is actually encouraged. Can the differences in treatment be normatively justified? This Article challenges existing conventions regarding the inalienability of public entitlements. Public entitlements are usually considered from the vertical perspective of individual vis-a-vis government. We move the spotlight to the neglected horizontal (individual-individual) perspective, focusing on the question of their alienability. By showing that there is nothing inherently inalienable about public entitlements, we offer new insights with regard to both alienability and public entitlements: Expanding the horizons of the alienability discourse beyond the traditional contexts of taboo markets (such as organs, babies, and sexuality) to the unexplored terrain of public entitlements dismantles the simplistic binary treatment of alienability, opening up nuanced variations; Viewing public entitlements through the prism of alienability reveals an overlooked potential for their use as public policy instruments.
出售权利
个人享有一系列与政府相关的权利,包括投票权、反对自证其罪的权利、接受公共教育的权利、污染配额,以及各种补贴和税收属性。个人是否可以将这些公共权利出售给他人?投票权或税收属性的市场似乎不可思议。然而,对于污染配额而言,没有充分利用其配额的污染者与希望利用剩余配额的污染者之间的贸易似乎是自然的,实际上是受到鼓励的。这种待遇上的差异在规范上是合理的吗?本条对有关公共权利不可剥夺性的现有公约提出了挑战。公共权利通常是从个人相对于政府的纵向角度来考虑的。我们将焦点转移到被忽视的水平(个体-个体)视角,关注他们的可让与性问题。通过展示公共权利没有本质上不可剥夺的东西,我们提供了关于可让渡性和公共权利的新见解:将可让渡性话语的视野从禁忌市场(如器官、婴儿和性)的传统背景扩展到公共权利的未开发领域,拆除了对可让渡性的简单二元处理,开辟了微妙的变化;通过可让渡性的棱镜来看待公共权利,揭示了它们作为公共政策工具的被忽视的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信