The True Right To Life!
10 reasons capitalism should only apply to luxuries, not life essentials
1. The right to life depends on the right to life essentials.
2. Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
3. Luxuries-only capitalism would fit well with Canadian values.
4. Many Canadians can’t keep up with inflation.
5. Housing costs are unreasonable, especially in cities
6. In Canada and other countries with free healthcare, luxuries-only capitalism would only be a minor reform.
7. The economy would benefit.
8. The environment would benefit.
9. Public health would improve.
10. The future would be brighter.
No one deserves to be cut off from food, drinking water, clothing, or shelter. The right to life depends on the rights to these essentials. Until these essentials are provided to those who need them, Canada cannot guarantee the right to life, and is therefore violating its own constitution. Life essentials need to be made human rights rather than commodities.
Note that I am not advocating communism, a system which would only work in a fictional society where no one is ever greedy or lazy. Luxuries-only capitalism means free markets would continue to exist for all nonessential items, while life essentials are provided to those who need them. It would equalize opportunity, not outcome.
Reason 1: Life is a right
Providing essentials ensures that every individual can live with dignity. Without access to food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care, individuals are unable to meet their most basic needs, which undermines their sense of self-worth and humanity. Without life essentials, the “right to life” can only exist on paper!
No one deserves to die! Life is a right, not a privilege for the strong; that would be “the law of the jungle”. (Or if you will, “the law of the war zone”.)
Reason 2: A promise is a promise
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Said treaty grants not only the right to life, but “the right to an adequate standard of living“. This explicitly includes the rights to food, clothing, and housing. By not strictly enforcing said right, the Canadian government is breaking a promise that it made not only to its own citizens, but also to the international community. It’s never okay to break a promise.
Reason 3: The Canadian philosophy
As a tolerant and left-leaning country, Canada values compassion, equality, and human rights. Addressing basic needs universally would be a natural fit. It would reduce class divides, foster a sense of national solidarity, and partially address inequalities rooted in historical injustice.
Reason 4: Inflation
Many people are having trouble keeping up with the rising costs of living. A “luxuries-only” capitalist system can still thrive while ensuring that no one is left behind. Allowing free markets to cater to luxury versions of essentials enables capitalism to flourish without sacrificing human well-being.
Reason 5: The housing crisis
Urban housing prices are outrageous. If it’s so bad that a single minimum-wage income is not even enough for a bachelor apartment, then yes, the system is defective. No one should need a double income just to pay the rent. Not everyone plans on pursuing a romantic relationship, and not all single people have a friend they trust enough to live with. A single income should be enough to live comfortably.
Many cities, including Vancouver, treat homeless people as criminals. This includes fines and arrests for actions they have been forced to commit, such as loitering, camping in parks, and public urination. Basically, the law says they should not be homeless in the first place. The majority of homeless people have done nothing wrong. If anything, they are victims of unfair circumstances. It is fundamentally unjust to punish an innocent person!
Even subsidized housing is often inadequate. Victoria has offered free apartments to its homeless population, but said units are poorly maintained. Some have broken windows, no door, or no running water. As one person says on the matter, “that’s not housing them; it’s moving them out of sight“. Furthermore, by the time many people are housed, their mental health issues or drug addictions are entrenched. The solution is not simply to house those in need, but also to deal with their underlying issues.
When it comes to housing the homeless, Austria has one of the best solutions. Short- and long-term housing programs are coupled with ongoing social services to address any underlying issues and help the formerly homeless to find work. More than half of Vienna’s residential units are subsidized, and previously homeless people are housed alongside middle-income families. People are being properly housed, as opposed to Victoria’s pseudo-solution of shoving them out of the way.
Reason 6: Some precedent exists
In Canada and other countries with universal healthcare, implementing luxuries-only capitalism would only be a minor reform. There would still be free markets for all things unnecessary, including luxury food, clothing, and housing.
On a related note, free healthcare should be expanded to include dental, vision, pharmacare, prosthetics, and restorative cosmetic surgery. (An argument for another time.) Ideally, Canada would ease into said expansion, first making the aforementioned amenities nonprofit and then making them free.
Reason 7: Economic benefits
Under luxuries-only capitalism, people would have fewer expenses, meaning minimum wage could be reduced. A lower minimum wage could help small businesses to survive, while at the same time reducing unemployment. (Very few would intentionally remain unemployed. As most probably agree, life with zero luxuries is no kind of life.) Not to mention, a healthy economy consists of many businesses including small ones.
There are other economic benefits as well. Currently, almost 1 in 6 Canadian inmates are homeless at the time of their incarceration. Luxuries-only capitalism would reduce crime, especially theft, because A) no one would have to steal to survive, and B) no one would intentionally get imprisoned so they can be fed and housed.
Reason 8: Environmental benefits
Providing essentials universally could reduce waste and environmental degradation by curbing the overproduction of goods like fast fashion.
Reason 9: Public health benefits
Improved nutrition, housing stability, and adequate clothing would lessen the burden on Canada’s healthcare system by preventing illnesses related to poverty. (Also, because people would feel safer and be less stressed, mental health would improve.) It is especially unjust that a cold country like Canada has not made adequate clothing a human right.
Reason 10: A brighter future
Universal provision of essentials would alleviate stress on parents, improve child welfare, and create a more promising future for the next generation.