[ql06] Re: PUBLIC: Civil liberties
- From: "Ken Campbell -- LAW'06" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:04:27 -0400
Mark writes:
>So then you would limit the tools available to defend the Charter
>rights? No tools from contract law?
The two don't often intersect.
When they do, they probably mainly intersect at "right to live" -- or
make a living, etc.
Our economic system is temporal. Capitalism emerged from England (let's
use historical shorthand, so forgive over generalization). Mercantilism
emerged from the Italian Renaissance. Feudalism emerged from the fall of
Rome and rise of Normans. Slave economies were standard once the Iron
Age kicked in -- better to eradicate than assimilate. The Bronze Age
cultures were more federalist, lots of peoples under one umbrella. Etc.
Equity would deal more with what the human, the individual, has a right
to, regardless of the economic system (contracts) and regardless of the
ruling system (public).
You don't need "tools from contract law." In fact, importing them will
only create problems.
The Supreme Court will certainly rule on contract law -- lots of
interesting decisions. It will rule of Judicial Independence and rule of
law and all that. But equity stands superior to them all, and doesn't
have to rely on those inferior legislative and economic rules.
>Aren't we living under a social contract, be it in accordance
>with Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, or Bob Rae (sorry for swearing)?
Are we?
"Social contract" has nothing to do with contract law, except the word
appears in each idea.
Ken.
--
This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there
were no religion in it.
-- John Adams
Letter to Thomas Jefferson
Other related posts:
