Citizenship For Sale

Are there things that money shouldn't be able to buy? In an age when the 'wisdom of the market' is an orthodoxy embraced by many, it is a question that the neoconservative agenda would suggest borders on heresy.

Yet that is precisely the question economist Michael J. Sandel poses in his compelling and thought-provoking book, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, which I recently read. Written in very accessible language, it's thesis is that while market principles can work very well in many areas of our society, the increasing reach of those principles into regions once deemed off-limits has an unfortunate side effect of promoting either unfairness or debasement of a value/principle that he characterizes as corruption. In many cases, it has both effects.

One quick example before I come to my purpose for writing today. If a person in India sells one of his kidneys to a person able to pay (likely someone in the first world), market principles would say that because both parties benefit, the deal is a good and efficient one. The donor chooses to sell an organ for money he would not otherwise have, and the recipient gets a new lease on life.

However, closer examination of the transaction reveals something very troubling. The deal is not between two equals. The donor is poor and thus unfairly placed in the position of selling due to his need for the money. The one willing and able to pay for the kidney is therefore exploiting that need, so there is, whether openly acknowledged or not, an element of coercion involved in the transaction.

The second element that makes this disquieting is the fact that it debases people by reducing them to mere commodities, in this case a source of organs.

Sandel provides a wealth of examples in his book, ranging from naming rights, to education, to the arts, to sports, queue-jumping, death insurance, etc.

In all of this, Canada's hands are not clean. Citizenship, once thought to be the reward at the end of a long process, is for sale:

The Canadian government is poised to relaunch a program that grants permanent residency to foreign millionaires but a veteran immigration lawyer says he fears Ottawa is still underpricing what amounts to a path to citizenship.

Ottawa announced in February it would end the decades-old Immigrant Investor Program, saying the $800,000 investment required of newcomers, as well as other conditions, “significantly undervalued Canadian permanent residence.”

The language of the article suggests that the commodification, unfairness and debasement of which Sandel writes is rife in the government's approach:

Richard Kurland, a Vancouver-based lawyer with decades of experience in the field, said he expects an announcement from Immigration Minister Chris Alexander within two weeks and predicts the minimum investment required under the revamped program will be about $1.5-million.

He suggests Canada aim much higher, starting at the $2-million level. From there, he recommends Ottawa experiment with trying to raise the required cash outlay to even greater heights.

“One-and-a-half million dollars? What is that? A condo and a half in Shanghai?” Mr. Kurland said. “Ratchet it up to $2.5-million to $3-million for investment and wait to see if over a five-month period, six-month period, there are still some empty spaces on the board.”

Sadly, this mentality is not confined to Conservatives:

Former immigration minister Sergio Marchi said he thinks Canada should set the required investment at $1.5-million, and not higher, to remain competitive with the roughly 20 other countries that offer similar programs in exchange for permanent residency or citizenship.

Citizenship as competition, eh? Doesn't sound very Canadian to me.

And while a high price tag is being affixed to becoming Canadian, it would seem that its value is going down.

Concern For The Collective

For whatever reason, I am one of those people with a deeply ingrained sense of fair play that recognizes we are more than simply individuals 'doing our own thing' in isolation and with no regard to others; I happily acknowledge that we are part of a larger agglomeration that we name 'society.'

So yes, I readily admit to being one of those who counts the number of groceries in the basket of the person ahead of me in the express checkout at the grocery store; I am also someone who uses highway passing lanes for their intended purpose and not as my personal conduit or as a semi-permanent solution to avoiding merging traffic while driving at a speed that shows no regard for cars behind me. I also get outraged if a page is defaced or torn out of a library book.

In my mind, all of the above are serious crimes against the collective, selfish refusals to consider others as worthy of our respect and co-operation as we live out our lives.

And yet it is an attitude that seems all too common today, as governments and cultural imperatives urge us to be self-absorbed consumers whose highest values spring from the dictates of the marketplace, not our consciences, values, spiritual beliefs or regard for the common good.

It was therefore refreshing to read in today's Star an article entitled Harvard professor Michael Sandel examines ‘moral limits of markets’ in new book. In it, Sandel, a highly regarded Harvard professor of political philosophy, asks questions that we seem to have become reluctant to ask today:

Sandel says that we are increasingly reluctant to talk about what kind of society we want. We are reluctant to allow moral and spiritual concerns into public debate. Instead, we’ve come to rely on the market to assign value.

“Part of the appeal of markets,” he writes in the book, “is that they don’t pass judgment on the preferences they satisfy. They don’t ask whether some ways of valuing goods are higher or worthier than others.”

The market is only interested in efficiently matching buyers and sellers. It is not interested in what is being distributed, or whether it is fair — let alone whether some things should be distributed at all.

Sandel talks as well about the growing inequality gap that essentially has us living on different worlds, something that seems so very evident when we look at the direction the Harper regime is taking us in Canada:

By putting a price on just about everything, by having things of great value up for sale, we end up widening the gap between those with money and those without. “At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives,” Sandel writes. “We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools. . . It’s not good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live.”

He does not oppose inequality everywhere, but believes that too much of it is dangerous. “Democracy does not require perfect equality,” he writes, “but it does require that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another, and bump up against one another, in the course of everyday life. For this is how we learn to negotiate and abide our differences, and how we come to care for the common good.”

In a world that encourages lazy thinking, reactionary rather than thoughtful responses, and the embrace of absolutisms, Sandel is a refreshing and much-needed voice of reason and reflection. For those who are especially interested, he also has a 12-part television series available on the Internet that explores many of these questions.