The "acquired rights" of some are the sacrifices of others. - Victor Bento

"The protection of some is made at the sacrifice of others"

Economist Victor Bento writes in today's The Economic Daily 

on 'The economics of rights',

 arguing that the "finality" of "'acquired rights'" 

of which so much has been said in recent times 

"is not guaranteed by the principles of justice" .

 Vítor Bento explains that "when society (...) assigns a social right (...)

it creates both" on others an "obligation to ensure" 

so that "the priviledges of acquired rights of some

 is done at the sacrifice of others. "

The economist Victor Bento declares, in his Opinion column 

on Wednesdays in "The Economic Daily", 

that  the insistence on "the idea that 'acquired rights', 

as if its irrevocability were guaranteed by the principles of justice"

 but clarifies " that these rights are not. 

Rather, the finality is in many cases 

a violation of principles of justice. "

"This error of perspective 

consists in neglecting the social obligation that is simultaneously 

formed when assigning a social right",

 this because he continues, 

"both (...) are the two inseparable sides of the same coin".

And therefore, 

by forgetting that which guarantees the stability of the former

 is done at the expense of the instability of the second. 

Which is not in conformity with the idea of ​​a fair relationship, "

concludes the economist.

In this sense, "when society, through the State,

 assigns a social right to all or some of its members, 

it simultaneously creates on all or on some of its members, 

the obligation to ensure its viability. 

Be contributing actively, 

it creates the conditions for the right to be viable, 

not more abstract in content, but giving it substance. "

This "contractual balance" is rapidly changing "over time, 

demographics (or other things)," 

 "because the ratio between 

the number of beneficiaries of the acquired rights 

and the number of persons subjected to the corresponding obligation, 

whether the amounts involved" 

will "modify the balance 

which had been established under the 'contractual' rights. "

 "Experience shows", according to Vítor Bento, 

"the disadvantaged side with this change,

is usually the subject of the obligation." 

However, he concludes,

 this "relationship, which has just begun, 

will be become increasingly unjust,

 undermining the mutual trust

 in the 'contractual' right,

 protecting "only one side" 

and stating that 

"the protection of a trust 

is made at the sacrifice of the other. "