While the dignity of human beings is being trampled throughout the world, some of the attempts to end these abuses are misguided. Indeed, the most vocal supporters of so-called human rights are actually promoting a legal concept that supports the misconduct they wish to see ended.
In particular, human rights are most often referred to in terms of collective or group rights. Similarly, government officials often engage in populist promises by defining rights based on economic or social characteristics. In both instances, the attempt to construct a system of group rights is fraught with danger.
Basing human rights upon fundamental social rights is likely to result in zero or negative-sum policy outcomes. While some groups benefit, others must necessarily lose. While individual liberties in the form of private property rights and freedom of exchange are likely to be diminished, other freedoms are also threatened.
By ignoring the key role of individual rights being guaranteed rights to autonomous human beings, collective or group-rights proponents are flirting with the destruction of the rule of law.
Referring to social or collective or group rights masks the fact that assignment of such rights may involve empowerment or possessions that require the action or aid of others. In the process of activating such group rights, the rights of other individuals will be violated by imposing obligation upon them.
Rights that impose obligations necessarily attenuate the freedom of choice and action of others. Whereas the assignment and enforcement of individual rights leads to coordination and cooperation, collectivized human rights involve conflict and require coercion.
This collectivistic context of human rights as group rights also violates the generality requirement of jurisprudence contained within Kant's categorical imperative. Under this Kantian system, justice is served when rights are applied generally and without particular, arbitrary preferences for individuals or groups.
Following the above argument, the appropriate domain of human rights would be to protect and extend individual rights, especially those rights expressed in the holding of private property. What is at stake is the choice of a system that serves as the means for attaining and measuring social justice.
On the one hand, private property rights might be seen as essential for safeguarding most other civil rights. On the other hand, these rights might be the most effective incentive to inspire individual effort that may lead to general prosperity of the community.
Alternatively, a focus on social or communitarian rights is likely to lead to reliance upon a political determination of the economic position (income and wealth) of individuals in the community. Politicizing such outcomes in pursuit of a special sense of social justice will allow for greater opportunities for special interest groups or power elites to exploit other groups or specific individuals within the community. It can also allow envy and politics to brew up a ghastly stew.
However, anchoring human rights to a (more or less inviolable) concept of private property will reduce the number of politicized decisions that affect peoples lives. This would be less exploitative and also less arbitrary and probably more stable since community actions are justified by mutual consent and voluntary exchange among individuals.
Despite well-intentioned attempts to create or promote a broad sense of community, it is well known that democracy allows the interests of special groups to be promoted over the interests of the wider community. Such a problem arising from an increased politicization of life occurs when mechanisms relying upon majority rule determine the distribution of wealth or goods. Often, this tends to reinforce an increased sense of collective identity as a means to avoid, to deflect or to harness as well as to direct policies.
In the end, politicization arising out of attempts to enforce collective rights can be seen as the principal cause of the powerlessness of individuals. Expansion in the nature and direction of state intervention replaces the rights of the individual, except as a member of a group.
Increased political divisiveness has emerged in the US as moves toward collective action have been mandated. Despite emphasizing multicultural studies in American universities, one result has been demands for a restoration of separate but equal facilities for different ethnic or racial groups.
Politicization of life is an unavoidable cost and consequence of a project that would define human rights in collective or group terms. Instead of a historical and cultural tendency to view and to solve problems privately, more problems are seen as requiring political solutions. One of the consequences is that when political solutions and political initiatives replace individual initiative, there is likely to be a relentless expansion of restrictions and bureaucracy.
Christopher Lingle is adjunct scholar at the Centre for Independent Studies and global strategist for eConoLytics.com.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers