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.
The recent passing of Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known to many as “Big S,” due to influenza-induced pneumonia at just 48 years old is a devastating reminder that the flu is not just a seasonal nuisance — it is a serious and potentially fatal illness. Hsu, a beloved actress and cultural icon who shaped the memories of many growing up in Taiwan, should not have died from a preventable disease. Yet her death is part of a larger trend that Taiwan has ignored for too long — our collective underestimation of the flu and our low uptake of the
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
Actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known affectionately as “Big S,” recently passed away from pneumonia caused by the flu. The Mandarin word for the flu — which translates to “epidemic cold” in English — is misleading. Although the flu tends to spread rapidly and shares similar symptoms with the common cold, its name easily leads people to underestimate its dangers and delay seeking medical treatment. The flu is an acute viral respiratory illness, and there are vaccines to prevent its spread and strengthen immunity. This being the case, the Mandarin word for “influenza” used in Taiwan should be renamed from the misleading
RSS