[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...

MORE MARKETS, LESS GOVERNMENT
in international law until 1948 when
the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) was signed. This document
enshrines principles of equality
and justice, and the sanctity of a person’s
rights regardless of their ethnicity,
religion or gender. The first sentence
of the 1948 Declaration states
that “inherent human dignity” should
be recognized. As such, a balanced application
of human rights principles
would not impose social responsibilities
that come into conflict with
personal rights.
But some attempts to curb assaults
on the dignity of human beings have
contributed to the continuing problems
that offend a collective sense of justice.
Indeed, many of the most vocal supporters
of so-called human rights actually
promote legal concepts that inadvertently
support the sort of misconduct
they wish to see ended. In particular,
demands for human rights in terms of
social or collective rights undermine
the universality intended by the drafters
of the UDHR. For example, government
officials frequently engage in
populist promises that define rights
based on economic or social characteristics.
In modern times, there has been
an emergence of identity politics
whereby leaders of group-based movements
claim they represent the interests
of groups defined by ethnicity,
class, religion, gender, sexual orientation
or other criteria.
A focus on group “rights” divides
communities into distinctive and separate
political classes that are in conflict
with the interests and rights of other
groups. Demands for an assignment of
rights as a matter of law tend to be
based on a perception of some historical
oppression or victimhood. In the
first instance, assignment of particular
rights contradicts a notion of universal
rights wherein all humans possess
equal rights regardless of differences
race or ethnicity. And basing human
rights upon collective concepts of
“fundamental” social rights leads to
zero or negative-sum policy outcomes
with some groups benefiting and others
losing. One common intrusion to
individual liberties relating is the imposition
of limits on the exercise of
private property rights and the freedom
of exchange. In this regard, the
excesses of protectionism and unlawful
expropriation are legendary. There is
an unfortunate tendency for few objections
being raised when the assets of
private corporations are nationalized.
But this indifference overlooks the fact
that acts that diminish economic
freedoms provide the logic and mechanisms
for reducing civic and political
freedoms. Those wishing to support
human rights should consider that
rights and dignity of humans are best
preserved through rigorous support for
individual rights and the Rule of Law.
As it is, proponents of collective or
group rights that ignore the key role of
individuals as bearers of rights guaranteed
to autonomous humans undermine
the Rule of Law.
Indeed, the assertion of group rights
over individual rights provided the basis
for the injustices of apartheid in
South Africa and genocide in other
parts of the world. The assignment of
group rights in the case of apartheid is
a worst-case scenario of abuses arising
from the violation of these generality
conditions. But other extreme acts
arising out of the exclusivity of ethnic
nationalism had destructive consequences
in the Balkans and plague
other parts of the world.
References to social or collective or
group rights mask 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. In such an
order, human beings are treated as objects
or servants of the community
Rights that impose obligations necessarily attenuate the
freedom of choice and action of others. In such an order,
human beings are treated as objects or servants of the
community rather than valued as unique individuals
rather than valued as unique individuals.
Whereas the assignment and enforcement
of individual rights encourages
coordination and cooperation,
collectivized rights involve conflict
and require coercion. As it turns out,
many of the countries that suffer most
from communal violence and sectarianism
are those that have imple
mented policies that define rights of
minorities. Clearly, this approach has
not worked.
A collectivistic approach to human
THE INDIA ECONOMY REVIEW
13