Comments on: Economic Rights & Human Rights http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/26/economic-rights-human-rights/ All Central Asia, All The Time Fri, 25 May 2012 03:15:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nathan http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/26/economic-rights-human-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-374413 Nathan Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:41:34 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/04/26/economic-rights-human-rights/#comment-374413 I think they absolutely should not be advocating those kinds of things. But that's because I don't think those are fundamental human rights issues so much as they are ones of fairness. We <i>have</i>, for example, a progressive tax code, a welfare system, and universal education. When you start getting down to saying that the tax code isn't progressive enough, the welfare system is not generous enough, and education in urban school systems is not good enough <i>and</i> try to make the case that those are human rights issues, you run into a tricky problem of definitions. Where's the line that divides simple unfairness from being a human rights issue? It also seems to me to be defining down human rights in such a way that ends up diluting and somewhat discrediting the concept altogether. I'm a fan of the K.I.S.S. philosophy, and I don't think any advocacy for universal economic rights needs to get into policy specifics or any shades of gray. It can stick with basics such as rights of property ownership, protection from arbitrary and uncompensated seizure of property, a right to have contracts respected... The language should, I think, be very basic and focused on the individual (nothing about lowering trade barriers or barring protectionism, for example). I don't see much of a problem with human rights organizations communicating such a basic message. However, I don't see the big ones doing it. As I'm sure I've said many times before, I think nonprofits/NGOs are businesses that sell things like for-profits, at least as the funding side is concerned. What they sell is the feeling that one is a good person who is making a difference by making a donation. Taking a look at <a href="http://hrw.org/annual-report/2006.pdf" rel="nofollow">HRW's donors</a> (PDF, page 62), I don't see them getting too fired up in support of basic economic rights. It's nowhere near as dramatic as torture or freedom of the press. I think they absolutely should not be advocating those kinds of things. But that’s because I don’t think those are fundamental human rights issues so much as they are ones of fairness. We have, for example, a progressive tax code, a welfare system, and universal education. When you start getting down to saying that the tax code isn’t progressive enough, the welfare system is not generous enough, and education in urban school systems is not good enough and try to make the case that those are human rights issues, you run into a tricky problem of definitions. Where’s the line that divides simple unfairness from being a human rights issue? It also seems to me to be defining down human rights in such a way that ends up diluting and somewhat discrediting the concept altogether.

I’m a fan of the K.I.S.S. philosophy, and I don’t think any advocacy for universal economic rights needs to get into policy specifics or any shades of gray. It can stick with basics such as rights of property ownership, protection from arbitrary and uncompensated seizure of property, a right to have contracts respected… The language should, I think, be very basic and focused on the individual (nothing about lowering trade barriers or barring protectionism, for example).

I don’t see much of a problem with human rights organizations communicating such a basic message. However, I don’t see the big ones doing it. As I’m sure I’ve said many times before, I think nonprofits/NGOs are businesses that sell things like for-profits, at least as the funding side is concerned. What they sell is the feeling that one is a good person who is making a difference by making a donation. Taking a look at HRW’s donors (PDF, page 62), I don’t see them getting too fired up in support of basic economic rights. It’s nowhere near as dramatic as torture or freedom of the press.

]]> By: Brian http://registan.net/index.php/2007/04/26/economic-rights-human-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-374411 Brian Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:06:59 +0000 http://www.registan.net/index.php/2007/04/26/economic-rights-human-rights/#comment-374411 I totally agree that economic rights and prosperity are just as important as political rights, however I'm not sure that human rights organizations should address all of these issues for fear of diluting their message. I know that Amnesty International has come under some grief lately for taking on economics as well as politics, thus making issue with the large income distributions in countries like America and Brazil, for example. No doubt the millions of poor people around the world are a massive issue, but should a organization like Amnesty really advocate, for instance, a more progressive tax code, bigger welfare payments, or better schools to help poor inner city kids? That's something that may definitely be worth advocating, but by other types of organizations, imho. I totally agree that economic rights and prosperity are just as important as political rights, however I’m not sure that human rights organizations should address all of these issues for fear of diluting their message. I know that Amnesty International has come under some grief lately for taking on economics as well as politics, thus making issue with the large income distributions in countries like America and Brazil, for example.
No doubt the millions of poor people around the world are a massive issue, but should a organization like Amnesty really advocate, for instance, a more progressive tax code, bigger welfare payments, or better schools to help poor inner city kids? That’s something that may definitely be worth advocating, but by other types of organizations, imho.

]]>