[governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline

[Taran Rampersad]

I've been reading this closely and considering it... comments are 
inline, with a lot of stuff snipped out. I like finite emails. :-)

Milton Mueller wrote:
>  Development is a good thing. The issue is how to get there.
Splitting a hair here that I think is important: Development is not a 
destination, it is a process. I believe treating the speed of the 
process - the speed of development - as the focal issue instead of a 
moving snapshot allows for more creative solutions within the bounds of 
humanity (which includes technology and ideology, as well as other 
things that are so numerous that we lump them in with 'humanity' and 
pray that nobody confuses us with the truth).
>  I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to development" contributes to development in any meaningful way.
Perhaps if we see 'right of development' as, instead, 'right to increase 
the speed of the process of development within the context of the 
affected people', we could see how such a Right contributes to development.

When the founding Fathers of the United States wrote, 'pursuit of life, 
liberty and justice' - a very open ended phrase - one could say that 
development is derivative since liberty would be served by the process 
of development. I don't know any group out there that would say that 
they would like to work harder instead of smarter, which means that 
there would be more liberty. While that's the United States as it was 
founded (and not necessarily the United States now), perhaps that 
ideology which drove the U.S. Constitution and asserted rights which 
themselves caused war within the United States itself... maybe it isn't 
limited to the United States and never was. The UN Humanitarian Charter 
is pretty clear along the same lines.

By enabling the Rights of Human Beings, by Acknowledging these Rights, 
we cannot disregard the associated derivative Rights of Society, and 
therefore the derivative Rights of Societies withing the greater society 
of Global Society.

I believe... as I believe others do... that one does not have to move 
ahead by pushing others down. That is a principle of Freedom. I am Free, 
as long as I do not adversely affect the Freedom of Others. Therefore, I 
am Free to Develop as long as I do not Adversely Affect the Freedom of 
Others. Therefore, any Society I belong to which claims Civility is Free 
to Develop as long as it does not Adversely Affect the Freedom of Other 
Societies. One cannot adversely affect the Freedom of Other Societies 
within the Global Society without an equal and opposing reaction force. 
That is why humanity started off with blunt objects, proceeded to sharp 
and pointy objects, then projectiles, and even now anticoagulant, ball 
bearings, fertilizer and a carbon based life form. When Freedoms are 
affected adversely, people react in ways that only an opposing thumb can 
allow.

Therefore, if we want Peace then we as members of a global society need 
to recognize that our Freedom is curtailed by any adverse effect on 
other people's Freedoms, which includes the Process of Development, 
which by Right of Freedom creates the derivative Right to Development.

Development is not a standalone process. It is a part of larger 
processes. In fact, development could be called a process of 
streamlining other processes.

Moral posturing and clear thinking are not necessarily separate 
things... we should be careful when dealing with others in a global 
society not to think the two, because they may be separate in our minds, 
are separate in anyone else's. One mindset tends to separate things such 
that people who say the world is round go to prison, and people who can 
explain how the Space Shuttle blew up have to do so through 
demonstrations on television in public instead of formal documents. Many 
of the world's recognized scientists have established that science 
without morality is bad; we could say the same of anything else - 
including the process of development - which includes the Freedom to 
streamline the processes of development.
>> And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by individuals and
>> communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation states, to
>> global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS, but you
>> seem to have very different views.....
>>     
>
> Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect you will have a difficult time.
You're getting to the crux of the bureaucratic problem. It's only a 
problem of bureaucracy, so do not be alarmed - it just requires an 
unbureaucratic solution.

I'll take a shot at it. If I stand on your hand so that you cannot type, 
I have used my Freedom of movement to adversely affect your Freedom of 
movement. There are Laws around the world which would charge me with 
assault - why? Because I would be adversely affecting you. Would I be 
the one to complain? Of course not, unless it is uncomfortable to stand 
on your hand. You would complain. And who would you complain to?

Probably anyone who would listen. I might stand on your other hand so 
that you could not make a phone call. I might gag you so that you cannot 
scream. But if nobody can hear you complain, does that make my actions 
morally proper? Of course not. Does it make your misery more bearable? 
No, of course not - in fact, probably the reverse would be true. In 
fact, at some point (depending on how much indignity you will take) you 
will try to retaliate, perhaps kicking at me - so I may tie your legs 
and create a human pedestal out of you such that I am more comfortable. 
Yet there are laws that assert that you have the right to not be tied up.

When it comes to development, the same is true. Precedents are a 
dangerous thing in that most precedents include some form of bondage of 
Freedom. So, I think we can agree that if I were to do these things it 
would be morally reprehensible. And, until a few centuries ago, it was 
legal. Slavery still exists, but it is seen as illegal. How can we allow 
entire societies to be bound and tied, used as pedestals, and say, "It's 
too hard to ajudicate and enforce these morals! Run away!"

No, there is a Right, and if there are those that wish to ignore the 
Rights of Human Beings and their Societies, then I can think of a few 
choice planets that they could move to. If we wish to live here, in 
peace, we have to recognize the Freedom of the Human Being and the 
Freedom of Human Societies. And recognizing them implies ajudication and 
enforcement. And that means hearing out problems, and reacting such that 
adverse effects are treated *as* Adverse Effects instead of 
Unpleasantries to Continue The Position of Those Who Benefit.

If anyone wishes for a demonstration, please drop by and I'll gladly gag 
you, tie you up and stand on your hands with combat boots until you 
understand the Societal frustration associated with not recognizing your 
Human Rights - I'd see it as a service to Humanity that I would be 
performing. To say that Humans have rights but their Societies have no 
Rights is as foolish as making people ride on the back of the bus over 
their color, or tossing scientists in jail because they take on the 
Church, suicide bombers, telling people they cannot vote because of 
differences in genitalia (or use of genitalia, for that matter), or - my 
personal favorite - killing each other with weapons while using 
religious texts as shields.
> I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that their lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are not "development rights" but simple assertions of property rights.
No. Indigenous people typically do not claim Land, they claim the Right 
to Use the Land. They don't claim ownership of Land. Societies which 
claim Land as Property are forcing these 'Rights' on indigenous peoples 
because it's the only way that they can find to negotiate with the 
indigenous peoples. I can't tell you how many reservations and 
indigenous areas I have walked in - from Panama to Mexico, to New Mexico 
to Hawaii... and I was allowed to walk there not because I asserted a 
right, but because I did not disrespect the Land. I have the shoes I 
walked with still. Those shoes have gone where many will never go 
because they do not respect how the indigenous peoples treat the Land.

This is an alien concept for stock traders; to be able to use something 
without owning it - oddly, 'leasing' is a move back *toward* indigenous 
Land concepts as convenient for people who profit from the leasing.

Assertion of 'property rights'. I believe you've found yourself in the 
middle of defining what property rights are, and I'm not talking just 
about land. Patenting of Life. The Enola Bean. Any number of native 
Indian plants. And a lot of these 'property rights', as enacted, 
ajudicated and enforced, demonstrate a lack of regard for the property 
itself. Sort of like slavery demonstrates a lack of regard for Human Beings.

And all of this... I say as someone who uses property, who owns Land... 
and when I die, I will pass that ownership to someone else. Why? Because 
of my version of Property Rights, and the fact that the Europeans did a 
pretty good job of clearing out native inhabitants before they 'settled' 
(or as I prefer, 'unsettled') the Caribbean in the name of...

Ownership.

Of course, I wouldn't be here without all of that. On my mother's side, 
the Dutch would never have mixed with the Portugese, Blackfoot, Greek, 
and others before that period... and my father's side would not have 
come to Trinidad and Tobago as indentured servants for the English... I 
would not have lived in what are now two colonies... but if you ask me 
which heritage I call mine, you will expect me to claim *ownership* of 
one whereas I will tell you I am a part of *all* of them.

Who owns my family tree? ahh... now we're getting somewhere. :-)
>  I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: return of the lands to their rightful owners/stewards, or cessation of the pollution, etc.
>   
Steward is more appropriate, it demonstrates a lean in the right 
direction of what most indigenous people would consider to be their 
role. By indigenous people, I rule out those of indigenous heritage who 
are orphaned from their own culture(s).
> Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who will give it to them? 
>   
Nobody. They must take it. It's called sovereignty. Lessening the 
adverse affects of claiming sovereignty is in the interest of everyone, 
yet there are a few who benefit from these adverse effects and when they 
drive process, we get what we've had for millenia.
>
> If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically as well as culturally, politically, etc. 
>   
Absolutely. And understanding what civil society is sometimes means 
going back to the roots instead of driving within proximity of 'those 
poor people', or going to a developing nation and staying in a cozy 
tourist hotel. If anyone wants to claim the mantle of civil society, 
they need to Dare to challenge their own assumptions on a daily basis.

I snipped out a lot, and I apologize if anyone believes I took out 
something important; please point out what you think is important. I 
think I have.


-- 
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago
cnd at knowprose.com

Looking for contracts/work!
http://www.knowprose.com/node/9786

New!: http://www.OpenDepth.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance