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

[John Mathiason]

Just an addition to the debate.  One reason that the "right to  
development" has been controversial is that it is often seen as a  
collective, rather than an individual right.  Human rights have  
usually been seen as pertaining to individuals rather than  
collectivities.  The issue becomes complicated if a collective right  
(say, national security) can be seen as trumping an individual right  
(say, right to free expression).

John
On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:34, David Allen wrote:

> At 10:12 PM -0500 3/8/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
>>> A libertarian interpretation is entirely appropriate for an
>>> individual to claim.  It cannot be said to characterize the US -
>>> that would be a misrepresentation.
>>
>> David:
>> I think you are confusing your own normative judgment with an  
>> empirical assessment of the American legal and philosphical  
>> tradition.
>
> You are of course welcome to think what you want.  But I am in  
> charge of what I think, and your statement is distinctly mistaken.
>
>> An individualist approach
>
> is more in tune with American tradition.  The usual description is  
> (classical) liberalism.  Libertarianism is quite another matter,  
> having a distinct oeuvre and fairly narrow tradition.
>
> All that is tradition.  When we come to the more recent past and  
> the present, yet other strains become important if not dominant, at  
> least on one side.
>
>> to rights is deeply engrained in American culture -- even among  
>> its Left and democrats -- relative to Europe and Asia. That's why  
>> a Mao or a Hitler -- both sides of the collectivist coin -- could  
>> never happen here.
>
> A counterfactual, which, by its nature, cannot be known until and  
> unless it occurs.  The US is a culture in its infancy, extremely  
> young.  Much evolution lies ahead, and with it previously  
> unthinkable possibilities.
>
>> The Lockean basis of the thinking of the constitution drafters and  
>> of American political institutions is firmly established in the  
>> historical literature.
>
> There indeed we get to the - early - tradition of (classical)  
> liberalism, quite distinct from libertarianism.  And again, the  
> present has already moved from past anchor points.
>
>> No point in debating that.
>>
>> When you say this,
>>
>>> The great schism that now characterizes US political life
>>> finds libertarian thought on one side, arrayed against
>>> quite opposite thinking.
>>
>> I am not sure which sides you are talking about. Which in itself  
>> proves you wrong.
>
> Again, you are welcome to assert as you see fit.  Assertion,  
> unfortunately, does not establish veracity nor by itself  
> necessarily advance the conversation.
>
>> Both the American left and right claim on the surface to be  
>> libertarian
>
> Not by any definitions with which I ordinarily truck.  Some on the  
> right, yes, not by any means all on the right.  The (typical) left,  
> not even classical liberal (let alone libertarian), rather new  
> liberal, often opposite classical liberal.
>
>> - the conservatives claiming to be for small government and free  
>> markets (an increasingly dubious claim under Bush) and the  
>> liberals claiming to be for civil liberties and for the positive,  
>> 2nd-gen freedoms and entitlements of the post-WW2 era. Both rely  
>> heavily on the rhetoric of liberal freedoms.
>
> Which are quite distinct from the particular notions of  
> libertarianism, as said already.  And again, the left quite  
> opposite in some cases, in favor of state interventions etc.
>
>>
>> True, the religious right have hugely undermined the freedom  
>> orientation of the Republicans, combining with militaristic  
>> nationalism in dangerous ways. But I was talking about the  
>> prevailing understanding of philosophical approaches to rights, I  
>> was not in any way attempting to characterize the current  
>> political alignments of the population.
>
> I was and did, as one illustration of the narrow place for  
> libertarianism per se (not liberalism, either classical or its  
> sometimes opposite on today's left).
>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

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