Why is individual rights important

We show that by ensuring the equal and reciprocal right of coercion, the people as a body protects individual liberty. Instead, there are varied articulations that make up an extraordinarily messy amalgam of neoliberal ideas and policies at multiple sites Latin America, Europe, China; Harvey, , on multiple scales national, international, transnational, global; Brown, ; Hall, ; Klein, ; Overbeek, , and within the many versions of the welfare state Kus, In addition, neoliberalism can be seen as a reaction to the disenchantment identified by Weber, following the rise of bureaucracy.

Integrated into common sense, its main ideas stem from the everyday experience of buying and selling commodities on the market, a model that is then transferred to society. For instance, neoliberal theoretical principles now provide, at a national and international level, substantive content to political constitutions McCluskey, , the establishment of laws governing the executive Foucault, ; Read, , and the reformulation of laws governing citizens LeBaron, ; McCluskey, ; Supiot, , p.

They also shape our comprehension of the world and ourselves for example the reduction of the citizen to an entrepreneur; Peters, Thus, although there is no purely neoliberal society or state—neoliberalism evolves within various societies in different ways see Harvey, —neoliberal political theory allows us to clarify the political premises that underlie the disparate versions of neoliberalism.

In preserving the political state, neoliberal individualistic premises do not accommodate the notion of the people , i. Putting to the side the relationship between political Dahl, ; Rawls, ; Sieyes, [] and ethnic Habermas, , criteria, this act unifies individuals who belong to different ethnicities, cultures, and linguistic traditions. The results of this act are the civic, political and social human rights which have traditionally been the privileged content of the laws of peoples Locke, ; Kant, ; Marshall, ; Rawls, , It is true that women and slaves have historically been excluded from the category of the people.

It is also undeniable that such exclusion has not been completely overcome and that new categories of exclusion have emerged, such as ageism and digital exclusion. Important political differences within peoples on the axes of class Badiou, , gender Elstain, , race Wilson, , and citizenship remain.

Nonetheless, the content of the laws of peoples has provided political criteria for denouncing and reducing, if not eliminating, these exclusions e. Despite the complexity of the relationship between the state and the sovereignty of the people Habermas, , the political criterion stresses the subordination of the state to the sovereign people. For example, instead of exclusively preserving peace or economic and financial efficiency, states ought to ensure the well-being of their citizens.

Some argue that nation states provide a criterion for determining political belonging Miller, Despite the perils of extending sovereign power to the global order e.

Indeed, the growth of international law affects domestic legal systems, limiting the political choices of legislators and voters, and competition in globalized markets does not allow nations or states to regulate their industries and workplaces. Despite the crucial issue of the existence of mechanisms for enforcing those laws, human rights such as freedom from slavery and serfdom, mass murder and genocide can provide their content Rawls, Although the political manipulation of the law by national-hegemonic principles Beck, and the enforcement issue Lane, et al.

As political criteria, human rights preclude resolving persistent political conflicts on the basis of ethnic or national criteria, as occurs with populism and nationalism, respectively. Locke, and Kant, [ assume that the sovereign people guarantees individual liberty in any human association. Both thinkers hold both that human associations or societies of free persons cannot deny the political facts of power, obedience and command Locke, [ ; Kant, and that, in natural rather than political conditions, individual liberty is unrestricted.

Since in the state of nature it is possible for one to obey unconditionally, having only duties, while the other in turn commands unconditionally, having only rights, the unrestrictedly obedient enjoy no protection against unrestricted power, at least concerning their right to life Locke, [ ; Kant, From this perspective, i. The people as a political body expresses precisely this alliance: an inter-protective construction that replaces the state of unconditional obedience and command.

Following the controversial model of the contractual act Gough, , individuals transfer to the political power their unrestricted natural right to liberty. As members of the people, individuals equally consent to restricting their liberty under a political order and to preserving an equal coercive power, which prevents them from being reduced to servile persons and, correlatively, prevents any one of their numbers from becoming a despotic lord Locke, ; Kant, As such, they establish public law —a system of laws for a people, i.

Through public law, i. When pursuing their personal well-being, as members of the people, individuals cannot ignore this common set of rights and restrictions. When pursuing their well-being, individuals are also, but not exclusively, bound to demands that are independent of their individual interests. Neoliberal theory and practice does not preclude a common law Buchanan and Tullock, ; Hayek, The common law that it involves is not, however, a law of the people that provides liberties rights and imposes a unique set of restrictions Buchanan and Tullock, ; Hayek, ; Nozick, Indeed, neoliberal political theory does not allow for the transformation of individual personalities or isolated natural selves into a collective or single public, viewed as the ultimate intentional lawmaker, which is the model we find, for example, in Locke, , Kant, , and Rawls, They do not constitute a common person subject to common legislation that defines and regulates political authority and applies equally to all persons.

On this view, human rights result from personal interests, and persons cannot be bound to claims that are independent of their private interests.

These claims presuppose a public obligation or the possibility of coercion , which involves a political organization in which decision-makers act as collective agents: as members of a people rather than individuals. Yet on the neoliberal conception, collective deliberation of this sort limits, and even undermines, individual liberty Buchanan and Tullock, ; Hayek, ; Nozick, , leading to oppression Buchanan and Tullock, , if not to serfdom Hayek, The people as a political body is based on the supposition that someone the people can intentionally prevent or promote certain results, which, via end-rules, guiding organizations can compel individuals to attain.

Requiring that the situation of the less well off be improved via the principle of the equality of opportunity, for example, involves restricting individual liberty in order to improve the situations of others Hayek, , ; Nozick, This improvement is thought to be unacceptable because, in addition to presupposing that we can determine the circumstances under which individuals pursue their aims, binding persons to claims that are independent of their private interests constitutes an interference in their liberty Hayek, To regard only the public law as serving general welfare and the private law as protecting only the selfish interests of the individuals would be a complete inversion of the truth: it is an error to believe that only actions, which deliberately aim at common purposes, serve common needs.

The fact is rather that what the spontaneous order of society provides for us is more important for everyone, and therefore for the general welfare, than most of the particular services which the organization of government can provide, excepting only the security provided by the enforcement of the rules of just conduct. Hayek, , p. This means not only that governments ought to mirror that order—they cannot provide any rights of themselves—but also that the judicial system ought to be redesigned to fit with the Great Society.

This model cannot accommodate the idea of a public person, the people, to whom individuals belong; indeed, the role of ultimate intentional lawmaker is taken from the people and given to the spontaneous order , the Great or Open Society.

Under the negative conception of liberty, individual freedom is compatible with impediments and constraints liberty is not bare license, which ultimately undermines negative liberty; Berlin, Abstract rules allow for private restrictions on liberty, and neoliberal governmental organizations ought to ensure that any restrictions on liberty are limited to the private realm. Neoliberal theorists do not understand this protection as a form of intervention or interference, however.

Hayek, , for example, argues for this notion by establishing a distinction between repairing and intervening. When a person oils a clock, they are merely repairing it, securing the conditions required for its proper functioning.

In other words, just as oiling a clock provides the conditions required for its proper functioning, so governmental protection of the private scope of restrictions on liberty allows for the proper functioning of the Great Society.

Both merely create the conditions under which individual wellbeing can be maintained, if not increased. They permanently adjust the rules to the neoliberal common law. Consider a situation in which two people, A and B, are involved in cooperative activity and in which both establish a common rule to safeguard the maximization of their interests. Under this rule, A and B both contribute to the maximization of their own well-being.

Although it accepts the interdependence of individuals when pursuing their personal well-being, neoliberal reparation does not allow for a common right to the results of that cooperative interdependence Hayek, ; Nozick, In denying the existence of a public person, a public will, and in ultimately challenging the idea that there is a common right to a share in the total well-being that results from the contributions of all, neoliberalism not only allows, but also requires , that one party has a claim to the exclusively private enjoyment of the benefits of their mutual relationship.

Accordingly, neoliberal repair a metaphor for neoliberal government ought to remove public law, which allows for the common right to well-being, and should replace it with private law.

The resulting intensification of poverty and inequality Greer, ; Matsaganis and Leventi ; Stiglitz, , the diminishing security of employment and income Clayton and Pontusson, ; Stiglitz, , and growing authoritarianism Brown, ; Bruff, ; Kreuder-Sonnen and Zangl, ; Orphanides, ; Schmidt and Thatcher, are not problems in themselves. Accordingly, when choosing between the intensification of poverty and inequality and allegiance to the right of non-interference, non-interference must prevail, thus preventing political and social action to reduce or compensate for poverty and inequality.

Notwithstanding the underlying theoretical debate on the legitimacy and justice of the acquisition of private rights Hayek, ; Marx, ; Nozick, ; Rawls, , , enforcing the rules of the Open Society deprives one part of that society of the right to their well-being and to their contribution to the general well-being.

Under the neoliberal model of government and law, certain citizens are deprived of the right to enjoy the public goods that result from their collective activity, while others enjoy a private right to goods that result from the contribution of all. Since those who benefit are not able to acknowledge the contribution of others, they erase it and privatize the public law. This privatization shows that the neoliberal trinity of privatization, flexibilization and deregulation ultimately results from the original privatization of the public or common law.

Aside from the controversy concerning the epistemological value of the distinction between negative and positive liberty Berlin, []; Gray, ; Rawls, , ; Taylor, , theoretical disagreement about their meanings Taylor, , and the caricatures by which they are often understood e. Similarly, the imposition of that right on society as a whole through legislation, including those who have been deprived of their well-being, also constitutes positive coercion.

Citizens who are deprived of their well-being must simply accept the neoliberal diktat , i. In a paternalistic way—according to Berlin, , positive liberty is always paternalistic in some sense—neoliberal politicians argue that there is no alternative TINA to neoliberal political legislation the government knows best.

Consequently, under the veil of state juridical and political violence, neoliberal politicians present governmental rules as an ultimatum , precluding consent, i.

The rejection of all public right, i. In other words, the neoliberal political order mirrors the despotic nature that neoliberals attribute to the meaningless or mystical general will Buchanan and Tullock, Neoliberal theorists understand public rules as means of protection, as if private interests were not highly dependent on law. In addition, however, rather than accepting the collective protective scope of the law, they demand a monopoly on it.

Although neoliberalism casts them as utterly independent actors—lone Robinson Crusoes—they are highly dependent not only on the contributions of others for their well-being but also on the positive law. Neoliberal positive liberty thus leads to the establishment of legal and political inequality: some command without consent, i. Ultimately, making use of the benefits of negative liberty depends on the political attribution to individuals of certain legal and political statuses, under which they can make use of their liberty.

Moreover, the positive liberty that underlies the spontaneous order not only deprives certain citizens of their share of the general well-being but also leaves no room to claim a right against that deprivation. Indeed, although framed by abstract rules, rights are always obtained under particular circumstances, i.

Despite the interdependence of all individuals, individuals always remain separate unities and are thus deprived of the right to claim a common share of the fruits of their relationships—as if belonging to a common body entailed personal indifference and the abandonment of private interests. Accordingly, if the Great Society, which replaces the will of the people, does not provide rights to citizens, and if those citizens do not obtain them from their private interactions, it is meaningless to claim such a right or to complain that such a right has been denied them.

There is nothing to claim or to complain about. In other words, where there are no rights, there can be no deprivation of rights. Even if individuals wish to complain about the deprivation of their rights, the neoliberal state—which considers such rights imaginary, fictitious, mystical—does not contain institutions that can address such complaints.

Under the neoliberal state, both the people and public institutions vanish into thin air. As Beck stresses with regard to neoliberal globalization, neoliberalism is the power of Nobody Beck Even though Nozick unlike Hayek accepts the existence of natural rights and liberties, his rejection of a public person and public restrictions shows that the assumption of natural rights does not guarantee their enjoyment.

A free serf is someone who, although deprived of political protection—whether this is understood as it was in the medieval era Bloch, , which made a distinction between the protector and the protected, or as it was understood in the liberal tradition Locke, ; Kant, , in which each person is simultaneously protector and protected—can still satisfy their bodily needs through selling themselves or their labor.

Neoliberal private restrictions on liberty cannot override the unrestricted autocratic deliberation of those who, in the absence of public law, can freely renounce their liberty in situations of extreme need, thus voluntarily enslaving themselves. The rejection of a public limit to individual liberty, along with the overlapping of public law and private interests, allows for unrestricted orders and, correlatively, for obedience without liberty on work precariousness see Gill and Pratt, ; on work conditions in sweat shops, see Bales Consequently, neoliberal political theory and practice allow for the creation of a situation in which some citizens serfs only obey while others lords only command.

This legal and political inequality is at work, for example, in systems where lords offer protection in exchange for total obedience on the part of serfs and vassals Bloch, From the perspective of neoliberal theory, we are all equal: neoliberal society does not contain legal or political inequality and does not divide citizens into those who are superior and those who are inferior.

To be at the disposal of someone else who can do whatever they please and to whom one owes unrestricted obedience entails neither that one has an inferior legal status nor that the political relationship at stake is one of a superior to an inferior. Persons have the same legal constitutional status they all are seen as equally free , and all are equally entitled to pursue their private interests. Even if people sell themselves, this concerns the private restriction of liberty from the perspective of neoliberalism and does not conflict with the conditions required for the proper functioning of the spontaneous order, i.

Besides entailing what is known in political philosophy as the liberty of slaves, i. Thus, even if in neoliberal spontaneous societies people are not assigned explicitly different political statuses, which entail different political rights and duties, neoliberal political society does not prevent people from becoming servile or, correlatively, from becoming despotic.

This fact reveals the extent to which neoliberalism entails a dangerous process of what some authors have called refeudalization Supiot, ; Szalai, , full analysis of which deserves examination of its own.

Nevertheless, when obeying without liberty , if citizens fail to acquire their rights they risk becoming something less than a free serf, i.

A free excluded citizen is a citizen who lives in a free society without having the personal, social or institutional resources to make use of their own liberty.

In this case, voiceless and invisible citizens can only enjoy purely negative liberty, in the absence of the personal, social and institutional resources with which they might otherwise achieve well-being.

Neoliberalism also entails the continuous risk of passing from servile or docile citizenship into lawless personhood. Neoliberalism does not reduce to fostering the entrenchment of political inequality: the division of citizens into those who obey and those who command.

It also does not merely imply a situation in which some are protected by the state while others are not, where private interests have a monopoly on legal protection and rights while others are denied political protection and only have duties on work precariousness see Gill and Pratt, Ultimately, neoliberalism risks leading to the total exclusion of some citizens under the veil of full liberty.

The vanishing of the will of the people results in the invisibility of certain kinds of people, who are then forced to live in the spontaneous society as if they were stateless or lawless persons. Neoliberalism has retained some of the elements of that state such as the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable , although these elements have been reshaped by the market approach to social welfare Hartman, ; MacLeavy, On this basis, neoliberal officials have assigned public goods and services to private market providers, redesigning social programs to address the needs of neoliberal labor markets rather than personal wellbeing and establishing partnerships between the state and the private sector Brodie, For example, economic internationalization has affected the competitive viability of the welfare state Boyer and Drache, ; Rhodes, Also, the expansion of the state weakened intermediate groups and jeopardized individual liberties, subjecting citizens to increasing bureaucratic controls Alber, We shall not dwell on a full analysis of these developments.

The neoliberal market approach is, however, incompatible with the very idea of a welfare state. Moreover, the functioning of the welfare state requires the contribution of fellow citizens Marshall, ; Esping-Andersen, By contrast, the market approach rejects in principle all social rights, such as the right to education and health, and requires that individual welfare be an exclusively private enterprise Brodie, ; MacLeavy, Instead of being provided, such services ought to be purchased Brodie, ; MacLeavy, Moreover, if the economic market only identifies solvable needs, and if individuals cannot signal their lack of resources, the neoliberal welfare state cannot prevent individuals who have been deprived of their rights from becoming invisible, along with the resulting institutionalized insecurity Brodie, , intensified poverty and inequality, and diminishing of security of employment and income for many wage earners Clayton and Pontusson, ; Stiglitz, If the spontaneous society and its governments do not provide any rights, and if individuals do not acquire them in the economic market, there is no reason to claim such rights including social rights.

In this case, neoliberal social welfare reduces to charity Clayton and Pontusson, ; Raddon, ; Mendes, The neoliberal conception of welfare also shows how neoliberal theory and practice do not prevent the subordination of certain individuals to non-consensual external mastery.

They embody key values in our society such as fairness, dignity, equality and respect. They are an important means of protection for us all, especially those who may face abuse, neglect and isolation.

Most importantly, these rights give us power and enable us to speak up and to challenge poor treatment from a public authority. All human rights are potentially relevant to you; however, it is likely that you will find some more significant to you than others. Families of those who died at Mid Staffordshire hospital were able to use human rights arguments to secure compensation for horrific treatment suffered by their relatives, such as not being given support to eat or drink or being left in soiled sheeting for hours.

In many cases they were able to argue that poor treatment and neglect caused the death of their loved ones and that this was a breach of their right to life. Source: UK Human rights blog. Simon was rushed to hospital and for the next 14 days he was kept in handcuffs.

Even while he was using the toilet and shower, Simon was chained to a prison officer. He took action against this treatment and a judge ruled that it violated his human right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.

Source: Equally Ours. Any deprivation of liberty must be lawful, proportionate and continue for no longer than is necessary. For a person to be classed as being deprived of their liberty, they must be subject both to continuous supervision and control and not be free to leave.

DOLS set out a procedure for care homes and hospitals to obtain authorisation to deprive someone of their liberty. Without that authorisation the deprivation of liberty will be unlawful. These safeguards are intended to stop individuals from being deprived of their liberty unless it is in their best interests to protect them from harm and there is no other less restrictive alternative. A year-old man was removed from his home in his pyjamas by the local authority and placed in a locked dementia unit.

It was not clear that he lacked capacity at the time. He was detained unlawfully in the care home for 17 months without any DOLS application being made to safeguard his rights or hear his views. The case was settled on the basis that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty. The Judge noted that no consideration had been given to the least restrictive option of the man being supported to live at home in accordance with his wishes.

It is my right to live without harassment and with respect for my private, personal and family life. This is a qualified right and may be restricted if the restriction has a basis in law, pursues a legitimate aim as set out in the Human Rights Act and is necessary and proportionate.

This means that, in some circumstances, a public authority may be able to interfere with your right to a private and family life in order to protect public safety or the freedoms of others. A year-old man with dementia, who was unable to make decisions about his care, lived at home with his partner and her son.

He was admitted to hospital for a mental health assessment and when he was ready for discharge, a dispute emerged between his partner who wanted him to return home, and health authorities who believed he should be admitted permanently to a care home. A judge ruled that forcing the man to be sent to an institution would be depriving him of his human right to family life with his partner. I have the right not to be discriminated against because of who I am — this might include because of my gender, sexuality, age, nationality or religion.

It is not a free standing right and must be linked to another convention right. This means that you can use this article if you can show that, within the scope of the other articles such as Article 2,. In the years of running a small but successful business selling electronic equipment over the phone, he has always been amongst the first to present his tax returns.

When the VAT office refused to exempt Mr S and two other taxpayers in a similar position from online filing they felt that their rights were being undermined and decided to challenge the decision.

It was the inflexibility of the new rules which led to them winning the challenge — in a tax court, the judge found that the HMRC should have made provision for people who would find it difficult to comply with the new rules and their failure to do so was a breach of human rights. As part the Our Rights Our Voices project, we produced this toolkit.

The Japanese occupation of China and other Asian countries was marked by frequent and large-scale brutality toward local populations. Japanese forces took thousands of prisoners of war who were used as slave labour, with no medical treatment and inadequate food.

The promotion and protection of human rights became a fundamental objective of the Allied powers. In , U.

President Roosevelt proclaimed the 'Four Freedoms' that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy - freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from want and fear. The war ended in , but only after the destruction of millions of lives, including through the first and only use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many countries were devastated by the war, and millions of people died or became homeless refugees.

This new organisation was the United Nations, known as the UN, which came into existence in A s the war drew to a close, the victorious powers decided to establish a world organisation that would prevent further conflict and help build a better world. The UN's strong emphasis on human rights made it different from previous international organisations. UN member countries believed that the protection of human rights would help ensure freedom, justice and peace for all in the future.

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can helps us create the kind of society we want to live in. In recent decades, there has been a tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human rights ideas.

This has had many positive results - knowledge about human rights can empower individuals and offer solutions for specific problems. Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels in society - in the family, the community, schools, the workplace, in politics and in international relations. It is vital therefore that people everywhere should strive to understand what human rights are. When people better understand human rights, it is easier for them to promote justice and the well-being of society.

A person's human rights cannot be taken away. In its final Article, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no State, group or person '[has] any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein'.

This doesn't mean that abuses and violations of human rights don't occur. On television and in newspapers every day we hear tragic stories of murder, violence, racism, hunger, unemployment, poverty, abuse, homelessness and discrimination. However, the Universal Declaration and other human rights treaties are more than just noble aspirations.

They are essential legal principles. To meet their international human rights obligations, many nations have incorporated these principles into their own laws. This provides an opportunity for individuals to have a complaint settled by a court in their own country. Individuals from some countries may also be able to take a complaint of human rights violations to a United Nations committee of experts, which would then give its opinion.