Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Effect of Economic Rights on Political Rights
Posner’s assertion that political rights are necessarily dependent on economic rights is practically axiomatic. As often as people say that “money isn’t everything” and “there are more important things in life” it is hard to deny that every modern country is completely dependent on money. Our basic necessities require the use of monetary exchange. It is nearly impossible to become self-sufficient without the use of money, and even if it could be done, few would desire to live such a life. If economic rights were completely removed, political rights would be moot. An example I look at is African tribes who have almost zero contact with the modern world. In this society, there are very basic economic rights through trading with other nearby tribes. In accordance with Posner’s theory, there are also very few political rights. The tribe has one leader who makes all (even if there are few) important decisions, and there is no room for criticism. One of the primary reasons for this is probably that there is little need for political rights because the social focus is primarily on the basic necessities of food, shelter, etc. While I am not completely convinced of all Posner’s beliefs, I feel that this fundamental aspect of his argument is quite sound.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know if the only alternative to deriving all political rights from economic rights is to completely remove economic rights. Posner clearly believes that many of the political rights we value can be derived from economic rights and that economic rights should determine political rights.
ReplyDeleteIs that any different from the mythical autocratic "African tribe" you have described above? Aren't both ruled by "one leader who makes all (even if there are few) important decisions" without "room for criticism?" That is, if our benefit from wealth is solely determined by monetary value, as Posner proposes, how is this significantly different from the unenviable hypothetical situation you've described above?
What I failed to adequately explain in my original post is that my satisfaction with Posner’s theory is more fundamental in that he observes economic rights as necessary conditions for political rights. I think that the (factual, saw it on discovery channel) African tribe I described above exemplifies this interconnected relationship. My purpose for this example is to show that even in far less developed societies, there seems to be a positive relationship between the two types of rights. This basic dependency is how I understand political rights as derivations of economic rights. Finally, I’m not sure if you are referring to the self-sufficient miser or the African tribe when you mention “the unenviable hypothetical,” the latter of which I see as different, but not utterly undesirable.
ReplyDeleteAlso, cute dog.
ReplyDeleteI think what your trying to say is that the less economic rights a nation has then the less political rights the nation will have. If this is what you are expressing then I agree with you. Depending on the economic rights of a country they will either be limited political rights or provided many political rights depending on its economic system. I feel like those who fall into a socialist society are afford less political rights because there is more control coming from the government. The more control coming from the government on economic rights gives less political rights to citizens
ReplyDelete