Economics and human rights

Violations of human rights in the undemocratic states of the “second” and “third” world are obvious and do not require books, but specific actions.

In this book, we will examine less obvious violations that hamper the growth of the economies of countries.

The author does not pretend to “know the answer what to do.” The book is an invitation to a discussion, a philosophical question.

In 1946 Ludwig von Mises wrote that economic science should not be left to the training classes and offices of statisticians and should not remain in esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and activity and concerns everyone, the energy of civilization and human existence. (146)

As arguments in this book, basically two approaches are used. The first is logical reasoning, accepted both in philosophical literature and in the writings of well-known economists, for example, Milton Friedman or Friedrich von Hayek, Nobel Prize winners in economics. Their works “Capitalism and Freedom”, “Freedom to choose”, “Road to slavery” are not only quoted in this book, but partly are the cause of its occurrence.

The second is the “diagnosis” of ex juvantibus. This method is common in medicine. Its essence is that when a certain disease is supposed that can not be laboratory confirmed, treatment is appointed “blindly” and if it helped, then the diagnosis is confirmed. To do this, this book provides examples of countries that have carried out certain experiments, allowed or prohibited drugs, weapons, immigration, prostitution, etc. And the results of these actions.

In addition to medicine, this method of proof is also used in physics, when a series of experiments confirms a certain theory.

All figures and data in this book can be verified using the references given at the end of the book.

In the case of Internet data, it is not possible to indicate the year of publication or the page, so the link in the form of a URL looks logical, especially since this book is not a thesis. Its task is for the reader to think about these issues. I looked at them from an unusual and unconventional point of view, becoming an arbitration judge between the arguments for and against, based on the Declaration of Human Rights.

All countries and all people are different. But if from time to time, from country to country, from state to state, a certain same action leads to the same result, then the original assumption is true. And since from the country to the country the result of the identical action causes identical consequences, it suggests that similar actions in another country will lead to similar results. In other words, if in several countries 2 +2 = 4, then most likely in all other countries 2 +2 will also be equal to four.

Those. if in Portugal the experiment with decriminalization of drugs led to a decrease in “first-time users”, a decrease in HIV-infected people, then the “medicine” of decriminalization is the right way. Similarly, with prostitution, for example, in Germany or the Netherlands. Or with weapons in Estonia, Lithuania, Switzerland, the Czech Republic or the United States.

Those. This is not a “mathematical” method of proof, but an “experimental” one. As already mentioned, this method is used both in physics and in medicine.

This way of evidence works well in the chapters on weapons, drugs, prostitution.

In the chapters on taxes or immigration, unfortunately, there is much less experimental data. But there is something. Including, opinion of authorities.

There are quite a lot of economic, mental, behavioral myths in the “head” of the state and in the head of an ordinary person, to understand with which the purpose of this book.

We will look at all questions from the point of view of the economic benefits of the budget and the state’s ensuring of human rights recorded in the World Declaration. After all, it’s your rights, dear reader. This is your freedom, your security, your education, your health, your pension, social benefits, your right to work and a good job, your right to rest, your right to self-defense. This is your life. And its quality.

From the last point and start.

Article 3. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Weapons… or… The right to life and health

When you walk down the street in the evening and see a noisy or even aggressive company, and maybe a flashing shadow, or maybe hurried steps behind… Do you feel safe?

Is there a knife, a can, a whistle in your purse or pocket? Is the mount or hatchet under the car seat? Did you attend training or self-defense courses? And maybe they were engaged in boxing or karate? Are you worried about your daughter or your wife when they go somewhere without you? Are you sure that you can repulse the criminal if he wants to rob you, kill, rape you?

How will you be able to protect your life and health, your property, if you come across a strong, and even more armed, criminal, bandit, hooligan? And your wife, daughter, mother?

Are their lives and health protected in your country?

Do you want your daughter to protect her life and health when she meets a robber, a murderer, a rapist?

How would she do it if she did not have a gun, and a meeting with the criminal took place?

Politicians say this – we have police… she will come, investigate, catch and punish the criminal…

They forget to add “maybe”, they forget to insert “if” before the word “catch”. Thus, “the police, perhaps, will catch the criminal if he can find him.”

But to you, already robbed, raped or killed, it will be almost all the same. You have already suffered. You were no longer protected. Your rights to health, life, inviolability of property are already broken. And the state did not protect you. For your taxes.

Why does the perpetrator choose to sacrifice you, and not a policeman or a military man?

It’s very simple – they have weapons, and you do not. You are weaker, defenseless, it is much easier for you to take away everything a criminal wants.

In principle, the ban on weapons for civilians is nothing but discrimination. There is a group of people “military” – they can. There is a group of people “civil” – they can not. This is segregation in the spirit of “a place only for whites.” However, for whom is the risk higher for home robbery or in a dark lane? For a strong man from the police or for a girl or an old woman? Which of them, out of work, is really more important to have weapons in the house or in the purse?

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

What should the state do to ensure you the right to life, health, the right to preserve your property?

Only to legalize the human right to self-defense, and hence the right to purchase and carry weapons.

A law-abiding citizen needs a law to ensure his right to life and health. The law that will allow you to acquire and carry weapons of self-defense, including a gun.

A criminal does not need such a law. He is a criminal and he already walks with a gun. And it is advantageous for him that a law-abiding citizen does not have a pistol. And while there is no law on the right to purchase and carry weapons in the country, the state defends the interests of the bandit, and not the right to life and health of a law-abiding taxpayer.

We must also remember that historically, weapons were forbidden to slaves and people who were slaves – Japanese and Chinese peasants.

Thus. The ban on carrying weapons equates citizens and residents to slaves.

And Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery… are prohibited in all forms.”

Another aspect of the citizens’ right to arms is whether the state is afraid of its citizens.

The US is not afraid of its armed citizens – weapons are allowed and people even have the right to have an armed uprising authorized by law!

There is a beautiful story on this subject. Perhaps a true, perhaps anecdote, but it reflects well the essence of respect for the human right to life.