Economics and human rights

Economics and human rights

Andrey Sokolov

Illustrator Tatiana Sokolova

© Andrey Sokolov, 2018

© Tatiana Sokolova, illustrations, 2018

ISBN 978-5-4490-9087-4

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Andrei Sokolov

Economics and human rights

Economics, politics, laws, sociology, human rights, psychology, futurology, philosophy, ethics

Short translation into English

(The abridged version, without most tables, graphs, illustrations, quotes, examples, statistics, evidence.)

In advance, I ask the reader to forgive me for my English and the quality of the author’s translation

Full text version available in Russian

2017 in russian

2018 in English

From the author

The purpose of this book is to show the way of combining economic benefits for the state with observance of human rights.

Show that the state is getting richer when the rights of the inhabitants of this state are fully respected, the rights of all people on earth are fully respected.

Prove that respect for human rights makes people happier, and the country and their inhabitants are richer.

If this book brings the moment when economists and politicians will begin to consider the point of reference of human rights and human benefits, and not the blessings of states and peoples, then the author will be happy.

I hope this book will make the world better. At least a little better and more humane.

Declaration

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

United States Declaration of Independence

On December 10, 1948, the UN adopted the Declaration of Human Rights. It sets out the principles that all nations and countries must follow. In this document there are only 30 articles that describe the basic and immutable human rights. For example, the right to life, health, work, rest and so on. (156)

Since then more than 60 years have passed. Do you think how many countries in the world fully comply with the provisions of this Declaration? In which country in the world are human rights enunciated by the United Nations fully respected? Not in one!

No country in the world has implemented the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights in full in its practice, in its laws, in the lives of its citizens.

In no country of the world human rights are fully observed.

In this book you will find evidence of this.

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Do citizens, residents of all these countries, benefit from this? Of course not.

Perhaps it is advantageous for the state economy not to respect human rights? Also no. And it’s easy to prove.

Can the budget benefit from the infringement of human rights? Can the budgets of countries where human rights are observed less richer than the budgets of countries where human rights are greater, where they are guaranteed and protected by the state? Also no. And this will also be proved.

Can the police, the army, officials, teachers, doctors, patients, pupils be better off from inferior respect for human rights? Can the infringement of rights promote the construction of good roads, improve the quality of education, medical care? No. And this is also quite simple to prove.

The purpose of this book is to prove that everyone is benefiting from respect for human rights: the state and citizens, hospitals and schools, business and tax services, doctors and patients, teachers and students, students, police officers and even officials.

The only one who benefits from violation of human rights – bandits, criminals and associated statesmen and pseudo-businessmen.

In this book you will find evidence that the observance of human rights leads to an increase in citizens ‘incomes, to citizens’ freedom, to the safety of residents, to an increase in budget revenues, and thus to better living conditions for all law-abiding citizens of the country.

The book examines the basic concepts of human rights and their relationship with the economy and state revenues. On specific examples, it examines whether states observe human rights and what benefits the state budget can receive if it fully respects human rights.

We will consider the question of observing human rights mainly on the example of the developed democracies of the First World, since we will not examine such obvious violations of rights as torture, but less noticeable, but no less fundamental.

Another reason for this sample is high-quality and reliable statistics.

And, of course, the main reason why the book talks about developed democracies is that it is necessary to understand where such democracies move further. After all, any stop is a step back.

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.

A story from a traffic policeman from Minnesota:

“One day, I stopped an elderly lady for speeding on track 210, at 197 miles, just east of McGregor, Minnesota.

I asked to present the rights, registration and insurance. The lady gave me the documents.

I was somewhat surprised (considering her considerable age), having found out among the documents a license for concealed carrying of weapons, and asked if she was armed at the moment.

The lady replied that yes, she had a 45-gauge pistol in the glove box.

Something made me ask, but does she have any weapons other than the one mentioned. She said that yes, she has 9mm Glock in the center console. Then I asked “Is this all?”. No, she said, there is still 38 caliber in her purse. Then I asked what she was so afraid of.

The lady stared at me and said: “I’m not afraid of shit.”

The right to arms is not only among US citizens. Below, you will see examples of how the legalization of weapons has affected the level of crime, and thus to ensure the right to life of people and save budget funds for the investigation of crimes. But these are significant amounts that could be spent with greater benefit to residents. For example, for round-the-clock coverage of roads, yards, streets. And criminals would have been harder, and an accident would have been less. For the same money. Thanks to a short line in the law: “Citizens have the right to freely acquire, store and carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense.”

By the way, defense spending would also have decreased, and tax revenues have grown, new businesses for the sale of weapons, safes for its storage, workshops, shooting galleries, training courses, etc. would have appeared. As for the defense… Who in the “sober mind” will try to fight with the country where every bush, every window can shoot? Thus, such a law is a deterrent force, like nuclear weapons. Only power is not costly, like an army or an atomic bomb, but a profitable, developing economy and replenishing the budget. This, perhaps, would have allowed even to reduce the cost of the army.

Taking into account all these arguments, the legislation of more than 20 countries of the world allows its citizens not only possession, but also wearing short-barreled weapons.

The right to bear and own weapons is an instrument for protecting life and health. The economic effect, the impact on the country’s budget, the impact on the criminal situation in the country arises from the fact that the number of crimes is reduced, that means the amount of budget expenditures for their investigation, search and capture of the criminal, court, prison, supervision, etc. is reduced. In this regard, an example of Estonia is illustrative, where the police budget after the legalization of arms was halved.

Just as vaccinations, if they are in many, protect from diseases those few who could not plant, as well as the presence of weapons in many, i.e. free arms sales protect those who do not have weapons. For the bandit does not know if a man is armed, since the right to arms is. And if he does not know, he will be careful to attack or rob.

Opponents of the presence of weapons from the public should remember that the police will come at the signal of robbery, rape, murder only when the crime has already been committed. And the man has already suffered. But the main task of the police, and the authorities in general, to prevent crime. The law on the free carrying of weapons is just such a preventive measure. A ban on weapons on the contrary prohibits citizens from protecting their lives and health.

Opponents of the legalization of weapons argue that they delegate the protection of their police rights. This argument does not stand up to criticism, not only because the police come after the crime, i.e. does not protect, but also because delegation does not mean a ban on independent actions. We delegate to doctors the right to take care of our health. But it does not forbid us to play sports or lead a healthy lifestyle. Delegating doctors the right to health protection does not lead to a ban on drug sales in pharmacies. Including without a prescription. But the delegation of the police right to protect life for some reason leads to a ban on legal weapons.

If weapons are prohibited that can save lives, then it is logical to prohibit condoms, bandages, plasters, harnesses, car first-aid kits and in general the provision of pre-medical care. They too can save a life. If you reach the limit of absurdity, then pharmacies should be banned – you can also poison yourself with, for example, salicylates, and excessive use of analgin or paracetamol leads to very deplorable consequences.

If the weapon is dangerous and can cause harm, and therefore it is forbidden, then the sale of knives, axes, chainsaws, cars and even bricks and ropes must also be banned. All this can turn into a weapon, harm life and health. All these things are dangerous.

However, only weapons are prohibited. Is it reasonable?

Here are a few examples. They are very modern and very similar in fact. But not by the result. In one case, a resident, a citizen was armed, the carrying of weapons was legalized. Two other results of the ban on the legal carrying of weapons, the ban on protection of life and health, the ban on the basic human right, was the defenselessness of citizens to the perpetrator and the huge number of victims.

If to speak from the point of view of economy – the country lost taxpayers who died in these incidents.

Jerusalem, Israel 01/08/2017

On this day in the center of Jerusalem, a truck, driven by a terrorist, entered a military group. Four died, another 15 people were injured. But the criminal was not stopped by a policeman, not a soldier, but by an ordinary civilian. But armed. Guide. Eitan Ron. This was reported by the Israeli Channel 9: “According to a 30-year-old guide, he was moving away from the military when a truck crashed into it. Ron was hurt and he flew to the side. “Fortunately, I had a gun, I fired a shot at the wheels, I realized that it was not enough, I ran and released all the clips on the cab.” The terrorist continued to go, when I shot the whole store, I realized that he was continuing to go to this the soldiers pulled up and opened fire, after 20 seconds he stopped, we called for help, there were wounded soldiers whom he moved twice.The shooting lasted less than a minute and the only question that should be asked is why the only 30-year-old civilian neutralizes the terrorist, while there were dozens of armed military men who fled “… The published video of the attack confirms the words of Ron – most of the military rushed to run in the opposite direction from the truck immediately after the attack, and did not try to eliminate the driver.” (Israel, Channel 9)

Nice, France, July 15, 2016

Here everything was different. The weapon was only with the police, and a truck with a terrorist on the night of July 15, 2016 crashed into the crowd on the embankment in Nice, where the celebration of the Day of the Bastille took place. 86 people were killed.

The criminal was shot by the police only after he crushed 86 people. All of them were without firearms.

Berlin, Germany, December 19, 2016

“In the evening, a truck crashed into a crowd of passers-by in the Bright Square in Berlin, where a Christmas fair was organized… Rescuers found several dead and about 50 wounded.” All of them were unarmed.

Total. If the state respects the human right to life and health, with the legalization of carrying weapons in Israel, the number of dead 4 people + a criminal. In case of non-observance of human rights, 86 people were killed in the ban on carrying weapons in France. In Germany – less, but only thanks to the truck’s computer and the heroism of the Polish driver, who died at the hands of the terrorist. Perhaps if the driver had the right to carry weapons, he would not have died. After all, the criminal had weapons. And the driver does not.

To date, the world has accumulated a lot of statistics and experience of permits and prohibitions on possession and carrying of weapons. Let’s look at this experience.

Australia

In 1996, the Australian Government banned the possession of many types of firearms, after which the number of armed robberies increased by 59% within eight years. (7)

Bulgaria

“The law permits the storage and carrying of firearms, including rifles. After permission to carry and store civilian rifled weapons, a significant decline in serious crimes was recorded.”(8)

Brazil

Since 25 years, a Brazilian can have a firearm for self-defense. The permission to acquire weapons is given by the Federal Police. (6)

However, wearing is allowed only to residents of rural areas of the country (about 20% of the population), if necessary. And crime is concentrated in cities where residents are unarmed in front of bandits. The result is high street crime.

United Kingdom

Since January 1997, the British government has banned citizens from possession of firearms. And this immediately led to an 88% increase in violent crimes (101% for armed robberies, 105% for rapes, 24% for murders). (7) In the United States, where the right to arms is protected by the constitution, the number of similar crimes in the same year was half that in Britain.

53% of English robberies occur when someone is at home. In America, the robbers admit that they are afraid of armed homeowners more than the police. As a result, the number of domestic robberies in the US in the presence of the owners is 13%. Almost 5 times less.