Human rights and the age of inequality
Human rights and the age of Inequality
• In "Human Rights and the Age of Inequality," Samuel Moyn discusses the clear contrast between the need for human rights and the equitable crisis, which calls for a supplement rather than a replacement.
• Author makes a statement that the human rights movement and regime are ill-equipped to confront widespread inequality.
• The final Lydian monarch, Croesus, was wealthy and believed himself to be the happiest man alive.
• He believed that his people should be joyful and pain-free, yet he was unwilling to spend money on them.
• When he lost, Cyrus the Great of Persia and his army seized his wealth.
• The author makes a comparison between this circumstance and the state of inequality and lack of resources in today’s society.
• Equal property and rights for wealthy and poor people worldwide have not been achieved.
• You need to make sure that everyone receives the same amount of money in order to address all of these issues.
• The single answer to all of these problems is distributive equality, but he believes that this is practically unreachable in actual life or reality.
• In reality, the author finds it challenging to achieve this, so he claims that there are two key steps to take in order to link the history of economics with human rights:
- The first was the courageous period of post-World War II national welfare governments.
- Second, politics and economics overtook the nation in the 1940s.
• However, Franklin Roosevelt’s famous State of the Union address demand for a second Bill of Rights that contained safeguards for the underprivileged and middle class was missing three crucial points: the participation of provincial America in the North Atlantic agreement, which anticipates and pledges a world free from hunger.
• Favouritism forced the globe to divide into two camps after 1940, one led by the United States and the other by the Soviet Union.
• Post-war states preferred "national welfare" over promoting equitable human rights, the fragmentation of the world was unable to lead to the intended development and human rights across nations.
• The human rights were severely harmed by this.
• Additionally, because these governments prioritised “national well-being” over “equal rights,” post-World War II liberation did not bring about the wealth and human rights that were promised.
• Should there start a new human rights movement? - Samuel Moyn.
• He continues by using Aristotle as an example of truth and reality in relation to the necessity for social and economic justice to be take possession, moving wealth from the rich to the poor.
• Everyone is supposed to have an equal degree of freedom and rights, but in practice, this is inaccurate.
• Humans won’t be able to enjoy full freedom and liberties unless and until this economic and political system is still in existence.
• Huge radical movements are necessary for an equal society, and the government must create and enforce laws that ensure that everyone has the same amount of money.
• Ultimately have to live in the same world as Croesus. The rich enjoy great enjoyment, freedom, and everything in this world, while the poor dwell in the illusionary world, where they enjoy floating equality and freedom.
• Human rights activists believe that although human rights documents guarantee and claim that all people have equal freedoms and rights, this is not the case in the real world as it currently exists.
• Man will not have essential liberties and true rights if this current socioeconomic system does not exist.
Comments
Post a Comment