Vaesus kui inimõiguste rikkumine?

Eelmises postituses jutuks tulnud küsimus, kas vaesus on inimõiguste rikkumine sai oma järje Amnesty Internationali vastuses William Easterlyle siin:

"It’s true that lack of income, in and of itself, isn’t a human rights violation. But poverty is about a lot more than just income. As Easterly knows, those who live on less than a dollar a day are poor not just because they lack income; the lack of income implies lack of access to services, clean drinking water, adequate education, housing, employment and so on. All of these are violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights."

Ja lõppjäreldus:

"Human rights abuses cause poverty and keep people poor – and living in poverty makes you more likely to suffer violations of your human rights. So human rights must be part of any solution to poverty."

Easterly vastab sellele omakorda siin ja siin. Tundub, et mõlemad pooled jõuavad enam-vähem möönavad, et vaesus iseenesest ei ole inimõiguste rikkumine, aga vaesusega tihti kaasnevad inimõiguste rikkumised ja inimõiguste rikkumised omakorda tingivad vaesust.

Will Wilkinson korjab üles easterly algatatud teema ja proovib ka ise vastata küsimusele "Is Poverty a Violation of Human Rights?"

"First, let’s restate the question, as Easterly does: Is there a right to a certain level of material welfare? Easterly says no for two reasons. First, a rights violation implies a violator, but it’s not clear who is to blame for widespread poverty. Second, the poverty line is not a bright line, and so it’s not clear when the right to live above the line has been violated or denied.

I don’t think I agree with Easterly’s pragmatic rule for determining what is and isn’t a human right."

Wilkinson arutleb eelkõige negatiivsete ja positiivsete õiguste üle. Negatiivsete õigustega on asi lihtsam. Need on absoluutsed, need kehtivad igal pool ja kõigi suhtes:

"All rights have correlative obligations. If a person has a bona fide moral right, simply in virtue of being a person, who is it a right against? Who has an obligation not to violate the right? The answer is: everybody else does."

Igaühel on õigus saada mittepussitatud teiste pool. Või teiseltpoolt vaadates - kõikidel inimestel on kohustus mittepussitada teisi inimesi. Aga kuidas on vaesusega? Kui see on õigus, siis kellel on kohustus?

"So a right to a minimum level of material welfare implies that everybody else has an obligation to make a positive contribution, to chip in, to bring those below the line up to par.

What is interesting is that almost nobody really believes this, as I’ve just stated it. Most of those who argue for a positive right to a material minimum don’t think that everybody in the world already above the line is on the hook. They tend to say that fellow citizens of one’s own country already above the line are on the hook. My right not to be stabbed is a right against everybody in the world. Doesn’t matter who printed your passport. But a Freedonian’s right to a material minimum is a right against other Freedonians. That’s weird, and doesn’t have the structure of a bona fide moral right. So I suspect it isn’t one."

Huvitav on lugeda ka kommentaare nii Wilkinsoni kui ka Easterly blogis. Selgelt paistab välja erinevus. Easterly blogib peamiselt arenguabi teemadel, võib eeldada et ka tema lugejad on peamiselt need, keda huvitab arenguabi, vaesemate riikide aitamine jne. Nii on näha, et ka tema blogi kommenteerijad kipuvad suhtuma õigustesse kui positiivsetesse õigustesse ja argumenteerima (mitte eriti veenvalt, tunnistan) selle kasuks, et vaesus on inimiõiguste rikkumine.

Will Wilkinsoni blogi lugejad on aga ilmselt libertaarsete kaldusvustega ja nende kommentaaridest on näha, et nemad vaatavad õigusi eelkõige negatiivsete õiguste tähenduses. J