The Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person

             Much of the global attention has been on liberal constitutional rights such as the right to life, liberty, security of person, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to own property, etc. The focal shift has been partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the ideological vacuum that was subsequently filled by capitalism and liberal democracy (O’Brien and Williams, 2003). Not to argue that this shift is bad however, it is inadequate in ensuring the wellbeing of humankind. Capitalism, which goes hand in hand with liberal constitutional rights by virtue of their co-dependence, does not play or attempt to play fair. They both stress individuality and are premised on the survival of the fittest. However, there is also a need to also stress collectivism and the welfare of our community. This essay will argue that the right to life, liberty and security of person cannot exist without access to food, water and shelter. Indeed, life will be a paradox if it cannot be supported, so will liberty and security if widespread deprivation exists. The following paragraph will examine the meaning of each right and how it relates to democracy. Secondly, I will elaborate on my argument as to why it is necessary for the right to life, liberty and security to co-exist with access to basic amenities. Finally, I will respond to a major counterargument of my thesis statement.

             The right to life signifies that no one shall in any capacity arbitrarily take the life of another. With the exception of a few states, which pass death sentences on certain crimes, mostly the only acceptable time a life can be taken is when an individual dies of natural causes or other circumstances beyond our control. Secondly, the right to liberty is crucial not only to democracy but to life. It ensures that an individual can be all they want to be. Without the right to liberty, liberal democracy, which is based on the individual, cannot exist. In a world full of competing ideas, the right to liberty ensures that we can all live together with our own ideas and ideals, as long as it does not interfere with the liberty of another (Mills, 2002). Finally, the right to security of person ensures that the individual is secure from arbitrary decisions by people in authority, or free from harm by other individuals. These rights along with others must be in place in order for a state to be a democratic. A state does not need the right to food, shelter and water in order to be democratic in today’s world however; the following paragraphs will argue that a democracy cannot function unless the basic requirements to life are realized by the majority of its citizens. I do not know the exact percentage required however; it seems the more a state meets these its citizens’ basic needs, the more humane and democratic it can expect to be.
             I stress again that the right to life, security and liberty of person cannot exist without the existence of food, water and shelter. The logic here is that the right to life has no meaning whatsoever if life cannot be supported with the basic requirements of living. In addition, if life cannot be maintained, there is no way we can talk of liberty and security because there will be chaos. An examination of the top five unstable regions in the world (Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chad and Iraq) according to foreign policy magazine shows one commonality – poverty! (2007) One may argue that may be Iraq is not poor because of its abundant oil but, according to a report by Oxfam about half of Iraq is in absolute poverty (Cave, 2007). In Somalia, one commentator says you can get shot as quick as you wipe a sweat from your face (Gentleman, 2009). In these states, there is little recognition for the right to life, liberty and security of person.  It does not work because the people are deprived their basic existence and are left with no other choice than to be aggressive to survive. On the flip side of the coin, wealthy states such as states such as the United States and Canada can indeed strive for these rights to the fullest extent because they are wealthy. They give supplementary monies – child support, unemployment insurance, disability checks, etc., to people who need it although; in the past few decades welfare has shrunk dramatically (Moffit et al., 1998). This should not be the case because the more peoples needs are met; the more we can expect to be democratic. 
             The Economist published an article in 2007, ranking the level of democracy in states according to full democracies, flawed democracies, and hybrid and authoritarian regimes (Morales, 2006). A close examination will reveal that the so-called ‘exporters of democracy’ did not rate high. Developed states with low poverty rates were rated higher in democracy (Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark) being the top five in order. However, states that had higher poverty rates like the U.S., U.K., France, Italy, and Russia were rated less democratic, being 17th; 23rd; 24th; 34th; and 102nd respectively (Morales, 2006; Epinet, 2005; Jackson, 2002). The study suggests that there is an inverse relationship between poverty and democracy. Opponents of my point of view may argue my opinion is socialist, ultimately inefficient and a distortion of the workings of the market. In response, I argue that the lessons of the Great Depression of the 1930’s reveal that we must not wait for wealth to trickle down as Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations, because in an individualistic society this rationale will not always work. Politics is inherently about the people and states must always act fast for the welfare of its citizens.              
             In conclusion, it appears that there is a correlation between access to food, shelter, clean water and the right to life, liberty and security. The more a state acquires one for its citizens, the more likelihood the other will be met. More research will be needed to indicate the optimal point. It even further appears, that there is a correlation between democracy and poverty however; this will be beyond the scope of this essay. International politics needs a major transformation. To ensure the right to life, liberty and security of person serious thought must go into ensuring the availability to the basic requirements to human life. Both are equally important and should be championed together.

     

                                                    Works Cited

Cave, Damien. "Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq." New York Times 
             July 2007. 24 Feb. 2009 
             .

"Facts and Figures; US and the World." Economic Policy Institute. 24 Feb. 2009 
             .

Gettleman, Jeffrey. "The Most Dangerous Place in the World." Foreign Policy March & 
             april 2009. Foreign Policy. 24 Feb. 2009 
             .

Jackson, Andrew. "Canada Beats USA - Loses Gold to Sweden." Canadian Council on 
             Social Development / Conseil Canadien de D. 24 Feb. 2009 
             .

Mill, John Stuart, and Gertrude Himmelfarb. On Liberty. New York: Penguin Group 
             (USA) Incorporated, 1982.

Moffit, Robert, David Ribar, and Mark Wilhelm. "The decline of welfare benefits in the 
             U.S.: the role of wage inequality." Journal of Public Economics 68 (1998): 421-
             52.

Morales, Alex. "Sweden Is Top Democracy; Italy `Flawed,." Bloomberg.com 2006. 
             Bloomberg. 24 Feb. 2009 
             .

O'Brien, Robert, and Marc Williams. Global Political Economy : Evolution and 
             Dynamics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Limited, 2003.

The Case for Spreading Democracy Abroad?

You're kidding me right? Should democracy be spread abroad by the US and its Allies? I argue in this excerpt, no! Consider the following reasons.

It is mindful to note the definition of democracy I am working with. It is, liberal democracy signifying freedom from arbitrary rule, speech, association, etc., and ability to own. It is not electoral democracy, because even the most tainted states are democratic, in the sense of majority rule. Consider, Iran, Venezuela, and some other states tainted as evil, they are all democratic. In fact, in the case of Venezuela, in a certain perspective it is more democratic than the US because the people exercise the right via referendum to impeach the president. Such a measure is not done by representatives, who may not always act according to the wishes of the people. So liberal democracy is what the US and its allies are spreading. At this juncture I consider their agenda.

I ask myself, why is freedom from considered imperative to secure when freedom to food, clean water, etc is still lacking. Why is the US ensuring liberal freedoms abroad when there are equally important freedom to livelihood that is severely lacking in our societies? It is indeed something to consider. But why do I disagree with the agenda to spread liberal democracy abroad?

The first reason is that I think that liberal democracy should come from within the people rather than from abroad. If liberal democracy is imposed on the people by the US and its allies, it will not last. Examples of failed democratic attempts pundits frequently point to include: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Secondly, liberal democracies reflect the culture of liberal societies. It would be insulting to promote liberal democracies in a societies that is illiberal. Illiberal societies are very proud of their culture and do not wish to be entertained by the ideals of liberalism.

Thirdly, the agenda of the US and its allies is not to be trusted. How can one receive a gift from an individual, when you know that the gift is potentially a trap? It is not politically prudent. As mentioned, there is an agenda by the West to promote freedom from and go to war in the name of it but would not promote freedom of, which is equally important.

Fourthly, linking liberalism to economic growth is nonsense! China, Japan, US and Britain, when they initially starting developing, non of them used economic liberalism as a guiding principle. They all used mercantilist measures.

Lastly, it is important to consider the points of the democratic peace theory. It argues that democracies rarely go to war because of norms and institutional constraints. However, it can only adequately account for after WWII 1945. It is also important to note that it is not the make up of these states that prevent wars but it can be best understood by the US emphasis on peace amongst Western European states and North America.

No God? I will Argue for

There is no convincing evidence that God exists however; when we suffer and no one is there for us, some of us call for Him even if we chose to ignore him in time past. Why is this? Why is it that when we hit rock bottom and all our friends desert us and there is no one to rely on we call for a heavenly being for help?

And surprisingly, this heavenly being gives strength and peace to cope with our crisis. All I want to argue is, why put people before God when people are not there all the time. God will be there, every time, in need and in abundance. He deserves first place. 

You may ask how is God there, how do you know? My sister or brother, sincerely pray and you will feel love. If you want to know if God exists, ask Him to show His love and mercy to you and reveal Himself to you. It's definitely worth trying! He will always be there. He is a friend that sticks closer than a brother.

Prayer: Now unto Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.

Post-Incarceration Conditions In the U.S: Necessary?

When ex-felons leave our inhumane prisons, they are have to face the rude awakening of several limitations to their re-integration into society. 

Disenfranchisement

First of all, if we want ex-felons to be re-integrated into society why do we prevent them from voting? What does voting have to do with anything? Statistics show that the the disenfranchisement of ex-felons has led to the dis-enfranchisement of entire communities. A staggering 15% of African American males cannot vote in the U.S. Their ability to vote could have definitely changed the outcome of several elections.  The outcome of the 2000 presidential election  might have been a different been considering the fact that African American tend to vote democratic. Also, statistics show that 5.4 million people in the U.S. have been stripped of their right to vote. Is it necessary to strip people of their right to vote in a democratic state? What is the rationale behind it? 

Subsidized Housing and Welfare

In certain states in the US, after being incarcerated you face the possibility of being stripped of welfare and loss eligibility to attain subsidized housing. Note, that these people have been away from society for at times, years! Shouldn't they be the ones that need welfare and subsidized housing the most? Some scholars suggest that the present policy on welfare in the US stems form the bankruptcy of many states. However, shouldn't we find other alternatives of funding instead of making life difficult for people who need assistance in reintegration the most?

Inability to Acquire Professional Licenses

Licenses regulated by the state such as barbers, real estate agents, plumbing, electrical work can effectively limit the ability of ex-felons to work in these fields. Also, mindful that ex-felons  cannot pass bondable checks imposed by private enterprises and are also limited in working for private individuals. These bondable checks can also limit individuals from applying to universities.

The question to ask at this juncture is, do these measures need to be in place after ex-felons have completed their term in jail? These punitive punishments should not be transfered into the every day lives of these individuals when they are trying to reintegrate into society and become better citizens. They should end within our prisons.

The effects of these post incarceration conditions is that it has affected entire communities such as the African American community and other minorities. These conditions have also affected people of lower economic status tremendously, making life even harder for them. Lastly but not exhaustive, the loss of welfare such as child support upon incarceration affects women disproportionally because statistics show they make use of this assistance the most.