I wanted to do my bit for the debate emerged from Carlos Rivera Lugo article "The legal community" [1], which has attracted so many pages written and led, at least in what concerns me, who spend long hours reading responses and counter-responses.
My last two readings have been "The misery of the law" [2] of the same Carlos Rivera Lugo and "The Law and the Construction of Socialism" [3] Daniel Adam White. My reflection comes from reading that article I cited and has awakened in me a certain feeling that something is wrong, something is lost in this crossroads of ideas.
To focus a little start with the first question (which never hurts), and the principle is what is the law?, Or rather, on what philosophical arguments underlying the current law?.
According to current theories on law, cohabitation, living a man of understanding as a human being with other men, living in society requires order, without which it would not be possible. The basis of the order comes from the fundamental rules that must guide such coexistence. The set of these rules is the natural law. Law that is detectable by human reason, which is consistent with the nature of man, and represents the perfect ideal of justice or fairness.
Natural rights are universal and inalienable: you can not give them and no one can prevent another person from enjoyment of these rights. Today the notion of natural law is contained in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen , which will return later at the end of the article.
When this law is in effect, that is, when ruling on the particular moment in which he provides, we speak of positive law. Positive law and natural law are consistent, as positive law has to draw on the natural, not contradicting, but its principles and rules developed under the circumstances and needs of the moment and place. Only your harmony with natural law positivism legitimate, and makes it fair or unfair. From an objective point of view, it is a set of rules to be guided by natural law.
Therefore, all our current law is based on the ideal of justice, perfect justice. No need to do a thorough study of the socio-historical account to be an ideal of justice that has not always been the same, even in the same time (I think that there is an ideal, but as a consequence of social relations and production prevailing in a given time). Then, further deepening the concrete, what kind of ideal of justice prevail today?, What is behind this ethical ideal of justice and why?.
If we analyze the Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen and ethical conscience or currently prevailing in Western culture, we note that this ideal of justice is essentially individualistic, is an exaltation of the individual being that must be protected from threats from other individual beings. This individualistic view of human being is not trivial, served the bourgeoisie to emancipate themselves from the feudal system.
With the development of the ethic of individual self it took a superstructure above and separate individual beings to keep these were destroyed each other, since it rarely defend the rights of some are and are confronted with the rights of others. But this structure, the modern state, does not escape control of the bourgeoisie, it was created precisely to impose this vision of human beings. It then comes to the exploitation of the majority by a minority, with the excuse of defending individual rights, but in practice in the defense of individual rights of that minority against the collective rights of the majority. The individual right to exploit natural resources that are mine are on my property or against the collective right of access to water, for example.
currently witnessing a barrage of exaltation of the individual being , everywhere, in all areas. Priority is socially individual success, the American dream. See for yourself, your happiness, your self-esteem is pervasive, and the other, your neighbor, is a potential enemy.
Turning to the issue that concerns us, the current law positivists think that is an expression of an ideal course of justice from human reasoning should not, the current law used to impose a particular vision of human beings The vision of the individual being . And we recognize that after so many years has been wiped from the consciousness of the inhabitants of this old Europe any semblance of collective consciousness. It is not just private property, which also but to fight the individual consciousness that is leading us into chaos.
In Spain I heard more than one occasion and I still hear the idea that those who have "dared" to buy a house, and become unemployed or can not afford it, now go without it (and with part of the debt if the house paid off in full) are irresponsible by buying it. They wasted!, They say. Look how far this individualistic ethic is so deep into our consciences to lose, and I'll personally, any glimmer of heart, empathy, close your eyes and imagine ourselves in the place of another. The practical consequence of defending the individual right of banks to collect debts being of entire neighborhoods of our cities empty and in the hands of a few entities. The current law, as a carrier of the ethics of individual self , makes any attempt to legislate in the community post is in vain, not only because the rulers to legislate for the few already rich, but because they have gotten assume and share his narrow vision of human beings.
If the construction of socialism is a transition period to communism where people with an individualistic ethic yet we are gradually creating a new world based on an ethic collective (social or collective be ) , current law does not serve as a carrier of individualism itself, moreover, is a tool to extend it.
Do not we realize that the construction of socialist ethics and usually passes through the socialization of the rules rather than the maintenance of tax law and enforcement? Do not we realize that the construction of socialism does not go through the conquest of the modern state today, but by overcoming them? Do not we realize that it is not know what steps to build socialism, but to socialize the decisions we take to build? In short, do not we realize that it is possible that the key is to socialize as much as possible the decisions to be radically democratic and trust that distributed power and be able to build together a better, more just and egalitarian ?
In my humble opinion, the construction of socialism inexorably socialization of decisions, the creation of direct, participatory democracy where none exist. Since our immediate environment to the communities most universal.
I have the conviction that the construction of socialism must be radically by all and not from taxation based on an ideal course of justice.
Some notes on the Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen
criticism yet I do in this article about the deeply individualistic Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (HR) now serve to highlight the contradictions of the imperialist powers that claim to defend facade but in practice the maximum applied business is business . They serve to highlight that this dictatorship of the market in which we find is inconsistent with achieving the same (HR) for all humanity and therefore help us not to align and rebel against this reality.
According to Julio Anguita, " short, the conquest of human rights for all Mankind not only trigger processes that affect the contradictions of capitalism is also at the same time, the struggle for a new situation of greater justice, welfare, civic values \u200b\u200bbased on rights and duties and ethics of the community that would Fernández Buey. Without going through this stage there will be neither socialism nor communism. " [4].
But this does not mean that the human rights front, we must also establish collective rights, against the vision of man's be individual must build the ethic of be collective or social .
-
0 comments:
Post a Comment