UN Statements on Democratic Ownership

["David Spitzley" <dspitzle@gw.wash.k12.mi.us>]

Back in Chicago I offered to look into the positions taken by the United 
Nations on the issue of democratic ownership in its role as a transnational 
law-making organization.  Having taken far too long to do so, I've decided to 
post what I've been able to find via a cursory search of the United Nations 
website, http://www.un.org. 

The most obvious starting place to my eye is the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights (http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm), passed by the UN in 1948.  The 
following segments seemed the most directly applicable to the mission of COG, 
and I've added my own comments after each clause.

"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."

This seems pretty straightforward.  Basically, it is invalid to dictate that a 
specific individual may not own property, and it is also invalid to dictate 
that a group may not own property in common, which I expect stems from the same 
logic as the free association clause (Article 20).  It does >not< seem to 
state, however, that an individual has a right to be a property owner, merely 
that no action may be taken to prevent that individual becoming one.  This is a 
subtle point, but if it had originally been intended to be read that way, I 
doubt COG would be necessary.

"Article 22.
     Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is 
entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation 
and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the 
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free 
development of his personality."

This one is less obvious, but I think one could argue from this that, insofar 
as capital ownership entails specific social and cultural rights which may not 
be exercizable through other means, there are grounds for promoting broad 
capital ownership as a necessary means for achieving the realization of those 
rights.  I don't know that this argument can be effectively extended to 
economic rights, as most of those recognized in the Declaration seem focused on 
standard of living, and it appears that redistributive policies may be 
sufficient to achieve those rights as presented in the Declaration.

"Article 23.
     (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration 
ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and 
supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

Insofar as the wages available in an economy are insufficient to provide 
workers with "an existence worthy of human dignity" I would suggest that laws 
mandating worker ownership could fit under the rubric "other means of social 
protection."

"Article 25.
     (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health 
and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing 
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in 
the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other 
lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

While this article itself does not directly mandate broadened ownership, it 
could be argued that implementing "the right to security" through politically 
redistributive programs, while acceptable under the Declaration, is an 
unacceptably fragile method compared to spreading ownership of productive 
assets, which under Article 17 may not then be taken away arbitrarily.

"Article 27.
     (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of 
the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its 
benefits."

This article is weighted slightly towards those who adhere to strict Kelsonian 
concepts, in that under the Kelsonian model, one of the primary benefits of 
scientific advancement is the expanding productive capacity of capital.  I 
think that even from a less strict perspective, there is an argument that can 
be made that the UN recognizes a universal right for individuals to benefit 
economically from increases in output due to advances in technology.

"Article 29.
     (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full 
development of his personality is possible.
     (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject 
only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of 
securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and 
of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general 
welfare in a democratic society."

This seems in fair accord with Kelso's Principle of Limitation, and more 
generally with the idea that patterns of property ownership which are unjust 
and undermine the social order are not given absolute protection under Article 
17.  Insofar as there are arguably non-economic "rights and freedoms" which can 
be unfairly infringed by unjust patterns of property ownership, I think the UN 
Declaration might in fact go far beyond the Principle of Limitation in what 
might be considered grounds for restorative action.

Well, I don't know that this posting was earthshaking, but I thought it was 
about time I did >something< about delivering what I'd promised.  I'm not 
certain what I'll be able to find in the way of more general UN Resolutions 
that bear on this subject, but I'll do my best to look around.