Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics EJAIB

18Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 18 (January 2008)the ‘right to life’ or ‘abortion rights,’ ‘farmers’ rights’ or‘intellectual property rights,’ the word itself seems to havebecome a sort of essential – if powerless – incantation orinvocation even as it functions to reinforce (or enforce)individualist and libertarian 1 claims against society and state.Its widespread use also undermines the intents andaspirations of those seeking to liberate themselves fromcapitalist hegemony.Beauchamp & Childress, in their classic Principles ofBiomedical Ethics, comment that, “It may seem odd that wehave not employed the language of rights, especially in lightof the recent explosion of rights language in contexts fromapplied ethics to foreign policy. Many moral controversies inbiomedicine and public policy involve debates about rights,such as the right to die, a right to reproduce, a right of privacy,a right to life. . . These moral, political and legal debatessometimes appear to presuppose that no arguments orreasons can be persuasive unless they can be stated in thelanguage of rights. Rights language is congenial to the liberalindividualism pervasive in our society. At least since ThomasHobbes, liberal individualists have employed the language ofrights to buttress moral, social and political arguments and theAnglo-American legal tradition has incorporated thislanguage.” (Third Edition, Oxford, 1989, p.55).It is time to consider whether the language of rightsactually serves the intents of social justice or has become justan illusion of intent while business-as-usual carries onunimpeded.Rights: Human and PropertyIn European and North American culture and society therehas long been a commingling and confusion of human andproperty rights, attributable, arguably, to the claim thatproperty rights are human rights and the claim that property isessential to or an expression of human identity and dignity –or at least the identity and dignity of some humans.Responsibility for both the claims and the confusion isgenerally attributed to the English philosopher John Locke(1632-1704). Locke wrote that, “Though the Earth, and allinferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man hasproperty in his own Person. This no Body has any Right tobut himself. The Labour of his Body and the Work of hisHands . . . are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes outof the State of Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hathmixed his Labour with, and joined it to something that is hisown, and thereby makes it his Property.” 2Locke added that there must be “enough, and as good leftin common for others” and that no person take from thecommons more than he can use. 3 Following Locke, propertyrights came to be regarded by the Enlightenment andconsequent capitalist systems as an expression of a person’sbeing, thus laying the foundation of the contemporaryconfusion between and conflation of human and propertyrights. 4The idea of human rights has been recognized by bothsecular and religious constituencies. Human rights aresecularly recognized as rights inherent in the being of aperson, i.e., natural or ontological. This formulation,however, begs the question of authority: who or what defines,and gives authority to, ‘natural’? In various religioustraditions, and certainly in the Christian faith, human rights aretheologically based (as in “created in the image of God”) andtherefore demanding of respect, at least by believers. In onesense they are also natural, that is, there from the beginning,but with an explicitly recognized authority as their source.In an era of corporate impersonation – corporationspretending on both legal and moral grounds to be personsand claiming all the rights of persons for purposes ofenhancing their dominance and profits – the conflation ofhuman and property rights must be contested. 5 Theimportance of disentangling human and property rightsbecomes unavoidably obvious when the biological propertiesof persons are claimed as private property by others. I referhere to the patenting of isolated genetic sequences and bodyparts by, literally, outsiders, usually corporate. 6Property Rights and the Right of PropertyA property right might be described as the right of propertyto be owned, and owned exclusively, that is, with the inherentright, as property, to exclude any or all persons from accessto or enjoyment of it(self). Historically, of course, this appliedto land and moveable material property (jewels, foodcommodities) 7 , but more recently it has come to be applied toimmaterial locationless property – ‘intellectual’ property.In the Western legal tradition, the rights to property can beheld by both natural and artificial persons (corporations).Going further, rights themselves become property, that is,tradable commodities (as do patents and copyrights) withsome contemporary corporations’ assets consisting solely ofa patent portfolio. Rights as property then creates a categoryof owners referred to, particularly in regard to copyright, as‘rights holders.’ In contemporary discussion and legislationconcerning copyright, this new category of rights-holders, inthe form of the corporate media-entertainment industry, is thepower broker/property-owner between creators, that is,authors, musicians and artists, and the public.(There is a Western legal position that holds property tobe a ‘bundle of rights,’ one of these rights may or may not bethat of exclusion from the use or enjoyment of the property.Urban real estate ownership, for example, carries with it avariety of encumbrances and responsibilities.)Human rights and property rights become even morescrambled when human rights are interpreted as exclusionaryrights. That is, they are treated as the right of a person toexclude (and be protected from) violation and exploitation. 8 Acollective manifestation of this exclusionary right is the gatedcommunity, wherein individuals collectively, as well asindividually in their houses, assert their right to exclude thepublic from their property/persons. This conflation of humanand property right finds its extreme expression in the US Billof Rights which says that no person “shall be . . . deprived oflife, liberty or property, without due process of law. . .“ Theconverse, of course, is the recurring practice of slaverywherein the person quite literally becomes property.Unfortunately, the distance between overt slavery and thewage slaves – cheap labour – that produce and service an1 Libertarian - a political philosophy that places supreme value onindividual ‘freedom,’ ahead of any social or collective identity orresponsibility or any claims by the state.2 John Locke, “Second Treatise of Civil Government,” quoted byCarys Craig, “Locke, Labour and Limiting the Author’s Right: AWarning against a Lockean Approach to Copyright Law,” (2002) 28Queen’s Law Journal, available athttp://www.forumonpublicdomain.ca/node/943 Ibid4 The concept/ideology of U.S. President G.W. Bush’s “OwnershipSociety” is attributed to John Locke by George Ross in an articleabout the Bush regime’s plans for privatizing Social Security. See“The Neocons’ Ownership Society,” Le Monde Diplomatique,(English edition) June 20055 For an incisive history of the social construction of the corporation,see David Noble, Beyond the Promised Land, Between the Lines,Toronto, 2005, chapter six.6 John Moore’s spleen is the classic example. See Beth Burrows,“Patents, Ethics and Spin” in Redesigning Life, Brian Tokar, ed.,McGill-Queens’ University Press, 2001, pp.245-7).7 For a history of commodity creation and development in NorthAmerica, see William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis, Norton, 1991.8 The campaign against violence again women has been a kind ofpositivist exclusion, both individual and collective. But again, it hasnot been a campaign for the right to be free of the threat andexercise of domination and violence, but for a change in the socialattitude towards women.