Remember Rousseau: Property Rights And Human Rights Are Still At War

File:Jean-Jacques_Rousseau_(painted_portrait)The conflict between property rights and human rights has entered a new chapter. It is a debate that goes back to the challenge by landowners and merchants behind the American Revolution’s war on British control over the colonial economy.

Only today, as those speaking in the name of the 99% challenge the super wealthy of the 1% (actually the .001 %) there is a new battleground in what’s known as the housing market with as many as 14 million Americans in or facing foreclosure.

The defense of property rights is the holy of the holies for the propertied classes with a whole industry set up to enforce their claims of ownership.

We have seen how this plays out with the courts, run by often bought off and complicit judges rubberstamping claims by banks and realty interests even when laws are disregarded amidst fraudulent filings, biased contracts, and phony robot signings. They control the marshals who seize your property, and constantly denigrate the real victims as “irresponsible.”

It’s not surprising any more to read about banks foreclosing on properties they don’t even own.

Jean-Jacques Rosseau who postulated the “social contract” that gives property rights a moral claim would be turning in his grave if he knew of the many abuses that homeowners in the US face daily.

According to one scholarly presentation I read, “In order to clearly present Rousseau’s views on property in the Social Contract, we must first define what he means by property. Property according to Rousseau is that which is obtained legally thereby purporting legitimate claim to ones holdings. Now we must consider what gives an individual the right to openly claim ownership.

Rousseau points out that right does not equal might. In other words, having a right can never derive from force. A right must be given legitimately which means it is attached to moral and legal code. This makes it contractual whereby the rights of one are applied to the rights of all. Once a right is established, it is beneficial and necessary for the individual to apply this right effectively for his best interests and those of the whole. This motivation is directed at the formation of community thereby creating a social contract between individuals that come together to act as a group.

Now a combination of rights is formed whereby each individual is protected by the whole group that stands together as a community. The concept is that man standing alone is more vulnerable than many men united each in defense of the other. This condition makes it impossible for one to hurt an individual without hurting the whole group or for one to hurt the group without affecting each individual.

There is now a social contract where individual rights are combined. In this case, it is in the best interest of the individual to give over his rights to the group since he has a more powerful protective base than standing alone.”

And yet many of us today do “stand alone:” in the commercial marketplace where borrowers are seen as suckers by lenders and fraud is pervasive, abuse, lying, and theft is built into the equation.

Now President Obama says, four years after the markets melted down and the sub prime mortgages were exposed a sub-crime, which he will crack down on these abuses.

Hallelujah.

It sounds good, and you want to believe, especially because Obama has tapped New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman who has rejected settling with some banks engaged in massive frauds because it’s a deceptive deal, as a top gun for the effort.

Now, the Justice Department has announced the details to the press, minus the official who will run the effort and who was “traveling” and couldn’t make the press conference.

(Lanny Breuer is his name, and before joining the Department that calls itself Justice, was working for a law firm representing big banks, perhaps not a topic he wanted to answer questions about.)

Attorney General Holder was there to reveal that there will be 55 people working on this full time, 30 attorneys and support people, and 10 FBI agents who first blew the whistle on “pervasive real estate fraud” back in 2004.

Yves Smith of NakedCapitalism.com who follows details like this closely was underwhelmed, writing:

“During the Savings and Loan crisis, Bill Black reminds us that there were about a thousand FBI agents working on the various cases.  That’s one hundred times the number of people working on a scandal that is about forty times larger and far more complex.

To put it another way, let’s say that this scandal cost the American public $5-7 trillion in lost home equity.  That’s about $100 billion of lost home equity per person assigned to this task force.  If someone stole $100 billion a corporation, like say, if somehow Apple’s entire cash hoard which is roughly that amount, suddenly disappeared, I’m guessing that the FBI would assign more than one person to the case.”

Ok, these are tough times and the government is pressed and the President is running for reelection with his “bundlers” (i.e . the people who raise the big money) pressing the flesh on Wall Street to find more 1% donors. Will this fund raising effort stymie his hell raising effort?

Stay tuned.

Adds Smith:

“For the last eight weeks, nearly 200 federal examiners have labored inside some of the nation’s biggest banks to determine how those institutions would hold up if the recession deepened.

Yup, roughly four times as many people were assigned to conduct sham stress tests as are assigned to investigate the causes of the financial crisis and prosecute the people responsible.  So we see that this is a not a serious deployment of government resources to unmask a complex economy-shaking financial scheme.  It just isn’t.”

No surprise there.

And, as for the causes of the financial crisis, remember the Commission that was created by Congress and that found the while disaster “avoidable.”

It offered plenty of analysis but quickly led to paralysis with partisan bickering fogging the issues and no agenda for change forthcoming.

Like the 9/11 Commission report years earlier or the Warren Commission’s findings before that, it was read by many but believed by few.

Matt Stoller, a former aide to former Congressman Alan Grayson tries to unravel a massive contradiction that rises to the man at the top:

“There are two underlying structural problems with the new(ish) Federal task force on financial fraud. One, it is the policy of the administration to protect the banking system’s basic architecture, which means the compensation structure and the existing personnel who run these large institutions.  Any real investigation into the financial collapse will inevitably lead to the collapse of this architecture.  Thus, any real investigation will be impeded when it begins to conflict the basic policy framework of the Obama administration.  And this framework is set by Obama.  It’s what he believes in.  He made this clear in his first State of the Union, when he said a priority of the administration was to ensure that “the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times.”

Perhaps this is why so few bankers have spoken out loudly about this latest effort to target their financial frauds. They know it’s not serious and recognize that political business like the news business is now a branch of show business.

And John-Jacques Rousseau is not talking either He has been dead for hundreds of years along with his social contract.

News Dissector Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel1.org and writes the NewsDissector.com blog. His new book is OCCUPY: Dissecting Occupy Wall Street (Coldtype.net). His film on the financial crisis as a crime story is Plunder: The Crime of our Time (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com) Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

, , ,

  • Mr Willow

    Rousseau points out that right does not equal might. In other words, having a right can never derive from force. A right must be given legitimately which means it is attached to moral and legal code. This makes it contractual whereby the rights of one are applied to the rights of all. Once a right is established, it is beneficial and necessary for the individual to apply this right effectively for his best interests and those of the whole. This motivation is directed at the formation of community thereby creating a social contract between individuals that come together to act as a group.

    Now a combination of rights is formed whereby each individual is protected by the whole group that stands together as a community. The concept is that man standing alone is more vulnerable than many men united each in defense of the other. This condition makes it impossible for one to hurt an individual without hurting the whole group or for one to hurt the group without affecting each individual.

    There is now a social contract where individual rights are combined. In this case, it is in the best interest of the individual to give over his rights to the group since he has a more powerful protective base than standing alone.”

    Collectivism: 1

    Individualism: 0

  • http://twitter.com/anarcho anarcho

    “Civil society, as Rousseau describes it, comes into being to serve two purposes: to provide peace for everyone and to ensure the right to property for anyone lucky enough to have possessions. It is thus of some advantage to everyone, but mostly to the advantage of the rich, since it transforms their de facto ownership into rightful ownership and keeps the poor dispossessed. It is a somewhat fraudulent social contract that introduces government since the poor get so much less out of it than do the rich.”

    All of the “might” of government is what primarily assures the few who have the property helps them keep their place – government is merely a franchise of the elite (I have said it so many times I cannot keep count).  So that might makes right,  no matter how much Rousseau protests (and as his personal life attests to).  Law arises from the wealth of the few,  and establishes their “place” in society,  after they have been divested of property.  Harking back to Plato’s augment in regard to quality of souls as different types of metals (which he proposed because of uprisings even in his time).

    It was prophetic that Rousseau should have gone back to Geneva,  because that is where the so-called deity arose who arrogates all to himself and dispenses “salvation” by his sovereign leave with implacable male severity.  Only from there can a divine right of property be established out of myth,  so that one can reason back to the elite idea of “thou shalt not steal” which establishes the rights of the few. 

    It is well known that Rousseau admired Machiavelli but stopped short of establishment of Christianity,  he just asked for enough to inoculate the people with an ignorant outline.  So he moved from Geneva after the Contract was published,  back to Paris.     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-jC3H_8Dk4

    • Disinfo_censors_dissent

       blah blah blah. Rousseau was a totalitarian.

      >Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau.

      Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1945, p. 685.

      >In the famous fragment on the origin of inequality, Rousseau seems to
      believe that private property was simply invented by a madman; yet we
      do not know how this diabolical contrivance, opposed as it was to innate
      human drives, was taken up by other people and spread all over the
      human societies.

       Leszek Kolakowski, “The Death of Utopia Reconsidered” (1982)

  • Anarchy Pony

    How is private property originally acquired friends? Violence and/or coercion. With laws coming later to legitimize it, or occasionally made beforehand deliberately. Owned in common for centuries, Stripped away in moments by the slash of a sword, the blast of a rifle, or the stroke of a banker’s pen. Lucky if you were just dispossessed, some people were genocided.

    • MrSta

      I tend to agree with what you’re saying. It would be nice to think that people in the distant (and not so distant) past got together and had a rational discussion about who gets what- “Well, reason shows us that you should get this property, he gets that property, that fellow over there requires only a little property, and that fellow needs none. This is the best and most rational arrangement for us all” etc. However, like you, I don’t think that happened.

21
More in OccupyWallStreet, Plunder, Property
Crony Capitalism and the History of Bailouts

In this revealing interview, David Stockman, former budget director and original Supply-Side proponent, tells of the 30-year history of how crony capitalism and the American finance industry has affected American...

Close