Those of us living in the United States are fortunate indeed, especially when you compare our country and our lifestyles to most of the rest of the world. Not only are we better off economically and strategically - even today, the two great oceans separating us from the troubled nations of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are still a decent deterrent to military invasion. They aren't so effective against infiltration by illegal immigration, but that's a topic for another story.
We're also lucky in that our nation was founded by brilliant men, men who had an understanding of human rights that was unheard of in their time, and those men enshrined those rights in our Constitution. No other such codified listing of human rights exists in any other nation, and if you doubt that, read the Second Amendment, and name any other nation that has anything remotely similar.
There's one thing that's not as clearly stated, though, and it's this: Isn't there a human right to commerce?
This isn't a new question. One might point at the United Nations Global Compact and its list of ten principles, but I think they fall short. Here they are:
- Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
- Principle 2: Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
- Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
- Principle 4: The elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
- Principle 5: The effective abolition of child labour; and
- Principle 6: The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
- Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
- Principle 8: Undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
- Principle 9: Encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.
- Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.
One through five are OK. Principle six is unclear; what kind of discrimination? Discrimination based on ability and experience is acceptable, but the United Nations doesn't make that plain; this could be read to justify all manner if ideotic DEI practices. Seven through nine are nods to climate scoldery, although, yes, it is a good, responsible business practice to make sure one's enterprises aren't actually polluting. And the last one? Sure.
But the United Nations isn't setting out any listing of individual human rights, here, just admonitions on corporate operations.
What about the human right to commerce?
Read More: We Are Watching a Wave of Corporate Migration As Companies Run From Blue States
Morning Minute: That Double-Take You Do When You Learn VW Is Teaming Up With Israel...
We don’t have to concern ourselves overmuch with the UN, whose proclamations and bloviation carry no weight of law in the United States (in fact, I’d rather see us depart the UN once and for all). We can, however, look to our own nation’s issues with the inalienable right of commerce.
In the closing paragraphs of Atlas Shrugged, author Ayn Rand described a famed judge clarifying and editing what is implied to be the U.S. Constitution, and adding the following text: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade . . .” Well, why not? A constitutional amendment enshrining the right to commerce would be great, although I suspect it’s impossible in our current political climate. But commerce, trade, should be enshrined and recognized as a fundamental human right, for two reasons:
- Commerce – free trade – is a fundamental aspect of liberty; a truly free people should be able to make their own decisions on how to best utilize their own skills, abilities, talents, and resources in free, open trade. No government official, functionary, or elected employee has the right to interfere in free trade.
- Free trade has lifted more people out of poverty and more nations into the developed world than any other economic system in the history of mankind.
We are creatures of trade. Trade is a civilizing influence. Oh, nations go to war against trade partners, but if you look at history, as recently as the years after World War 2, the civilizing influence of trade has gone a long way towards easing tensions on both winning and losing sides of a conflict. Japan, for example, is one of the United States' closest allies, largely because the two nations engage in commerce, a fact that my World War 2 veteran father and uncles always found bemusing.
So, what would a constitutional amendment enshrining this look like? Well, I'm OK with Ayn Rand's version:
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade.
People's lives are centered around trade. Everyone's life is centered around trade, whether they realize it or not. It's been that way for thousands of years. And there are only three ways in which any trade - any financial transaction - can take place. If it is by force, it is theft. If it is by deception, it is fraud. Only the free, unfettered, voluntary exchange of value is acceptable; a trade, agreed to by all parties, in which all parties perceive a gain in value. What do I mean by a gain in value? If Joe Snuffy up the road buys a bottle of pop at the gas station, it's because he wanted the bottle of pop more than the couple of bucks it cost. If I buy a new truck, it is because having the truck is worth more to me than the price of the truck.
Free trade. Free commerce. Exchanges of value. Yes, these are part of the human right to commerce. It's a shame we'll probably never see this amendment in place, but then, the world's got plenty of windmills to tilt at.
