Now you're dipping into my area of real expertise
That there are "defintions" of certain actions made by certain philosophers and legal scholars does not imbue them with any force other than persuasion. They are not "right" in any objective sense (until you put an Army of laws, courts, police and prisons behind them).
For example, I'd reverse the labeling of the aforementioned rights, making negative positive and positive negative.
In your use of the terms above, you've labeled the idea that I should refrain from interfering with you a "negative" right. I think that's a silly notion...the idea that I have a right to my life, in your usage, is a "negative" right. Whereas you'd label as "positive" my right to force you to provide me with food so that I can live.
The ideas you're mentioning most recently originated (not wholly) with Karel Vasak. He liked to invoke the ideas of the French Eligthenment, namely, summarized by an earlier french philosopher, Frederik Bastiat, in this quote: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity."
Ironically, I'm currently writing a book that argues that it was the Enlightenment, regardless of its romantic appeal to fraternity, that accelerated humanity head-long into radical individualism.
I'm actually a strong proponent of what you call positive rights...but only to the level of human scale fraternty. The level at which people are not governed by laws, but by love. By human scale, I mean Tribe; the natural size of human sociality (see Robin Dunbar and The Dunbar Number). But, that's for another day...
The point is that everyone here who is invoking "Rights" stand on shaky ground. As you say, there's no compatibility between US Law and EU Law. Both are subjective overlays on their respective communities, trying to organize life in communities well beyond human scale. To that end, I think the entire notion of "Rights" lies on a very shaky ground. I'd rather term what we call Rights as agreements.
...and I'd prefer Apple left the EU altogether.
Well to be fair it’s more The U.S. culture tends to view freedom as an individual and
negative concept, meaning that
freedom is the absence of interference or coercion from others, especially from the government.
I hope that by writing this text, I can help bridge the gap and foster a better understanding and dialogue between the USA and the EU. I hope that I can explain the EU perspective in a clear and authoritative way, and that I can persuade the American audience that the EU regulations are not backward, but rather based on a different and valid conception of freedom. I hope that I can demonstrate that the EU regulations are not arbitrary or oppressive, but rather consistent and reasonable, and that they serve the common good and the rights of others.
Freedom is a fundamental and universal value that shapes our cultures and societies. However, freedom is not a simple or singular concept, but rather a complex and multifaceted one, that can be understood and expressed in different ways. In this text, I will examine how the USA and the EU have different conceptions of freedom, which are rooted in their historical and social contexts, and how these conceptions influence their legal philosophies and regulations.
The USA conceives freedom as an individual and negative concept, meaning that freedom is the absence of interference or coercion from others, especially from the government. This conception of freedom derives from the idea of natural rights, which are inherent and inalienable rights that belong to every human being by virtue of their existence. The USA values self-reliance, autonomy, and competition, and believes that the best way to achieve freedom is to limit the role of the state and to promote the free market. The USA adopts a more market-oriented and consumer-centric approach to law and regulation, and focuses on the effects of market conduct on consumer welfare and efficiency.
The USA follows the common law system, which is based on judicial precedent and gradual development through court decisions. The common law system allows for flexibility and adaptation, and gives judges the authority to interpret and apply the law in a manner that suits the particular circumstances of each case. The common law system is a bottom-up approach, as courts can make laws and create legal principles through their judgments.
The EU conceives freedom as a collective and positive concept, meaning that freedom is the ability and opportunity to participate and contribute to the society, as well as to enjoy the benefits of the social and economic system. This conception of freedom derives from the idea of human dignity, which is the inherent and inviolable worth of every human being, regardless of their status or condition. The EU values cooperation, solidarity, and diversity, and believes that the best way to achieve freedom is to enhance the role of the state and to regulate the market. The EU adopts a more interventionist and integrationist approach to law and regulation, and focuses on the protection of market structure and the preservation of economic freedom for all market participants.
The EU follows the civil law system, which is derived from the legal system of ancient Rome and emphasises codification and a structured framework. The civil law system provides a systematic and organised approach to legal matters, and relies on comprehensive legal codes and the works of jurists. The civil law system is a top-down approach, as only the Court of Justice and the Commission can make laws and set out legal provisions.
These different conceptions of freedom reflect different ways of understanding the human condition and the social order. They also imply different answers to the questions of what is the purpose of law and regulation, and what is the role of the individual and the community in the legal and regulatory process. For example:
- The USA views freedom as a right and a privilege, while the EU views freedom as a right and a duty. This means that the USA tends to emphasize the protection of individual rights and liberties, while the EU tends to emphasize the promotion of social responsibilities and obligations. This also means that the USA tends to ask what the law and regulation can do for the individual, while the EU tends to ask what the individual can do for the law and regulation. This difference can be seen in the way the USA and the EU approach the issue of data protection, which is a key aspect of the digital economy and society. The USA has a more laissez-faire and sectoral approach to data protection, and relies on the self-regulation of the market actors and the consent of the consumers. The USA considers data protection as a matter of consumer choice and preference, and as a trade-off between privacy and innovation. The EU has a more proactive and comprehensive approach to data protection, and imposes strict rules and standards on the market actors and the rights of the consumers. The EU considers data protection as a matter of human dignity and value, and as a safeguard against the abuse and exploitation of personal data.
- The USA views freedom as a passive and isolated concept, while the EU views freedom as an active and participatory concept. This means that the USA tends to favor a laissez-faire and minimalist approach to regulation, while the EU tends to favor a proactive and comprehensive approach to regulation. This also means that the USA tends to see the law and regulation as a necessary evil, while the EU tends to see the law and regulation as a common good. This difference can be seen in the way the USA and the EU approach the issue of climate change, which is a major challenge and opportunity for the global community. The USA has a more reactive and problem-solving approach to climate change, and relies on the voluntary commitments and actions of the states and the market actors. The USA considers climate change as a matter of cost and benefit, and as a trade-off between environment and economy. The EU has a more preventive and precautionary approach to climate change, and imposes binding targets and measures on the states and the market actors. The EU considers climate change as a matter of principle and responsibility, and as a balance between environment and economy.
- The USA views freedom as a static and isolated concept, while the EU views freedom as a dynamic and interdependent concept. This means that the USA tends to resist change and innovation in the legal and regulatory framework, while the EU tends to embrace change and innovation in the legal and regulatory framework. This also means that the USA tends to see the law and regulation as a fixed and stable system, while the EU tends to see the law and regulation as a evolving and adaptive system. This difference can be seen in the way the USA and the EU approach the issue of digital taxation, which is a new and complex issue for the global economy and society. The USA has a more conservative and traditional approach to digital taxation, and relies on the existing rules and norms of the international tax system. The USA considers digital taxation as a matter of sovereignty and fairness, and as a threat to the competitiveness and innovation of the digital economy. The EU has a more progressive and modern approach to digital taxation, and proposes new rules and norms for the international tax system. The EU considers digital taxation as a matter of solidarity and justice, and as an opportunity to foster the growth and innovation of the digital economy.
- The USA views freedom as an individual and absolute concept, while the EU views freedom as a collective and relative concept. This means that the USA tends to prioritize personal freedom and choice over the common good and the rights of others, while the EU tends to balance the interests of the individual and the community, and to seek to prevent and correct any abuses or distortions of power that may harm the market or the society. This also means that the USA tends to see the law and regulation as a matter of preference and opinion, while the EU tends to see the law and regulation as a matter of principle and value. This difference can be seen in the way the USA and the EU approach the issue of hate speech, which is a controversial and sensitive issue for the freedom of expression and the respect for human dignity. The USA has a more liberal and tolerant approach to hate speech, and relies on the First Amendment and the self-regulation of the market actors and the civil society. The USA considers hate speech as a matter of free speech and diversity, and as a trade-off between liberty and security. The EU has a more restrictive and vigilant approach to hate speech, and imposes legal sanctions and obligations on the market actors and the civil society. The EU considers hate speech as a matter of hate crime and discrimination, and as a balance between liberty and security.
As a European, I have a different perspective on freedom than most Americans. However, I respect the American culture and its achievements. I acknowledge that both the USA and the EU cultures have the same tendency towards freedom, but different interpretations of what that freedom means and different ways to work towards it.
I think that this is an important point to acknowledge and respect, and that it can help us to understand each other better. I think that freedom is a complex and multifaceted concept, and that there is no one right or wrong way to define or achieve it. I think that freedom is a value that we all share, and that we can learn from each other's experiences and perspectives.
And that these differences often lead to misunderstandings and disagreements between Americans and Europeans, especially when it comes to the intent and goals of the EU regulations. I think that many Americans perceive the EU regulations as restrictive, intrusive, and unnecessary, and that they fail to appreciate the benefits and advantages of the EU approach from a different perspective. I think that many Americans do not understand the EU perspective, and that they apply their own cultural lens and expectations to the EU context that tends to breakdown.
I hope that I can illustrate this point by comparing the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which contains 54 protected rights, and the anti-competitive laws of the EU, which aim to ensure fair and open competition in the market, with the corresponding documents and policies of the USA.
I hope that by doing so, I can shed some light on the underlying cultural assumptions and values that inform our legal and regulatory frameworks, and that I can challenge the American audience to consider and appreciate the EU perspective.
To conclude, I would like to share with you a quote from Ulrich Beck, a German sociologist and public intellectual from his book “Cosmopolitan Vision” that was published in 2006.
I quote:
"The United States and the European Union are the two most influential models of modernity in the world, but they have different visions of what it means to be modern. The United States is driven by a spirit of innovation, optimism, and pragmatism, and seeks to create a new and better world through science, technology, and entrepreneurship. The European Union is inspired by a spirit of tradition, pessimism, and idealism, and seeks to preserve and improve the old and existing world through culture, history, and philosophy." -,"
The quote captures the essence of the contrast between the American and European values, attitudes, and goals in terms of innovation, pragmatism, culture, history, and philosophy. And that EU and U.S. different visions of what it means to be modern and responsibilities in the global society and the incompatibility of their respective values. Thank you for reading my text, and I hope that you found it informative and interesting. 😊
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU containing 54 protected rights
Find the full text of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as why we need the charter, and when it applies.
commission.europa.eu
And the legislative history of anti competitive laws European competition law today derives mostly from articles 101 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
