The resource-cost distinction between right types is contestable

Evidence

During the drafting of the UDHR, both opponents and supporters of social and economic rights argued that they required more resources than civil and political rights. ‘Economic and social rights, in order to be fully realised, require material assistance to be furnished by the state’, France’s René Cassin argued. This assumption has since been challenged, both on the practical grounds that an effective justice system and political enfranchisement require material resources and state action, and on conceptual grounds, by those – notably Étienne Balibar – who have contested the very split between liberty and equality that underpinned the discourse of ‘old’ and ‘new’ rights. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 195

Categorization

• QUESTION: Balibar’s critique of the liberty/equality split is cited but not developed — worth chasing for the reader’s argumentative arsenal on rights categorization.
• XREF: Ties to the human-rights vs. civil-liberties resource debate familiar from the reader’s policy economics readings on why courts and enfranchisement also need state money. — connects to: Resource value and defensibility are relative to each species’ perspective — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 203; Common-pool resources differ from public goods in being rivalrous yet costly to exclude. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 56

Broader Connections

• Resource value and defensibility are relative to each species’ perspective #qualifies (0.78) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 203