The UDHR’s social and economic rights were sharply opposed by early neoliberals as totalitarian.

Evidence

Neoliberalism was never a narrowly economic doctrine. The early neoliberals were wary of the very idea of the economy, and horrified by what Hayek described as the reinterpretation in economic terms of the old political ideals of liberty, equality and security. Repeatedly, they singled out President Roosevelt’s 1941 ‘Four Freedoms’ speech – which added ‘freedom from want’, and ‘freedom from fear’ to the more traditional freedoms of speech and worship – as evidence of the contemporary confusion of the market and household. Roosevelt ended his speech by declaring that freedom ‘means the supremacy of human rights everywhere’. For the neoliberals, in contrast, Roosevelt’s speech marked the demise of all human rights. Hayek argued that Roosevelt had transformed an ‘older liberal tradition of human rights’, entailing limits to the power wielded over individuals, into positive claims for benefits. These new rights, Hayek argued, could not be legally enforced without destroying the liberal order that the old civil rights aimed to secure. Social and economic rights would only be possible, he argued – speaking specifically of the UDHR – if ‘the whole of society were converted into a single organization, that is, made totalitarian in the fullest sense of the word’. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 163 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Neoliberal theorists opposed the UDHR as a false bureaucratic universalism; Neoliberals saw economic rights as a path toward totalitarianism — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 163; Rappard’s expert-moral-authority model was revived only after the UDHR drafting — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 95 (+1 more)

Related

• Neoliberals saw economic rights as a path toward totalitarianism (similarity 0.95)
• The UDHR’s social and economic rights were designed to pacify, not radicalize (similarity 0.87)
• Neoliberal theorists opposed the UDHR as a false bureaucratic universalism (similarity 0.87)
• UDHR social rights were compatible with market order, not a threat to it (similarity 0.86)
• Neoliberal ‘economic rights’ protect capital’s market freedom, not welfare entitlements. (similarity 0.85)
• Neoliberals rejected universal human-rights consensus as a civilisational regression toward tribal morality. (similarity 0.84)
• Neoliberal theorists framed social and economic rights as a dangerous expansion of state power (similarity 0.83)
• Post-UDHR human-rights activism narrowed from economic to civil rights in tandem with neoliberalism (similarity 0.83)
• Postwar human rights and neoliberal orders began from deep disagreement over welfare and planning. (similarity 0.83)
• The UDHR’s flexible social rights language proved compatible with neoliberal poverty management (similarity 0.83)
• The UDHR preamble’s religious language encoded Western-civilization claims against Islam and Communism. (similarity 0.83)
• Neoliberal thought framed welfare rights as contradicting rather than completing civil rights (similarity 0.82)
• Hayek rejected social and economic rights as incoherent and unenforceable (similarity 0.82)
• The UDHR’s welfare subject was a white male breadwinner, not a universal person (similarity 0.82)
• Neoliberals tarred Third World redistribution schemes as totalitarian (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Neoliberals saw economic rights as a path toward totalitarianism #corroborates (0.95) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 163
• Neoliberal theorists opposed the UDHR as a false bureaucratic universalism #expands (0.90)