NoSpeedBumps talks about Botswana's postitive progress, which seemed like a good thing to note with Live8 in full swing as I type this. He also notes:
"Botswana's success reaches well beyond having a lot of natural resources. Botswana relies on one key resource: Good Government. Compared to other countries in Africa, it ranks much better in terms of corruption. Transparency International ranks it the least corrupt country in Africa. Botswana is ranked less corrupt than Italy, Greece, Taiwan, and South Korea.
And of great importance, Botswana has a tradition of respecting property rights. This is in contrast to most African countries, who instead pursued socialist policies."
rubbish respect for property dose not constitute good governance
Given the comparative utter lack of said respect in neighbouring countries (Zimbabwe comes to mind), and the appaling human cost of same, I'd say it does indeed constitute good governance.
Unless you're going to sit here and tell me respect for prosperity doesn't matter in a knife-edge survival environment like Africa (a state that persists despite plentiful resources in many countries and a great deal of aid).
Corruption is also a fine measure of good governance, anywhere and for any country.
Izzy, you might ask Hernando de Soto about that...
Some countries in Central/South America have found themselves invaded by outside elements that became property owners by various means, and then introduced as a quasi-religious tenet the respect of those property rights. I suspect that's what Izzy refers to, or a form thereof.
Botswana has inspired the administration to hail its progress.
Ruth,
Specific examples would be helpful here for the discussion.
Though again, I'll note that if nobody's property is safe, experience shows you pretty much guarantee widespread poverty and societal failure. You can create that even with property rights, mind you, but their absence makes it certain.
Mark's suggestion re: Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto is a good one. Definitely one of the pre-eminent development theorists in the world today. See this interview as a primer (and note his comments on terrorism and property in Peru), and the ILD's site can be found here.
JK: You ask for examples of appropriation of land which inspired my viewing askance simply 'respecting property rights':
A few are Cornelius "The public be damned" Vanderbilt's early appropriation of Nicaraguan land routes in the California Gold Rush, the general annexation of land under US-financed 'freebooters' led by a William Walker declaring it was "clear destiny" during the early 1900's throughout Central America.
And yes, including Costa Rica, which had declared itself a "sovereign and independent Republic" in 1848, before Walker's armed invasion in 1856 - and incidentally Juan Rafael Mora, a predecessor of mine, led the resistance.
Some of these illegal appropriations have been perpetuated - and land reforms such as the Sandanistas' have been part of that schema.
No, I don't like armed conflicts of either sort.
South Africa is another example, and apartheid's defeat has not been all pretty (apologies, Robin, I know you prefer stronger language) nor has all property right been respected, because its historical background has included appropriation.
Eminent domain is a modern day version of appropriation I know you don't sympathize with.
Land grabs have a long history, and sometimes 'respect of property rights' has been used to condone theft.
Ruth, you are really missing the point entirely. And if anything you are citing examples that support JK's point more than refute it.
Of course, that William Walker escapade is 19th Century, not 1900's and I should know better than to write my thoughts out while listening to This Week.
Robin: (and it was apologies to RB, of course, who has taken exception to my saying 'not pretty')
According to de Soto:
'We think that our contribution to the economic debate is understanding that the contraption that takes the energy out of savings is the property system because it is able to capture the value and it defines it in descriptive terms, which the market acknowledges and uses for further investment. That is why in the United States, if you own a forest in Oregon, and it's adequately paperized, you can use it to translate it to money or just simply to transfer the shares to buy, say, a sausage factory in Chicago. The reason you can do that is because what captures the value of the forest is the property title to it, which can be valued in the market according to precise rules. '
When land can be appropriated by non-landowners as it was by the 'freebooters', that principle cannot apply, because investment is not assured. Therefore, until a sovereign government has ultimate and dependable authority, no capitol is solid. Which is why misused 'respect for property rights', meaning that the one presently occupying the land has the right to it, can undermines an economy. Long lawful adjudication has sought to give the native American Indian population land value or compensation for its original ownings, in recognition of that set of facts.
I understand that you did not realize, and I did not really explain, that I am here backgrounding - that 'respect for property rights' in other countries has occasionally been used to deprive indigenous populations of their native land, as in Central America. Botswana is still working out those rights, and is attempting to do it through civilized process.
Ruth's points are very germane to De Soto's points, which (see primer linked above) emphasize the Rule of Law as well as property.
If there is no Rule of Law, property will mean little. "Appropriating" land from others is a classic example of that principle, not a contravention of it.
Avoiding that very thing - a practice that, I might add, has done more than anyhting else to starve million of Africans - is exactly what good government is about.
I'm sure that everyone here who respects property rights so much won't object when I stop paying taxes, right? Similarly, when the bulldozers come for the homes of those people in Connecticut, you'll be supporting the homeowners in any gunfights which develop, yes?
Right.
In most cases the Rule of Law is just another scam perpetrated on the weak by the powerful, designed to cloud the masses' sense of justice long enough to defraud them. In practice, Rule of Law means whatever the men with guns say it does. In places like the US, the men with guns can be leased by those rich or clever enough to enlist their aid.
I suspect that the government of Botzwana has decided to "fatten the herd" by perpetuating the illusion that people will be allowed to keep most of their stuff long term. This will sucker people into investing into the country, thus making the place ripe for "the harvest." It's much like investing in China. Investors in China who don't think that their companies will be nationalized when they become sufficiently profitable haven't been paying much attention.
I would be most eager to hear an example of where general disregard for property rights has yielded any kind of social, economic, or political progress by any rational standard. This is not to say that all property rights should be imbued with some kind of divine aura--I'm not defending some kind of objectivist dystopia. However, if forced to make a choice between the two extremes, I'd take the Scylla of overprotection against the Charybdis of socialist anarchy. The former does far less harm in the long term than the latter. In practice, if everyone owns everything, no one owns anything.
There are several orders of magnitude of difference between our "debates" over how much protection of property rights is too much or too little, and the situation in Zimbabwe. Note that even after Kelo, we're still looking at a situation in which the government cannot take your house without at least paying something for it ... and in which said government will have to face voters in the next election. In Zimbabwe, the situation is much, much closer to the rules being T. J. Madison's (#10) "whatever the men with guns say" than in any Western state with a reasonable respect for property rights.
Also note that, for the purposes of this comparison, the differences between America, Canada, Europe, and Japan are petty squabbles--distinctions without differences. It's comparisons like this that highlight just how trivial much of the persickety back-and-forth between American conservatives and European social democrats is.
Realistically, America shouldn't be giving a dime to any country that doesn't have a certain minimal threshold of respect for private property. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop those with the most physical force at their disposal in the country in question from ending up with all the aid money one way or another--generally without doing a thing to succor the people the aid was supposed to help.
As far as acquisition of land from native peoples: conquest, like it or not, was an accepted for of land acquisition for centuries. The modern norm against it is actually a striking anomaly in the annals of history, and has only been in place for an eyeblink in terms of the lifespan of civilizations (and that only tentatively ... the de facto rule is still the most powerful norm of international law). More to the point, bad as many of those situations might have been hundreds of years ago, here and now, far more atrocities are perpetrated against indigent and indigenous peoples of this planet by their own leaders than by wealthy foreign imperialists. Realistically, Zimbabwe would probably be seeing a lot less bloodshed today if it were still under British rule than what it is currently suffering under Mugabe.
>>In Zimbabwe, the situation is much, much closer to the rules being T. J. Madison's (#10) "whatever the men with guns say" than in any Western state with a reasonable respect for property rights.
In Zimbabwe, the men with guns have "killed the goose that lays golden eggs" by stealing an "excessive" amount from productive individuals, thereby crippling all production and development. In Western states, the percentage stolen is lower (between 40-60%) and somewhat more predictable, so goods and services can still be effectively produced and distributed. Over the long term, this results in a larger economy, which can be milked for greater tax revenues later.
This in no way makes the level of respect for property rights in Western nations "reasonable." State-organized theft at the Federal level in the US alone is well over two trillion dollars, many times the entire GDP of Zimbabwe. USG thieves are simply more efficient at their robbery.
Anyone here who claims that taxation isn't robbery is welcome to explain the amount they would pay the government in the absence of coercion.
TJM: you say 'State-organized theft at the Federal level in the US alone is well over two trillion dollars, many times the entire GDP of Zimbabwe.'
Interested in knowing what you consider this theft to constitute? and sources?
Ruth - in a word: taxes. The concept being that state does not rely on voluntary contribution but will send police officers to imprison you if you do not pay. If you decide to resist such treatment, they will kill you. Therefore, what's the distinction between that and someone who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet?
TJ, have I stated that accurately?
Hence my reference to an objectivist dystopia ... the lunatics running the asylem would be those cast in the very "taxation = theft" mould that makes no sense and shows little ken of human nature.
Of course no one would pay taxes to the government in the absence of coercion. The reason is because in order for government to function properly and fairly, everyone needs to be made to pay in equitably across the board, to eliminate the free rider problem. Otherwise, civic-minded men like me could pay all the taxes we wanted, and we'd still never raise enough to so much as fund a sustainable military or courthouse. Faced with this fruitless option, even the civic-minded would have strong incentives to stay at home. Everyone's on board or no one is. There is no quarter for allowing individually self-interested decisions to undermine the security and cohesiveness of the group. This is basic game theory (prisoner's dilemma). The only practicable way out of that bind is with the force of law. The rule of law is by its nature coercive; law is the force that shapes order out of anarchy.
However, taxation is not theft. First, not too many thieves return such services as national defense, police protection, and public works. Also, through the democratic process, you have influence over how the public treasury will be constituted; thieves don't generally give their victims such consideration. In addition, if leaders abuse their power in our society, they can be held accountable. Taxing simply isn't an abuse of that power. Congress has the explicit authority to tax. Most people accept that as given and proper, and focus the debate where it needs to be: on who should be taxed, and how high the general levels of taxation should be in order to secure the greatest good for the greatest number.
John, you make the standard counterargument well. Let me explain why, even if you're right, I think you still ought to seriously consider TJ's perspective.
TJ offers a thought-construct from the far end of the libertarian theories of law and government (vs. the near end of Hayek et. al., which are closer to our present situation). It reminds us of an important truth:
One may believe that force to be legitimate. I am certainly not a pacifist. But when you have to think of government as force, it changes the care with which one wields that necessarily-blunt instrument, and reminds us what we're really talking about. America's founders certainly understood this. More recently, Lawrence Solum of Legal Theory Blog notes:
I linked to it as part of a post about the recent Kelo decision, in which the force of government was used to take someone's home and give it to a commercial developer, because that would make the thieves in question more money.
When you're talking about "the greatest good for the greatest number," that possibility, growing from the nature of government itself, had better be part of your calculations. It won't be if you fail to grapple with what lies beneath.
I'll close on a factual point, by noting that criminals, once they get big enough, do indeed provide services to the public in order to support their enterprises and the source of their profits. There's a reason John Gotti was seen as the good guy by many people in his neighbourhood. On a larger scale, look at FARC et. al. This still leaves your point about accountability intact, of course - but as Kelo (and the history of democracies) show, real protection requires more.
>>TJ, have I stated that accurately?
Yep, that's just about it. As it turns out, there is a difference between highway robbery and taxes. Spooner spells it out here:
>>The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
>>There is no quarter for allowing individually self-interested decisions to undermine the security and cohesiveness of the group. This is basic game theory (prisoner's dilemma).
Indeed, there is a collective action problem, but it's even worse than that.
JTK explains the essence of the problem here.
Basically, by invoking the government to solve free-rider problems like defense, we create a new free-rider problem -- defense against the government itself. And this second problem is MUCH HARDER to solve.
>>Also, through the democratic process, you have influence over how the public treasury will be constituted; thieves don't generally give their victims such consideration. In addition, if leaders abuse their power in our society, they can be held accountable.
The weakness of democratic accountablity is mathematically obvious. Worse, democratic accountablilty puts most people in a position of rational ignorance: voting power is spread so thinly that it's not worth people's time to figure out what's going on. Democracy is thus an excellent scheme for neutralizing resistance to the powerful through deception.
>>Taxing simply isn't an abuse of that power. Congress has the explicit authority to tax.
Granted by whom? By me? By you? By the constitution? At this point people usually haul out the notion that we implicitly consent to such measures by remaining here. I would hope readers here are clever enough to understand the full implications of such a claim.
>>When you're talking about "the greatest good for the greatest number," that possibility, growing from the nature of government itself, had better be part of your calculations. It won't be if you fail to grapple with what lies beneath.
The difficulty here is that even if we had enough information to make accurate assessments of the "greatest good for the greatest number", in the case of the government we won't be the ones making/enforcing those decisions. All coercive redistribution schemes have terrible moral hazard and game theory problems built into them. This is why I advocate direct action and market solutions to even the very large and very serious problems regularly discussed here.
Speaking of which, we should still organize a mission to get At Least One Guy out of Darfur. Then you could put a counter at the top of the website and set it to 2. (Didn't you and AL help bail out some Iranian dissident a while back?)
Interesting theory of 'protection' is put forth in 'The King and I', in which the King protests that the British are 'protecting' him out of all that he possesses.
TJ: interesting theories, many of them adopted by survivalist communities, which I am sure you realize have fostered careers such as Timothy McVeigh's. I don't wish to insult you, but am interested in knowing how far you pursue these beliefs?
On the subject of African aid, UN efforts to show the possibilities inherent in a new, development oriented, approach to Western efforts are paying off. E.g., please see: http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/plantingaseedofselfsufficiency;_ylt=ArFT2X7B9yEKioPKmehSEQIDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl