The fact is that property rights are just as important as the other inalienables. Especially when it comes to increasing living standards. Imagine if you didn't have the ability to go into debt and had to pay for a car or a house completely up front.
This point also highlights the importance of the “lost” 9th amendment to the constitution. Under our system it was originally intended that government's powers were strictly enumerated while the rights of the people (and of the states) were not.
Also, many of the problems in the Middle East are traceable to the Ottoman land law (I've posted on this subject). Except for a smidgeon (mostly owned by Christians or a handful of wealthy Muslim landowners) all land, particularly all arable land, belonged to the state.
This is a great post, re-affirming some truisms that often we take for granted or even willingly forget.
Myself, I can't stand big corporations, excessive consumerism, corporate greed, the dog-eat-dog world, the near commodification of damn near everything in worship for the almighty dollar.
But ...... the alternative is worse.
It's much better for a country, a society, a civilization to have too many MacDonald's (yeck!) than no MacDonald's.
Sure, capitalism has some ugly by-products -- but the lack of capitalism, the inability to develop, produce, take-risks to make a profit is simply worse. No development, no freedom, no rule of law. Nothing but dependency and destitution.
You know, it's an interesting thing that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, one of the biggest populist causes of the day was the extension of credit to poor people, and efforts to help them get ahold of property of their own. Oddly enough, this is now considered somehow a "right wing" or "conservative" cause; why, I'm not quite sure.
Oddly enough, this is now considered somehow a "right wing" or "conservative" cause; why, I'm not quite sure.
The pendulum of progress. Conservatism -- or at least, the brand I subscribe to -- wants to conserve the lessons learned and the good things from the past, and is reluctant to change them. Liberalism -- or at least, the brand I respect -- wants to challenge the old ways and see what could be better. The conservatives see the risks inherent in change, and the liberals see the risks inherent in stasis. The liberals experiment, and the conservatives hold them to a high standard of acceptance.
Under this formulation, last generation's new risky idea that might have failed and did gets thrown away; and last generation's new risky idea that might have failed but succeeded becomes this generation's proven good idea that we don't want to surrender easily.
Don't discount the effect of culture on economic success. Issues such as outright laziness, corruption, etc, really add up, in my opinion.
70 years of communist control has darned near ruined Russia which was a hard-scrapple peasant country to start with. After 70 years of a system of perverse incentives, not only do the people have messed-up expectations but success is considered immoral.
Oddly enough, this is now considered somehow a "right wing" or "conservative" cause; why, I'm not quite sure.
You know, I was reading some 19th Century stuff, and its sort of amazing what ideas were considered "liberal" then.
For instance, there was a clatch of self-described "Liberal Republicans" who opposed the Jacksonian spoils system on ethical grounds, insisting that a civil service system be created to end patronage, and eventually succeeded in creating the system we have today.
For instance, there was a clatch of self-described "Liberal Republicans" who opposed the Jacksonian spoils system on ethical grounds, insisting that a civil service system be created to end patronage, and eventually succeeded in creating the system we have today.
Which has many elements in common with patronage and spoils. Oh, well...
12.7.2007 4:10pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Back when I used to actually blog, I wrote a piece about dead capital as it relates to Zimbabwe in early 2005 if you are interested.
The fact is that property rights are just as important as the other inalienables. Especially when it comes to increasing living standards. Imagine if you didn't have the ability to go into debt and had to pay for a car or a house completely up front.
Also, many of the problems in the Middle East are traceable to the Ottoman land law (I've posted on this subject). Except for a smidgeon (mostly owned by Christians or a handful of wealthy Muslim landowners) all land, particularly all arable land, belonged to the state.
Myself, I can't stand big corporations, excessive consumerism, corporate greed, the dog-eat-dog world, the near commodification of damn near everything in worship for the almighty dollar.
But ...... the alternative is worse.
It's much better for a country, a society, a civilization to have too many MacDonald's (yeck!) than no MacDonald's.
Sure, capitalism has some ugly by-products -- but the lack of capitalism, the inability to develop, produce, take-risks to make a profit is simply worse. No development, no freedom, no rule of law. Nothing but dependency and destitution.
HB
The pendulum of progress. Conservatism -- or at least, the brand I subscribe to -- wants to conserve the lessons learned and the good things from the past, and is reluctant to change them. Liberalism -- or at least, the brand I respect -- wants to challenge the old ways and see what could be better. The conservatives see the risks inherent in change, and the liberals see the risks inherent in stasis. The liberals experiment, and the conservatives hold them to a high standard of acceptance.
Under this formulation, last generation's new risky idea that might have failed and did gets thrown away; and last generation's new risky idea that might have failed but succeeded becomes this generation's proven good idea that we don't want to surrender easily.
Don't discount the effect of culture on economic success. Issues such as outright laziness, corruption, etc, really add up, in my opinion.
70 years of communist control has darned near ruined Russia which was a hard-scrapple peasant country to start with. After 70 years of a system of perverse incentives, not only do the people have messed-up expectations but success is considered immoral.
Perhaps because it involves (obscene?) profits for the creditors?
You know, I was reading some 19th Century stuff, and its sort of amazing what ideas were considered "liberal" then.
For instance, there was a clatch of self-described "Liberal Republicans" who opposed the Jacksonian spoils system on ethical grounds, insisting that a civil service system be created to end patronage, and eventually succeeded in creating the system we have today.
Which has many elements in common with patronage and spoils. Oh, well...
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.