We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Poverty is unnatural Jonathan Wilde of the admirable libertarian group blog, Catallarchy, argues that poverty, rather than wealth, is “unnatural”, in as much as it is the stupidity of governments, rather than some ineradicable feature of our world, that prevents humans from attaining the opulence (to use that lovely 18th Century word) that we are capable of attaining in co-operation with our fellows.
I am not so sure that Wilde is entirely right. Is it only the state that has in the past blocked the path to wealth? Surely the lack of scientific knowledge, limited division of labour and so forth played a part in poverty.
Don’t misunderstand me – I think that Wilde makes a good point, but to say that wealth and happiness is the natural state of mankind begs as many questions as it may answer. All the more reason, of course, to ram home the fact that our capitalist civilisation should be regarded as a marvel to be celebrated and defended.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I am not so sure that Wilde is entirely right. Is it only the state that has in the past blocked the path to wealth? Surely the lack of scientific knowledge, limited division of labour and so forth played a part in poverty.
But reading Jonathan’s post, it doesn’t seem as if he said anywhere that the state was the only thing that blocked the path to wealth, only that it was a thing that did so.
Johnathan,
I believe that we agree more than disagree. As I said in my post, both modern scientific and economic knowledge are what lead me to conclude that modern poverty is “unnatural”. There is no excuse for governments to do little more than protect property rights. Other policies such as trade barriers, monetary inflation, subsidies, price controls, and heavy red tape are simply inexcusable. Of course, cultural instututions are also necessary, but there are enough examples of thriving economies in the East – South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc – as evidence that culture is a necessary factor already in place.
The Polynesians were said to only have to work 2 hours a day to support themselves. During the same time, Europeans had to work 12-16 hours a day to support themselves.
To have wealth in a society, there must be abundant natural resources or abundant technology.
And both need free markets for widespread development.
Jane Galt at Asymetrical has a thread arguing just the opposite. I posted there, so I won’t repeat here.
Jonathan Wilde, fair enough. I guess the key word here is “modern”. It is obviously true that in an age of space flight, computers, nano-tech and so forth, it is a scandal that so many souls live in conditions of grinding poverty, such as in sub-Saharan Africa. Corruption, absence of the rule of law and clearly defined property rights strike me as the main culprits. I am probably preaching to the converted here, though.
Have you read David Landes’ (Link)The Wealth and Poverty of Nations? It is very good.
I think the argument comes down to what you mean by “wealth” and by “natural.”
I generally disagree with Wilde and would side with Jane Galt on this one :
The appalling poverty of Sri Lanka or Mozambique is not some bizarre aberration that can be tracked to a cause we can cure. We are the aberration; Sri Lanka and Mozambique are the normal state of human history. Trying to figure out how to reproduce those abnormal results in a couple hundred more countries is very, very hard.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded- here and there, now and then- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
—Robert A. Heinlein
You need more than just free markets to get out of poverty. It needs a profound cultural change involving religion, philosophy and above all technology and science which is what happened in Europe and burst forth in the industrial revolution.
Once again commentators on Jonathan Wilde’s blog are citing Taiwan and South Korea as beacons of free marketing and hence their success. It’s baloney.
Both of those countries while admittedly capitalist had their economies VERY heavily government steered.
In SK people like Nam Duk Woo the deputy prime minister, Kim Jae Ik (blown up by the NK in the massacre of the cabinet on its visit to Burma) dictated where major investments were to be made. And it was in technology. Organisations such as KIST – Korea Institute of Science and Technology – and KETRI, for telecommunication research were set up. These were huge campuses involving thousands of highly educated people. They directed the setting up of joint ventures with high tech foreign companies.
Similarly in Taiwan the huge Hsin Chu Science/Industrial park was set up under ex Vice Minister H C Fang. Both economies operated under very high tariff and non tariff barriers. Again there was government direction of the setting up of joint ventures with foreign companies.
Where these two countries differed from their past was in the type of people doing the directing. Instead of the old guard politicians they were all highly educated technocrats and economists with western, mainly American, tertiary education and industrial experience.
I’m not suggesting this as a sure route for success; it has great dangers. Nevertheless in these cases it worked.
It’s all very well being able freely to exchange goods and services but ultimately you need technology to enable you to produce the surplus to your immediate needs in the first place.
I think that, despite the lack of many modern innovations in older times, wealth by the standard of the time would be the norm were it not for the state. In other words, people at the time would have lived miserably, but less so had the state not made things even worse
When the US was founded in the late 18th century, the technological resources available were no greater that those enjoyed by most of Europe, China, or the countries of the Mideast and North Africa. The land was undeveloped, most power was from human or animal muscles, and only a few basic industries had been established.
By the end of the 19th century, the US and some parts of Europe were in a full blown productive revolution which had harnessed several sources of power, transformed agriculture and manufacturing, and was well on the way towards what we would consider a modern society. Much of the rest of the world lagged behind.
The question is why? The answer lies in the establishment of two fundamental operating principles as guidelines for society.
The first was the acceptance of the scientific method, and empirical research.
The second was the recognition of individual rights which included the right to think creatively, establish organizations to exploit discoveries, and retain the larger share of the proceeds from that creative work.
The fact that you are sitting at an electronic machine that can link up to a world wide network of information and communication is one of the myriad end products of those basic pinciples. Look around you. Your entire life is now technology—you eat it, wear it, read it, watch it, and think it. It cures your ills, after having prevented an unfathomable variety from ever bothering you in the first place.
Technology is not the source—it is the product. There is only one source for the enrichment and advancement of the human condition—the independent human mind engaged in the rational pursuit of knowledge.
If there are cultures and societies which have not advanced, ask the basic questions—Have they prevented the use of the scientific method? and abridged the rights of the individual? The answers will directly correlate to the level of development.
Take another look at that satellite photo of the Korean penninsula at night. I haven’t seen such a stark witness to the truth in a long time. The truth I refer to is, of course, that the anti-mind is the anti-life.
Those who refuse the mind live in darkness and want.
What is your definition of poverty? An absolute standard, or a relative one? Here we’re probably using the absolute definition, below a certain amount of goods/services available, food on the table, at least a place to sleep etc.
Because stupidity is as natural to human beings as breathing, the fact that quite often stupid human beings can get together to implement stupid policies that cause poverty indicates that poverty and wealth are both natural.
Poverty is probably more natural though, given that so many people are stupid(through no real fault of their own). To get rid of that stupidity, or at least reduce it, you need education, which isn’t always available.
TWG
I think it was Jonathan who mentioned Harvard Professor David Landes’ book ‘The Wealth and Poverty of Nations’ It is ISBN 0 316 90867 3 if anyone wants to look it up. It provides an excellent and exhaustive treatment of this subject.
very retired should perhaps know that it was in Great Britain that the breakthrough was started. David Landes dates it from 1770 to 1870. Interesting that at the start of this Industrial Revolution the population of GB was only about 7 million. They went on to defeat the first of the great evil dictators of Europe – Napoleon commanding a population of 25 million – and then to pretty well conquer the world. David Landes goes into a lot of detail as to why it happened in GB (Chapter 14)
It is no wonder that the ideas spread so quickly first to Germany and then to the US as well as the rest of western Europe.
I think it was Jonathan who mentioned Harvard Professor David Landes’ book ‘The Wealth and Poverty of Nations’ It is ISBN 0 316 90867 3 if anyone wants to look it up. It provides an excellent and exhaustive treatment of this subject.
‘Veryretired’ should perhaps know that it was in Great Britain that the breakthrough was started. David Landes dates it from 1770 to 1870. Interesting that at the start of this Industrial Revolution the population of GB was only about 7 million. They went on to defeat the first of the great evil dictators of Europe – Napoleon commanding a population of 25 million – and then to pretty well conquer the world. David Landes goes into a lot of detail as to why it happened in GB (Chapter 14)
It is no wonder that the ideas spread so quickly first to Germany and then to the US as well as the rest of western Europe.
I do not mean in any way to slight or ignore the contributions of the British to the development of the modern age. We in the west may be the children of the Greek Golden Age, and the inheritors of the Roman Empire, but we are truly citizens with rights that were recognized in Magna Carta.
That individuals have rights that are inherent to their humanity, and beyond the power of any sovereign or any state, is THE revolutionary idea in all of history, and the foundation of all that we cherish as a free people.
For many centuries, whole courses of study will try to figure out how a small island played such an important role in developing that idea, and defending it from some of the worst threats that humanity has ever faced.
Just a rather pedantic point: Magna Carta was an English matter not British. The term Great Britain (Great to distinguish it from Brittany in France) only came into existence with the union with Scotland in 1709.
Scottish law differs from English law to this day.
Come to think about it the time of Magna Carta was just about the time of the establishment of England. Before that it was Normans and Anglo-Saxons. It was also about the time when the English language evolved and came into common use.
Just to be pedantic 😉
We already find the concept of England as a single nation in Bede – who died in 735.
Historians generally argue that England was a political reality by the Tenth Century.
The English language was in use much earlier of course, supplying the finest surviving early medieval literature, but after the Norman invasion it was not until the Fourteenth Century that English once more became the language of the elite in England.
Fair enough Chris. But Alfred’s Englisc was Old English and although we had to wait for Geoffry Chaucer for literature after the Norman conquest Magna Carta was translated into English so that the ‘people’ could understand what had been written in Latin in the 13th century.