New Item: Iran

So, from this story, essentially what the Iranian government is saying is: "Thank you very much, United States, for helping us to deal with the terrible human disaster of our recent earthquake, but we reserve the right to build nuclear weapons to threaten you, and to harbor, fund and train terrorists to come kill you." Despicable.

Bam quake toll hits 40,000 as Iran welcomes US aid but rejects dialogue


"What is the point of negotiations if there is no trust that will enable us to reach a common position," Khatami said. EXCUSE ME??!! We didn't storm their embassy, hold dozens of their citizens hostage for months on end, then sponsor nutcases to go blow up their women and children.

Once again, our country is demonstrating class and humanity in helping the Iranian victims of this terrible natural tragedy. And once again, the mullahs are displaying the pigheaded arrogance that leaves their country stuck in the middle ages, their people oppressed, and their leaders despised. A little gratitude and rationality would go a long way here.

- posted by Tom Pick @ 12:04 PM

 
Are We Done Beating This Dead Horse?

Or would you like to continue? If my previously referenced links to the connection between property, liberty and the Constitution, the clear intent of the framers, 200+ years of practice, and the limited references within the Constitution as to the circumstances under which the government can legally seize property aren't enough to convince you, then let me know and I'll bury you with many additional citations.

With the Constitutional question (perhaps) settled, let's move on to some of the other points. I'm not sure in what sense the contention that someone disallowed to own the fruits or his labor is in effect a slave is a debatable point, or whose fruit it is that grows on a tree on your land if it isn't yours, but if you'd care to expound upon these points I'll be happy to address that. You question who has the right to plant a tree: in a civilized society governed by the rule of law, the landowner is of course permitted to do the planting. Land ownership is recognized (and property protected) by a title. Without title, there's nothing to stop me from stealing your car, or squatting in your backyard, and claiming ownership. How are courts, or any other recognized authority, to settle such a dispute without reference to title? I don't own my car because it's parked in my garage (I could just as easily park my neighbor's car there), but because I have a state-issued title with my name on it (and yes, protection of property, along with enforcement of contracts, is a valid function of government).

Next, you content that Joe Sixpack working at the Ford plant must be in effect a slave since he "creates wealth beyond his own hourly wage." Really? By what -- or whose -- estimation? Joe Sixpack's wage, like all of ours in a free society, is set by the market. If Joe Sixpack can earn more money by building trucks for GMC than he can for Ford, then he should switch jobs (or use market data to try to convince his boss that he's underpaid). If however Joe is indeed earning the market rate -- the same wage he'd earn working for Ford, GMC, Dodge, Toyota or whoever -- then clearly he is not creating wealth beyond his own input. Labor, after all, is not the only input to wealth creation; the investors whose capital built the plant and bought the machinery also deserve a return on their capital put at risk.

The "naturally occurring fruit" argument is charming. Okay, let's say there's a little town with an orange grove in the middle of it. The grove of orange trees belongs to the town, which is to say, to everyone there -- it is public property. You contend that the man who doesn't get "an even distribution of the naturally occurring fruit" is essentially a slave. Yet how is one to assure this? Even in the situation where the grove of orange trees is public property, those who are able to apply labor (i.e. the young and the sufficiently limber to climb trees) or capital (e.g. a truck, basket and/or ladder) will be able to collect much more fruit than the very old, the very young, the disabled, the lazy, the otherwise engaged, etc. Grandma may "deserve" an equal share of the fruit, but without a ladder or the ability to climb a tree, she won't get it without the introduction of some outside force. At this point, there are three possibilities for the redistribution: capitalism (let people purchase their desired quantity of oranges from those with the ability to pick the fruit), socialism (have the town government tax all of the people and then pay those able to apply labor or capital to pick and distribute the fruit) or communism (in practice, force those with the ability to labor to pick and distribute the oranges). In the long run, the capitalist approach is the most efficient, because it provides an incentive for those who harvest the fruit to increase their productivity and therefore "market share," even in the case of a naturally occurring fruit. The socialist solution will provide a more uniform distribution of the fruit, but at a higher cost due the lack of any incentives for efficiency.

So we arrive at the final argument: that the political right is "preoccupied" with the notion of property. Property, or wealth, is an important concern of the right, to be sure, but I would contend that it is equally so on the left. The difference is that the right is concerned ("preoccupied" if you insist) with the creation of wealth/property, while the left focuses on the redistribution of wealth. By providing incentives for increased productivity and innovation, capitalism expands the wealth of a nation -- indeed, of the world -- over time. Too many on the left seem not to grasp this, and instead fixate on the notion of wealth as a zero-sum game; if the rich get richer, the poor must get poorer. To them, a rising tide doesn't lift all boats, it just means it must be low tide somewhere else. A recent but prime example is the agitation for price controls on pharmaceuticals; if the government sets a "fair" price for prescription drugs, that's a good thing (to those on the left), because it means that more money stays in the pockets of the old and sick while less money makes it into the coffers of the greedy drug manufacturers. In reality, of course, while such redistribution does in fact have this effect in the short term, in the longer term it reduces societal wealth (new medications) by reducing both the capital available and the financial incentive to develop new drugs.

In sum, I would argue that the right is no more or less "preoccupied" with property/wealth than the left; we just understand it better.
- posted by Tom Pick @ 11:32 AM