Some of the Predators of Mali

DON BOUDREAUX:

This report in yesterday’s New York Times offers evidence of the extent to which “Progressives” will go to stop progress – evidence of the filth and pollution that flesh-and-blood individuals are obliged to endure when economic growth is forcibly halted – evidence of the utter arrogance and selfishness of rich-world elites, and of their propensity to treat other human beings as objects for amusement.

Kind of gets your attention, eh? The news report Boudreaux points to is interesting and well worth reading, especially if you were in my Power & Prosperity course last semester. The deal is that the city the news report is about is a World Heritage site and that has important implications:

"When a town is put on the heritage list, it means nothing should change,” Mr. Maiga said. “But we want development, more space, new appliances — things that are much more modern. We are angry about all that."

From the news report it seems to me that, as Boudreaux alludes to, there has recently been some development and progress going on in this city. After all, the people reported on seem to have at least some money available to spend on new wants and desires with respect to the way they live. Unfortunately, it also seems that there are predators from without who want to keep these people from using the gains they have made for their own purposes.

“If you want to help someone, you have to help him in a way that he wants; to force him to live in a certain way is not right,” he said, before lying on the mud floor of a windowless room that measured about 6 feet by 3 feet.

Well said. Put the power of government behind what a person wants to do for himself and good things will emerge in the future.

You can learn more about the necessary conditions for Mali prosperity by checking out the information at the INDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM. While Mali officially has a democratic form of government, the protections for private property are weak and corruption is prevalent.

The Green Police

This GREEN POLICE video is one of the best commercials I've ever seen. I'm afraid that although this is very funny today, it is likely to be not so funny by the time my son graduates college. I'm not sure, but hasn't there already been a bill introduced to Congress to ban the incandescent bulb? Maybe this ban is already law, and that could be me they're loading into the squad car, eh?

The Wages of Government

THE WSJ REPORTS that:

"A group of blue-chip companies is lining up behind efforts to voluntarily change their pay practices, in part to head off potentially more onerous restrictions out of Washington. . . . .

Many of the Conference Board's principles resemble those of the Obama administration, including tying a 'significant portion' of incentive compensation to a company's long-term success, rather than rewarding short-term gains that some worry promote risky behavior. The proposal also calls for doing away with certain pay practices, such as 'overly generous golden-parachute payments' in the event of a takeover, and long-term employment contracts that require generous severance payments."

I suppose rhetoric is a beautiful thing, at least to some. I would like an explanation as to why it makes sense to say a group of companies will voluntarily change their pay policies when at the same time these companies are trying to placate government.

It seems to me more accurate to say that "a group of companies are being coerced by government to change their pay policies." And, if government passes legislation or writes regulations about pay policies, then it would seem accurate to say that government has forced companies to change their pay policies. Or, if we would prefer to match rhetoric with more rhetoric, how about we say instead that "a group of companies have decided to give into to the big government bully." I think my use of coercion and force is more accurate, but telling the story in terms of the "big government bully" might help tell a story with more political traction.

Check out the paragraph that lists some of the proposed changes. I've read this entire news article, and I don't think I can find any analysis that explains why it is thought that these companies have bad pay policies now. So, I have no way to judge whether these changes make any sense. What's more, it seems to me that any company's pay policies should seek to achieve the company's purposes, and not the purposes of government.

Oh, and I wonder how "generous" is defined?

Finally, since we are considering the responses of business to the coercion of government, is it completely silly to ask where Congress or President Obama constitutionally have the power to coerce, or to force, businesses to change their pay policies? I can't see that they do in the Constitution I have.

The President's Art Endowment For Health & The Environment

JIM LINDGREN directs our attention to commentary by Patrick Courrielche with this quotation:

"Artists shouldn’t be used as tools of the state to help create a climate amenable to their positions, which is what appears to be happening in this instance. If the art community wants to tackle those issues on its own then fine. But tackling them shouldn’t come as an encouragement from the NEA to those they potentially fund at this coincidental time.

And if you think that my fear regarding the arts becoming a tool of the state is still unfounded, I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “

Is the hair on your arms standing up yet?"

Jim warned of this last summer, and relevant portions of that warning are also a part of his posting about the NEA. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Some of the things I took notice of: the idea of helping to lay a new foundation for growth, the idea of promoting a more civically engaged America, and the idea that we all celebrate the arts for positive change (perhaps one day there can even be a national holiday to celebrate the arts for positive change). Did you know there was a White House Office of Public Engagement? If you are curious about the mission of such an office, follow the link and see for yourself. While you are there be sure to download you very own copy of "Citizens Briefing Book." Right up front in that document you will find that "out of the tens of thousands of submissions, these ideas found the most support; here they are, unvarnished and unedited." "Unvarnished and unedited" is credible, right?

Oh, my, I think my posting yesterday on social engineering and planning is worth considering along with Lindgren's posting of today.

Uncle Milty On The Draft

From Greg Mankiw's blog, this is MILTON FRIEDMAN ON THE DRAFT:

"In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' Mr. Westmoreland replied, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.' Mr. Friedman then retorted, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.'"

Zimbabwe

I've chanced across a very interesting book, WHEN A CROCODILE EATS THE SUN which is written by Peter Godwin. The book is Mr. Godwin's memoir of Africa and specifically Zimbabwe. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 5 which is titled April 2000.

They are a good-looking middle-aged couple, tanned and fit from an outdoor life, surprisingly calm and considered, given their current situation. We sit down at the dining table for lunch, and Jenny reaches to tinkle the bell to summon the cook, and then remembers it is not there. She apologizes for the second-best cutlery we are using too.

Rob slices the rare roast beef. "This place was mostly unpopulated when we arrived," he says. "There were tsetse flies, so no cattle could survive. No cattle, so no people. Whites used to come here to hunt lion, that's all."

His grandfather came out to Africa as a veterinarian with the British cavalry fighting the Boer War. His father served in the police force of old colonial Bechuanaland (now Botswana). Rob's uncle wrote the Kenyan constitution.

[ . . . ]

But as we drive through it, most of the land -- once some of the most productive in the country -- stands empty of crops, choked with undergrowth. Farms lie abandoned, their buildings stripped of their tin roofs.

"Just look at it," says Webb in dismay. "It's such a terrific waste."

Webb shows me the Farm Development Trust, an old commercial farm converted into a tobacco training center by white farmers. More than a thousand black farmers pass through it every year taking courses to learn how to grow tobacco commercially. "Some of the farmers being trained there are those now invading us," he says. His wife choruses this hymn of despair. "This will never end. If they get more farms, in five years' time when our corn is ten feet tall and theirs is only two feet, they'll come again and say, 'We want your land.'"

Only now does Rob take me on a tour of his own farms -- he has three, combined into one unit. Here he grows coffee, paprika, wheat, sugarcane, soybeans, asparagus, tobacco. At his tall brick tobacco barns, workers are busy grading and packing leaves. "There's millions of dollars' worth of tobacco here," he says. "And they've warned me that they'll burn it all down if they lose the elections."

He employs 620 people, and, with their families, some two thousand live on the property. "We run an elementary school for the laborers' children and a fully staffed clinic."

Rob webb has tone to great lengths to stay on good terms with the ruling party as a political insurance policy for his business. . . .

But this was no use to him when a mob of a hundred people armed with pangas and rocks marched up the drive chanting hostile slogans and beating tom-toms and dancing the toyi-toyi, an African war dance.

"They demanded to speak to me, and when I came down, they shouted, 'We have come to take your land -- that is what we have been told to do.'"

They pegged land claims on his soybean fields, which were just about to be harvested, and demanded they be plowed immediately. When Rob insisted on reaping his crop first, they tried to set fire to it: only the greenness of the shoots prevented it from catching. Now Webb is combine-harvesting day and night to salvage as much of the crop as he can.

[ . . . ]

The farm, a big business built up over decades, in on the verge of collapse. Webb is unable to plant winter wheat, unable to water his soy crop, unable to enter or leave his property without permission. His workers are scared and worried about their future. The occupiers spend much of their time drunk or stoned. . . .They live parasitically, depending on the farm for their survival even as they destroy it. . . .

"As far as I can see, they're nothing but little warlords," says Rob.

There are a few other stories like this, at least one which was deadly in nature, in this chapter on April 2000. One aspect of the stories is that government seems unable or unwilling to protect and enforce the private property rights which seem to me to have been integral to the economic development that was part and parcel of the successful farms. Perhaps government is even doing the telling to the people who are trying to take over the farms. These sorts of stories seem to epitomize an economy of predation, not an economy that will experience much prosperity.

Hayek on Coercion

What does "coercion" mean? Let's look to Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty:

By ‘coercion’ we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another. . . . he is unable either to use his own intelligence or knowledge or to follow his own aims and beliefs. Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another. (20-21)

Certainly this idea of coercion can be related to what happens between people. Theft and assault clearly fit the idea of coercion. In addition, this meaning of coercion suggests to me, almost immediately, the relationships between government and the individual. It seems to me much public policy, and much of the efforts of individuals to influence government to choose this or that public policy, match this idea of coercion very well. Just consider policies like banning the incandescent light bulb, or policies that require automobiles to have passive restraint systems. Both sorts of policies seem to me to be very well described by the idea of being forced to act according to the plans and ends chosen by another, by being unable to use a person’s own knowledge and beliefs and intelligence to act in ways he chooses to in pursuit of his own aims and beliefs.

Hayek’s discussion of coercion and government suggests an interesting difference from my own discussions of government and coercion. I often emphasize that there is one word to characterize government’s inherent nature and it is “coercion.” I also suggest that I want government to be coercive because I want government to be the “protective state” which acts to protect me from harm to person and property caused by the deliberate actions of others. But, discussing things in this way may encourage us to miss something of importance that we can see from Hayek’s discussion of coercion and government.

Coercion, however, cannot be altogether avoided because the only way to prevent it is by the threat of coercion. Free society has met this problem by conferring the monopoly of coercion on the state and by attempting to limit this power of the state to instances where it is required to prevent coercion by private persons. This is possible only by the state’s protecting known private spheres of the individuals against interference by others and delimiting these private spheres, not by specific assignation, but by creating conditions under which the individual can determine his own sphere by relying on rules which tell him what the government will do in different types of situations.

The coercion which a government must still use for this end is reduced to a minimum and made as innocuous as possible by restraining it through known general rules, so that in most instances the individual need never be coerced unless he has placed himself in a position where he knows he will be coerced. . . .Being made impersonal and dependent upon general, abstract rules, whose effect on particular individuals cannot be foreseen at the time they are laid down, even the coercive acts of government become data on which the individual can base his own plans. Coercion according to known rules, which is generally the result of circumstances in which the person to be coerced has placed himself, then becomes an instrument assisting the individuals in the pursuit of their own ends and not a means to be used for the ends of others. (21)

For Hayek the idea of coercion is about being made to do certain things by others. By way of contrast, a person may be prevented from doing certain things. Hayek is discussing a government for freedom or liberty as a government that may make rules and use power and coercion to enforce those rules in order to protect individuals from harm to person or property by others. This seems to be my idea of the protective state, and my idea of wanting government to be coercive for these purposes. But, what my discussion probably misses, and Hayek’s emphasizes, is the idea of the rule of law. Hayek is really talking about what we would want “rule of law” to mean, i.e., known general rules that restrain rather than laws that force certain actions. The known rules will be supported by government’s use of coercion and force, but since they are known general rules about actions and conduct, Hayek sees the individual as being able to act to avoid the coercion or to place himself in position to have to suffer the coercion of government. Government is indeed coercive, even when it’s actions are structured within the rule of law, but as Hayek points out, the coercion is “minimized.” The rule of law is coercion, but it is coercion according to known rules, and as such Hayek suggests that the coercion embodied in following the rule of law becomes an instrument that assists individuals in pursuing their own ends. Coercion in general rules that do not pick out favored treatment for some means coercion that is not used for the ends of others.