Subject:
|
Re: Poverty myths?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:53:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > And
> > Switzerland became rich charging toll rights to those who wanted to cross
> > the Alps.
>
> Assuming that is actually where most of their whealth is derived, is it not
> there right to do so as the land owners?
Of course it is, but it is pure luck on their part that they are placed
there. Assuming that this where their wealth derives it has not come from
their ingenuity or their political system.
> Really this here is the main point of his article:
> "Poverty is mostly self-inflicted -- indigenously created. What are some of the
> most commonly held characteristics of the non-poor world? In non-poor
> countries, people tend to have greater personal liberty, property rights are
> protected, contracts are enforced, there's rule of law and there's a
> market-oriented economic system rather than a socialistic one."
>
> -Mike Petrucelli
I tend to think there is a link but that you have it backwards. The result
of having just a bit more wealth so that a civilization can support artisans
and bureaucrats eventually results in improved philosophies of the
importance of personal liberty and effective government with checks and
balances. When the wealth is so low as to be just above subsistence someone
else's liberty threatens yours more closely and you have a situation where
rule by the strongest can break out. This is what I see happening in
African nations which have 'western' political systems thrust upon them but
without the resources to support them.
Others have raised the idea that aid only makes it possible to subsist where
humans otherwise could not due to the paucity of resources. I agree that
this distortion is unhelpful.
I set great store by the arguments of Jared Diamond. In his book 'Guns,
Germs and Steel' he explains why it is the resources in an area which
favours the development of a particular culture and that as that cultures
technology improves it can afford to support non-productive members such as
I described above.
Here is a talk he gave which summarises his arguments. It's fairly long and
I couldn't find a direct quote to the idea I am explaining but it is
interesting nonetheless.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p1.html
I think part of the problem is the fact that 'Westerners' of all political
persuasions think other cultures need our help. Either in aid or in
modelling their politico-economic structures on ours. What they need is to
be left alone.
However, what happens then is that *individuals* from that culture, who have
access to Western technology, can turn it on their people, or on us. The
question is how to stop this happening, how do you stop despots arising?
In summary I think poverty is not self-inflicted, it is 'where you
live-inflicted', and having a liberal democracy with market economics is no
guarantee that it will continue without the resources to support it. vid.
Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| (...) So the population density of inhabitable China would be roughly double which is still about half that of Taiwan and remains insignificant compared to Hong Kong. (...) Assuming that is actually where most of their whealth is derived, is it not (...) (22 years ago, 2-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
