The Importance of Property Rights.
I've completed the second installation in my Freedom Correlations series.
In the first part, I showed how economic freedom has a strong negative correlation with state failure, meaning libertarian-style freedom has a strong record of bringing general prosperity to countries. [link]
Now, I've taken the individual components of economic freedom and run the same analysis, finding that private property rights are the absolute most important component to a nation's general prosperity. [link]
This data shows that it is fundamentally impossible for any country to bring prosperity to their people if they do not protect private property rights. Not just difficult- impossible. The data proves that adopting a communistic view of property is the surest way to cause socioeconomic collapse for any country.
Lately, I've been hearing a lot of people trying to make the claim that "mixed economies are best," and that "too much capitalism is bad, just like too much socialism." Well, this data disputes that idea thoroughly. Deprivation of private property rights to any degree apparently increases the poverty, income inequality, squalor, violence, corruption, bribery, and instability of any country. Depriving businesses and financial operations of their freedom through regulation also has a similar effect, though not quite to the same degree. These trends are consistent across the entire spectrum of countries. It doesn't matter how many social programs you set up to help the people- if you're paying for them by depriving others of their private property rights and business freedom, you are destroying your country.
Let me make this as clear as possible: I have just proven that it is fundamentally impossible to use communism or socialism to help the people. This data should make it clear that anyone who cares about the prosperity of the people should treat private property rights as absolutely sacred.
It doesn't get any clearer than this. Enjoy.
In the first part, I showed how economic freedom has a strong negative correlation with state failure, meaning libertarian-style freedom has a strong record of bringing general prosperity to countries. [link]
Now, I've taken the individual components of economic freedom and run the same analysis, finding that private property rights are the absolute most important component to a nation's general prosperity. [link]
This data shows that it is fundamentally impossible for any country to bring prosperity to their people if they do not protect private property rights. Not just difficult- impossible. The data proves that adopting a communistic view of property is the surest way to cause socioeconomic collapse for any country.
Lately, I've been hearing a lot of people trying to make the claim that "mixed economies are best," and that "too much capitalism is bad, just like too much socialism." Well, this data disputes that idea thoroughly. Deprivation of private property rights to any degree apparently increases the poverty, income inequality, squalor, violence, corruption, bribery, and instability of any country. Depriving businesses and financial operations of their freedom through regulation also has a similar effect, though not quite to the same degree. These trends are consistent across the entire spectrum of countries. It doesn't matter how many social programs you set up to help the people- if you're paying for them by depriving others of their private property rights and business freedom, you are destroying your country.
Let me make this as clear as possible: I have just proven that it is fundamentally impossible to use communism or socialism to help the people. This data should make it clear that anyone who cares about the prosperity of the people should treat private property rights as absolutely sacred.
It doesn't get any clearer than this. Enjoy.
Comments135
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Interesting: providing your own writing as the source to support an argument. Never saw that one before, lol.
This data shows that it is fundamentally impossible for any country to bring prosperity to their people if they do not protect private property rights. Not just difficult- impossible. The data proves that adopting a communistic view of property is the surest way to cause socioeconomic collapse for any country.
- Well I wish you were right, but actual statistics and market trends say something very different:
[link] [link] [link]
This data shows that it is fundamentally impossible for any country to bring prosperity to their people if they do not protect private property rights. Not just difficult- impossible. The data proves that adopting a communistic view of property is the surest way to cause socioeconomic collapse for any country.
- Well I wish you were right, but actual statistics and market trends say something very different:
[link] [link] [link]
That source appears to reinforce what I said previously?
"This data shows that it is fundamentally impossible for any country to bring prosperity to their people if they do not protect private property rights"
I agree. What I am going to disagree with you, is on what gets to be private property, and how property is defined. I think we all agree to some extent that somethings cannot be owned. What we disagree on is what.
"too much capitalism is bad, just like too much socialism."
this whole idea that politics is 2 dimensional is terrible. both capitalism and socialism fail. Capitalism fails eventually, because it has no means to prevent power from being massed centrally. It works pretty well in the early stages, but once larger organizations show up, and hierarchically bureaucracies take form, the bottom falls off, and it fails.
Socialism is pretty apt at identifying this, but fails hard from the gate, because central planning clusters economic activity in the same way, in a more expedited fashion, and fails because group think grinds rational voices to bits, and the system fails.
The systems are similar in the regard, that they both eventually allow a small clique of insiders to rise to the top and control everything. A large bureaucratic government in effect is little different than a large corporation, if large enough that starts enforcing its will as a government.
They are also pretty apt at identifying the others obvious problems.
My solution is to make all groups of people democratic, willfull, small, and when possible, local.
"This data should make it clear that anyone who cares about the prosperity of the people should treat private property rights as absolutely sacred."
There are no such thing as absolutes. In fact they are dangerous in every regard. All rights have natural limits. Those limits are when they start infringing on the rights of others.
Never in the history of any country has private property even been a de facto absolute, regardless of what any law has said.
I also agree with you we should be limiting the size and role of the government. What I think you fail to realize, is we also need to be limiting the size and role of any organization that gets big enough to have the same effect, because the difference is semantics.(be that corporation, labor union, street gang, cartel, etc...)
I agree. What I am going to disagree with you, is on what gets to be private property, and how property is defined. I think we all agree to some extent that somethings cannot be owned. What we disagree on is what.
"too much capitalism is bad, just like too much socialism."
this whole idea that politics is 2 dimensional is terrible. both capitalism and socialism fail. Capitalism fails eventually, because it has no means to prevent power from being massed centrally. It works pretty well in the early stages, but once larger organizations show up, and hierarchically bureaucracies take form, the bottom falls off, and it fails.
Socialism is pretty apt at identifying this, but fails hard from the gate, because central planning clusters economic activity in the same way, in a more expedited fashion, and fails because group think grinds rational voices to bits, and the system fails.
The systems are similar in the regard, that they both eventually allow a small clique of insiders to rise to the top and control everything. A large bureaucratic government in effect is little different than a large corporation, if large enough that starts enforcing its will as a government.
They are also pretty apt at identifying the others obvious problems.
My solution is to make all groups of people democratic, willfull, small, and when possible, local.
"This data should make it clear that anyone who cares about the prosperity of the people should treat private property rights as absolutely sacred."
There are no such thing as absolutes. In fact they are dangerous in every regard. All rights have natural limits. Those limits are when they start infringing on the rights of others.
Never in the history of any country has private property even been a de facto absolute, regardless of what any law has said.
I also agree with you we should be limiting the size and role of the government. What I think you fail to realize, is we also need to be limiting the size and role of any organization that gets big enough to have the same effect, because the difference is semantics.(be that corporation, labor union, street gang, cartel, etc...)
You make some good points. There certainly are plenty of definitions of private property.
However, each of those different definitions of private property is going to have a different type of correlation with state failure. So, what's important in determining the implications of this data is not so much how you or I define private property, but how the Heritage Foundation defines it. Whether you agree with their definition or not, it's their definition that has generated these extremely close correlations. I'm not ruling out the possibility that my definition or your definition of private property may have stronger correlations, though the more ways in which those alternate definitions contradict with Heritage's definition, the less likely it is that the alternate definitions would generate that sort of strong negative correlation with state failure.
So, what is Heritage's definition of "Property Rights"? Their scoring system is here: [link]
In Heritage's definition, property rights include efficient enforcement of contract law, an inability for anyone (including the government) to confiscate property without due process, an absence of expropriation for the public interest, and an absence of political influence on the judiciary.
Basically, if we want to improve our property rights score and thereby decrease our level of state failure, we could do so by eliminating eminent domain, depriving executive agencies like the EPA of the power to confiscate lands and other property "for the public good," eliminating all of the laws funneling portions of people's paychecks into union pockets, making it an impeachable offense for politicians to threaten the judiciary (*COUGH*OBAMA*COUGH*), eliminating the executive power to impose fees and fines outside of criminal court, banning the nationalization of companies through any means, and reducing regulation that negatively impacts the value of companies and properties.
It would be really nice if we had a constitutional amendment that would bring about those policy changes by explicitly protecting property rights in the definition Heritage has used.
However, each of those different definitions of private property is going to have a different type of correlation with state failure. So, what's important in determining the implications of this data is not so much how you or I define private property, but how the Heritage Foundation defines it. Whether you agree with their definition or not, it's their definition that has generated these extremely close correlations. I'm not ruling out the possibility that my definition or your definition of private property may have stronger correlations, though the more ways in which those alternate definitions contradict with Heritage's definition, the less likely it is that the alternate definitions would generate that sort of strong negative correlation with state failure.
So, what is Heritage's definition of "Property Rights"? Their scoring system is here: [link]
In Heritage's definition, property rights include efficient enforcement of contract law, an inability for anyone (including the government) to confiscate property without due process, an absence of expropriation for the public interest, and an absence of political influence on the judiciary.
Basically, if we want to improve our property rights score and thereby decrease our level of state failure, we could do so by eliminating eminent domain, depriving executive agencies like the EPA of the power to confiscate lands and other property "for the public good," eliminating all of the laws funneling portions of people's paychecks into union pockets, making it an impeachable offense for politicians to threaten the judiciary (*COUGH*OBAMA*COUGH*), eliminating the executive power to impose fees and fines outside of criminal court, banning the nationalization of companies through any means, and reducing regulation that negatively impacts the value of companies and properties.
It would be really nice if we had a constitutional amendment that would bring about those policy changes by explicitly protecting property rights in the definition Heritage has used.
"However, each of those different definitions of private property is going to have a different type of correlation with state failure"
have my ideas been tried...ever?
the closet thing to my ideals on property was probably the pre-revolutionary US of A. Things like houses and shops were private, but they had the concept of "commons", i.e. common area. Its not that close even.
"So, what is Heritage's definition of "Property Rights"? Their scoring system is here:"
Don't like it. It doesn't address the fundamental question of what can and cannot be property, only that property rights should be enforced.
In addition to private property, I believe in "common" property, as in town parks, squares, and mostly infrastructure should be held in common, and administered by democratic vote.
In a geo-libertarianesque view, I think that the only solid ownership claims are to man made goods, as ownership starts with economic productivity.
Everything else, you have a similar, but more case specific "right to occupy/inhabit"(no relation to the movement)", "right to use", "right to use exclusively",
For example, you don't have the right over a living think like you do an inatimate object. While you can call it "yours, mine, etc.." in the common sense, you don't have the right to torture(or more perversely have sex with) an animal you "own", like you would a machine. While you certainly have rights to the animal, just as strong as you'd suggest "ownership", there are some things which are not allowed. you have a "right to control, exlusive usage", or something similar. Its still "yours", but you don't "own it".
Same with land. Right to occupy it, and right to build on it, use the natural resources.
You don't have the right to use it for things that harm others.
" depriving executive agencies like the EPA of the power to confiscate lands and other property "for the public good,"
what about local town governments, who've been taking people's houses for years. A house certainly can and will continue to be private property, its manufactured goods, people are living there.
This has been a problem for years, back when I was a libertarian, libertarians used to hark on this big. Real people getting kicked out of real homes they owned, simply because it was inconvenient for government, or they could make more in tax money handing their homes off to developers.
have my ideas been tried...ever?
the closet thing to my ideals on property was probably the pre-revolutionary US of A. Things like houses and shops were private, but they had the concept of "commons", i.e. common area. Its not that close even.
"So, what is Heritage's definition of "Property Rights"? Their scoring system is here:"
Don't like it. It doesn't address the fundamental question of what can and cannot be property, only that property rights should be enforced.
In addition to private property, I believe in "common" property, as in town parks, squares, and mostly infrastructure should be held in common, and administered by democratic vote.
In a geo-libertarianesque view, I think that the only solid ownership claims are to man made goods, as ownership starts with economic productivity.
Everything else, you have a similar, but more case specific "right to occupy/inhabit"(no relation to the movement)", "right to use", "right to use exclusively",
For example, you don't have the right over a living think like you do an inatimate object. While you can call it "yours, mine, etc.." in the common sense, you don't have the right to torture(or more perversely have sex with) an animal you "own", like you would a machine. While you certainly have rights to the animal, just as strong as you'd suggest "ownership", there are some things which are not allowed. you have a "right to control, exlusive usage", or something similar. Its still "yours", but you don't "own it".
Same with land. Right to occupy it, and right to build on it, use the natural resources.
You don't have the right to use it for things that harm others.
" depriving executive agencies like the EPA of the power to confiscate lands and other property "for the public good,"
what about local town governments, who've been taking people's houses for years. A house certainly can and will continue to be private property, its manufactured goods, people are living there.
This has been a problem for years, back when I was a libertarian, libertarians used to hark on this big. Real people getting kicked out of real homes they owned, simply because it was inconvenient for government, or they could make more in tax money handing their homes off to developers.
I see one person providing data to support their views, and I see a bunch of people failing to debunk either the data or the relation between the data and the presented conclusion.
Psychrophyte is the only person who even attempted to counter TBSchemer.
Psychrophyte is the only person who even attempted to counter TBSchemer.
Oh, and Creamstar is also using proper arguments.
Just saying, everyone should at least act more like those two. (at least they attempt to use proper argument rather than empty insults).
Just saying, everyone should at least act more like those two. (at least they attempt to use proper argument rather than empty insults).
Don't you have friends?
What kind of question is that? You must be new. Ha, and you are.
The Cold War ended twenty years ago. I don't think you got the memo.
Yeah, the Cold War ended, American capitalism beat Russian socialism, and then suddenly American socialism became fashionable. That is not good.
1. The USSR became a fascist state after the death of Lenin.
2. American capitalism did not beat Russian socialism. American militarism and an oppressive, neoliberal foreign policy beat Russian fascism.
2. American capitalism did not beat Russian socialism. American militarism and an oppressive, neoliberal foreign policy beat Russian fascism.
1. correct on the USSR
2. the USA was not a free market capitalist society in WW2. It was a carefully managed top down beurocracy with many major industries like the telephone system (AT&T), being given an exclusive government sponsored monopoly with competition banned.
Taxes were high, and social programs where everywhere. Before 2008/10 there were no free market idealists in mainstream politics.
2. the USA was not a free market capitalist society in WW2. It was a carefully managed top down beurocracy with many major industries like the telephone system (AT&T), being given an exclusive government sponsored monopoly with competition banned.
Taxes were high, and social programs where everywhere. Before 2008/10 there were no free market idealists in mainstream politics.
I didn't say that the US wasn't capitalist, I said that capitalism didn't defeat the USSR. Superior military tact did.
"Superior military tact did."
for all intents and purposes correct.
I am just trying to hammer home some points for everyone else following the discussion.
Clear up any myths people still have about the "cold war" and "communism" vs "capitalism". The cold war was about neither. It was about the nationalist interests of the USA vs the USSR. That is is. "Communism" and "Capitalism" were justifications for foreign policy, not systems that where followed.
for all intents and purposes correct.
I am just trying to hammer home some points for everyone else following the discussion.
Clear up any myths people still have about the "cold war" and "communism" vs "capitalism". The cold war was about neither. It was about the nationalist interests of the USA vs the USSR. That is is. "Communism" and "Capitalism" were justifications for foreign policy, not systems that where followed.
Ah, alright then.
Now that's just down right correct. He's not going to like that very much.
I own this thread.
I don't have time to read your entire blogposts, and skimming over the bias of the Heritage Foundation, I question the worth of these statistics. Most likely, a lot of these countries are ranked highly because a lot of rich people moved their businesses there. These countries, as you say, have less regulation and so encourage these large, wealthy investors. These investors then skew statistics by adding their wealth. I look at Hong Kong, said to be the most economically free "country". Hong Kong also has one of the largest income gaps in the industrial world. 8.5% of the population are millionaires! That's a huge percent. It's vastly unrealistic for most any country to expect such success.
I'm also skeptical of what sacrifices would be made just for more economic freedom. Capitalism is not perfect, and certainly pure capitalism does not need to be the only way to a prosperous, well-off country.
I'm also skeptical of what sacrifices would be made just for more economic freedom. Capitalism is not perfect, and certainly pure capitalism does not need to be the only way to a prosperous, well-off country.
I used two sources for the data. The State Failure data is not from the Heritage Foundation. That's from the The Fund For Peace, an organization which doesn't hold any Libertarian or conservative connections.
Basically, the Heritage Foundation's idea of economic freedom brings about The Fund For Peace's idea of national prosperity. That includes reducing income inequality, reducing poverty, reducing entrenchment of elites, and reducing violence. You're welcome to click through the links and see all of this for yourself.
Capitalism doesn't need to be perfect. It's merely the best available system. And the best part is, it gets better as time goes on, economies grow, and innovative new solutions make living and trading with each other more and more efficient. That is why these correlations exist.
Basically, the Heritage Foundation's idea of economic freedom brings about The Fund For Peace's idea of national prosperity. That includes reducing income inequality, reducing poverty, reducing entrenchment of elites, and reducing violence. You're welcome to click through the links and see all of this for yourself.
Capitalism doesn't need to be perfect. It's merely the best available system. And the best part is, it gets better as time goes on, economies grow, and innovative new solutions make living and trading with each other more and more efficient. That is why these correlations exist.
I don't have time, again, to click through all the links. I can only say that it does nothing to convince me of the merits of completely free market. It does not solve income inequality or poverty. Such problems will always exist under capitalism because it innately requires inequality.
There is also no reason to believe that capitalism is the best system available. There are many of other theories and systems of government that have never been tried. Unfortunately, because capitalism is so entrenched in our society, it becomes difficult to attempt alternatives. It's arrogant to believe it's the best system with its many flaws. Some capitalism is not necessarily bad, but as even the wealthiest countries show, it does need regulation and adjustments.
There is also no reason to believe that capitalism is the best system available. There are many of other theories and systems of government that have never been tried. Unfortunately, because capitalism is so entrenched in our society, it becomes difficult to attempt alternatives. It's arrogant to believe it's the best system with its many flaws. Some capitalism is not necessarily bad, but as even the wealthiest countries show, it does need regulation and adjustments.
You know that's funny, because Figure 8 shows that protecting property rights does in fact solve income inequality and poverty.