As the controversy over the relationship between intellectual property and international development heats up, it is worth remembering that the same basic forces now working to undermine IP have spent decades destroying the security of plain old physical property.

So, before accepting any new nostrums from these dubious doctors, one should inquire about the efficacy of their old ones, which are in fact worthy of the classic Steve Martin routine on Theodoric of York: Medieval Barber.

Ronald Bailey of Reason commented about a recent report by the Friends of the Earth International:

In many of the instances cited by FOE where poor people and natural resources are being misused or abused, there are no clear property rights. In some cases, the governments simply assert ownership and ride roughshod over the desires of the local people who were under the impression that the land was theirs. In others, corrupt national governments collude with powerful interests to seize poor peoples' lands and resources.

Amusingly, while the FOE report insists on all kinds of rights for the world's poor, including environmental, human, political, collective, legal, and women's rights, there is in the report not a single mention of the word "property," as in "property rights."
. . . .
Friends of the Earth would do well to read the work of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, who has minutely detailed how the lack of property rights throughout the developing world keeps billions poor. . . . . FOE researchers who put together the group's report are so devoted to an anti-capitalist and anti-globalization ideology that they don't notice how strongly their case studies support De Soto's larger point. The poor benefit from secure private property rights even more than the rich do.

Property rights are at the core of human empowerment, the foundation of human, political, and women's rights (some of the rights enumerated in the FOE list). Ignore, fail to enforce, or expropriate property rights and you undermine other rights.

"It cannot be doubted that among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory state action by the Fourteenth Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own and dispose of property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of that Amendment as an essential pre-condition to the realization of other basic civil rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee." Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 10 . . . . . [T]he dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth a "personal" right, whether the "property" in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized. J. Locke, Of Civil Government 82-85 (1924); J. Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, in F. Coker, Democracy, Liberty, and Property 121-132 (1942); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *138-140. (Emphasis added.)

Or, of course, the world can choose the modern-day Theodorics:

Unfortunately, we barbers aren't gods. You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach.

posted by James DeLong @ 8:26 AM | International

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)