The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: markuzick on June 30, 2009, 05:35:42 AM
-
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227143.100-africa-alone-could-feed-the-world.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227143.100-africa-alone-could-feed-the-world.html)
If further evidence were needed, it comes in a second report, launched jointly by the FAO and the World Bank.
As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.
-
Aw Jesus.
-
If one looks at history over the last two centuries, all the significant progress in technological and quantatitive(sp?) standards can be strongly correlated with [classical] liberalism, and not state capitalism nor state socialism. Conversely, one can strongly correlate the hydra animal of collectivism with each and every war, the standard decline in all social and economic spheres. If the UN wanted to do any good it would mandate a classical liberal stance as a requirement of membership of all nation-states at minimum (as if that will ever happen).
-
If the UN wanted to do any good it would mandate a classical liberal stance as a requirement of membership of all nation-states at minimum (as if that will ever happen).
I abhor the UN as much as anyone here, but if you read the article, you saw that the UN paper, while it doesn't recommend it as a requirement, is apparently advocating an important classical liberal stance.
I wonder whether this is just a fluke or the first hint of a major paradigm shift. It wouldn't be the first major surprise in recent history. After all, if the "communist" states are the new frontier of the free market, then nothing should surprise us.
-
Perhaps it is a paradigm shift. But it will take someone with the balls and brains to leverage it. Otherwise, entrenched Marxist/Hegelian thinkers will nullify it.
-
Perhaps it is a paradigm shift. But it will take someone with the balls and brains to leverage it. Otherwise, entrenched Marxist/Hegelian thinkers will nullify it.
They didn't nullify the free market reforms of the communist block states.
Liberty may be "an idea whose time has come".
How paradoxical, that liberty may blossom in the world as America falls deeper into statist anarchy.
-
This thread is further proof of the old adage that only bad news sells.
-
As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.
That is the key private property ownership. The problem is the governments in these countries don't want people to own any of the land. Not that they would actually own the land more like a government lease through property tax. But too often many of these places kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Once a person builds something up the state steps in and steals it all for their own interests. People realize this and are less likely to work to hard on something they fear the state will steal from them ultimately. Unless they can assure people that in someway their property rights are guaranteed from one generation to next people will remain skeptical.
It seems those in power in Africa are fully vested in Zero Sum Game theory and don't understand that by letting small share hold farmers prosper their entire country will prosper including themselves. They simply fear that if they allow people to prosper some how they will lose their hold on power and risk being over thrown. Which can be a valid fear as many have been over thrown in very bloody coos.
Besides if they continue to keep their populations in poverty they can beg for foreign aid. Aid which mysteriously ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and not the intended poverty stricken populations. Poverty which their own policies have produced. It becomes a very vicious cycle for the people but is an incentive for the people in control of these governments. That is one of the main reasons I am totally against foreign aid it only serves to prop up bad governments. The countries which have turned themselves around are the ones which don't seem to get much foreign aid.
-
As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.
That is the key private property ownership. The problem is the governments in these countries don't want people to own any of the land. Not that they would actually own the land more like a government lease through property tax. But too often many of these places kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Once a person builds something up the state steps in and steals it all for their own interests. People realize this and are less likely to work to hard on something they fear the state will steal from them ultimately. Unless they can assure people that in someway their property rights are guaranteed from one generation to next people will remain skeptical.
It seems those in power in Africa are fully vested in Zero Sum Game theory and don't understand that by letting small share hold farmers prosper their entire country will prosper including themselves. They simply fear that if they allow people to prosper some how they will lose their hold on power and risk being over thrown. Which can be a valid fear as many have been over thrown in very bloody coos.
Besides if they continue to keep their populations in poverty they can beg for foreign aid. Aid which mysteriously ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and not the intended poverty stricken populations. Poverty which their own policies have produced. It becomes a very vicious cycle for the people but is an incentive for the people in control of these governments. That is one of the main reasons I am totally against foreign aid it only serves to prop up bad governments. The countries which have turned themselves around are the ones which don't seem to get much foreign aid.
Apparently, some people working for the UN have taken cognizance of this.
Please take no offense, but I actually prefer the UN's wording "rights in land" to your "ownership of land" as a more principled position, as no one can legitimately own nature itself. A monopoly over land is the essence of statism. What's the world coming to when I believe that the UN has made a more principled statement than you?
-
As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.
That is the key private property ownership. The problem is the governments in these countries don't want people to own any of the land. Not that they would actually own the land more like a government lease through property tax. But too often many of these places kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Once a person builds something up the state steps in and steals it all for their own interests. People realize this and are less likely to work to hard on something they fear the state will steal from them ultimately. Unless they can assure people that in someway their property rights are guaranteed from one generation to next people will remain skeptical.
It seems those in power in Africa are fully vested in Zero Sum Game theory and don't understand that by letting small share hold farmers prosper their entire country will prosper including themselves. They simply fear that if they allow people to prosper some how they will lose their hold on power and risk being over thrown. Which can be a valid fear as many have been over thrown in very bloody coos.
Besides if they continue to keep their populations in poverty they can beg for foreign aid. Aid which mysteriously ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and not the intended poverty stricken populations. Poverty which their own policies have produced. It becomes a very vicious cycle for the people but is an incentive for the people in control of these governments. That is one of the main reasons I am totally against foreign aid it only serves to prop up bad governments. The countries which have turned themselves around are the ones which don't seem to get much foreign aid.
Apparently, some people working for the UN have taken cognizance of this.
Please take no offense, but I actually prefer the UN's wording "rights in land" to your "ownership of land" as a more principled position, as no one can legitimately own nature itself. A monopoly over land is the essence of statism. What's the world coming to when I believe that the UN has made a more principled statement than you?
I think that rights in land is that if a person is utilizing a piece of land they have a right to what they produce on that land. But if the land isn't being used a person has no right to keep others from utilizing the land. It is something of a Native American concept. But they tended to mean only members of the tribe had rights to the land and would defend it from other tribes if I understand correctly. Another problem with this concept is that farm land has to rest some times or be used in less productive ways so that it can recover. Even with private ownership that can be a problem as people overwork the land and ultimately render it fallow by not letting it rest. This only applies to farming endeavors but buildings and factories are a whole other ball of wax. I am trying to understand the concept but I might ultimately reject if for private property ownership.
-
As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.
That is the key private property ownership. The problem is the governments in these countries don't want people to own any of the land. Not that they would actually own the land more like a government lease through property tax. But too often many of these places kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Once a person builds something up the state steps in and steals it all for their own interests. People realize this and are less likely to work to hard on something they fear the state will steal from them ultimately. Unless they can assure people that in someway their property rights are guaranteed from one generation to next people will remain skeptical.
It seems those in power in Africa are fully vested in Zero Sum Game theory and don't understand that by letting small share hold farmers prosper their entire country will prosper including themselves. They simply fear that if they allow people to prosper some how they will lose their hold on power and risk being over thrown. Which can be a valid fear as many have been over thrown in very bloody coos.
Besides if they continue to keep their populations in poverty they can beg for foreign aid. Aid which mysteriously ends up in the hands of corrupt officials and not the intended poverty stricken populations. Poverty which their own policies have produced. It becomes a very vicious cycle for the people but is an incentive for the people in control of these governments. That is one of the main reasons I am totally against foreign aid it only serves to prop up bad governments. The countries which have turned themselves around are the ones which don't seem to get much foreign aid.
Apparently, some people working for the UN have taken cognizance of this.
Please take no offense, but I actually prefer the UN's wording "rights in land" to your "ownership of land" as a more principled position, as no one can legitimately own nature itself. A monopoly over land is the essence of statism. What's the world coming to when I believe that the UN has made a more principled statement than you?
I think that rights in land is that if a person is utilizing a piece of land they have a right to what they produce on that land. But if the land isn't being used a person has no right to keep others from utilizing the land. It is something of a Native American concept. But they tended to mean only members of the tribe had rights to the land and would defend it from other tribes if I understand correctly. Another problem with this concept is that farm land has to rest some times or be used in less productive ways so that it can recover. Even with private ownership that can be a problem as people overwork the land and ultimately render it fallow by not letting it rest. This only applies to farming endeavors but buildings and factories are a whole other ball of wax. I am trying to understand the concept but I might ultimately reject if for private property ownership.
Maybe I can help stimulate your creative powers toward finding a solution to your conflicting feelings about the source of property rights in land by comparing them to property rights in air:
I think that we can agree that anyone who, for example, breaths, uses an engine that breaths, owns a windmill, gets protection from harmful extra-planetary radiation from the atmosphere, flies a balloon or a plane, etc., can be said to use the air and to, therefore have property rights that are based upon his rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in his uses of the air. He cannot be said to own the air or have the right to exclude anyone else from the use of the air or charge a fee for its use as long as they do not interfere with his pre established rights.
The air itself cannot be owned anymore that any other natural resource. The state enslaves Man by claiming monopolies over natural resources in the name of the collective that they call the nation or if they are really ambitious they call it Mankind, making each individual dependent upon the state for the right to exist at all. Each of us must buy, lease or be granted the privilege to access the natural resources that he needs to live and prosper. If one is rich or in the good graces of those in power, he can "own" natural resources that are granted, not by moral law, but by the fiat of the state and so have his own very comfortable fiefdom within the protection of the state. For example, think of the old Civil Aeronautics Board and the monopolies it granted to favored airlines.