Two Tales of Homo Sapiens the Animal;

[sharkman]

This thread is ultimately concerned with why some countries are poor and other countries are rich. Adam Smith wrote a book about 250 years ago about the very question and his ideas stand the test of time. Nowadays, the faddish term is the "rule of law". In my mind, that means that property rights must be respected and there must be functioning contract law.

Societies that define property rights and have functioning contract law will generally be well off or as well off as they can be. Without these "rules of law", no matter how much charity or aid is given, nothing much will change. Haiti has been on the dole for about 50 years and I don't think any aid project has accomplished anything sustainable in that time.

I think this issue gets at the issue better than the knee jerk responses aimed at jbg. Societies that agree to live with property rights and contract law do rise above the others. It seems to me that some cultures, including certain Muslim ones that do not allow such things, suffer greatly.

[August1991]

Without getting into your theory on property and contract law and how this affects rich or poor countries, the term "rule of law" does not mean quite what you imply in your post. The "rule of law" generally stands for the principle that no one is above the law, including governments and government officials. It does not relate specifically to property or contract law. The idea has been around for quite some time; the Magna Carta is an example of the principle.

bk59, I hope I'm not indulging in thread drift but with such an OP, anything goes.

Many people interpret the phrase "rule of law" to mean what they happen to believe. Have you ever heard the expression "The Golden Rule"? He who has the gold makes the rules...

Your reference to "no one is above the law" is a rather ordinary interpretation of the phrase "rule of law". Rather than the Magna Carta, your view is the "rule of law" as applied in hockey games. The referee decides and that's it.

IOW, the term "Rule of Law" is open to interpretation and many people around the world have done exactly that.

To me, the rule of law must mean that property rights are respected and contract law exists. There are many ways to define property but successful societies define property in a way that is clear and simple to define. Good legal systems deal with questions of succession and moveable property. As to contract law, good legal systems resolve litigation at low cost. They allow for conveyances but restrict them.

----

The only way we can be better off is if we work collectively and co-operate. For the moment, the best way we have found to co-operate is through free markets with prices. Such a mechanism requires property rights and contracting rules. It should be no surprise that the richest societies in the world are those where people have defined property and can easily trade their property with others in markets with prices.

Too many people in the world live where their property is not clearly defined and where any contract has no firm rule. Not surprisingly, such people remain poor.

bk59, I am sorry if this sounds abstract to you living in a rich country but in fact it is very practical and easy to understand if you have lived in a poor country. In many ways, I don't disagree with your original idea. We need a good referee who can fairly, quickly, clearly decide who owns what and who has sold what to whom. In general, rich countries have referees who do this. Poor countries don't.

Edited May 19, 2008 by August1991

[bk59]

bk59, I hope I'm not indulging in thread drift but with such an OP, anything goes.

Agreed! Besides, I happen to think that even if this is drift, it can't help but raise the level of discussion from where it started in the OP.

Many people interpret the phrase "rule of law" to mean what they happen to believe. Have you ever heard the expression "The Golden Rule"? He who has the gold makes the rules...

Your reference to "no one is above the law" is a rather ordinary interpretation of the phrase "rule of law". Rather than the Magna Carta, your view is the "rule of law" as applied in hockey games. The referee decides and that's it.

IOW, the term "Rule of Law" is open to interpretation and many people around the world have done exactly that.

To me, the rule of law must mean that property rights are respected and contract law exists.

Most people familiar with the law, at least in common law countries, interpret the phrase "rule of law" to mean that no one is above the law. It is a defined legal concept not open to interpretation based on whatever someone happens to believe. It simply means that government officials must obey the law just like everyone else. It has very little to do with a specific area of law. The rule of law does not really depend on a "referee". What it really says is that the referee must abide by the same rules as the players (if we were to continue your hockey analogy).

I only brought this up because you were talking about property and contract law. These are two specific areas of law. I was just trying to make you aware of the fact that when using the phrase "rule of law", people familiar with common law legal systems would interpret that phrase in a very specific way and not the open ended interpretation you were talking about. This was perhaps a minor point, but there it is anyway.

I am not as familiar with civil law countries, but it is my understanding that the concept has the same meaning in civil law countries as it does in common law countries.

As much as I hate to link to wikipedia, well, here is a link to wikipedia: click here.

This is just me being nit picky about your choice of phrase. I'd rather discuss your ideas on property and contract law in my next post.

[bk59]

There are many ways to define property but successful societies define property in a way that is clear and simple to define. Good legal systems deal with questions of succession and moveable property. As to contract law, good legal systems resolve litigation at low cost. They allow for conveyances but restrict them.

----

The only way we can be better off is if we work collectively and co-operate. For the moment, the best way we have found to co-operate is through free markets with prices. Such a mechanism requires property rights and contracting rules. It should be no surprise that the richest societies in the world are those where people have defined property and can easily trade their property with others in markets with prices.

Too many people in the world live where their property is not clearly defined and where any contract has no firm rule. Not surprisingly, such people remain poor.

The best line in your post is the following: "The only way we can be better off is if we work collectively and co-operate." I couldn't agree more.

As for the rest, I would mostly agree with you. However I would probably go a bit further. I think defining property and contract law is necessary. But is that enough? I am not sure. We could clearly define property and contract law and still have a system that is unworkable. If property rights only apply to white, adult men for example, I am not sure we can say that a workable system has been created. I would think that the definition of property rights must meet some minimum criteria before we can claim that it is workable. You can easily create a system of property and contract law that disenfranchises large minorities and this would be just as disastrous as having no property or contract law at all.

We must also be mindful of what we mean when saying property or contract law. In Western societies the term "law" has a very specific meaning. We talk about legislation and case law, regulations and administrative rulings. I would suggest that we should not impose this thinking on other cultures. Just because another society or culture has a different way of establishing "law" does not mean that they have no "law". Uncodified, social norms can sometimes be more effective in getting parties to adhere to acceptable behaviour than codified law. Simply because a culture does not have a written law, or more precisely does not have a law written in a Western format, does not mean that parties will feel free to break contracts whenever they want (for example). So we should be careful to not impose Western thinking or ways of doing things on others when it is not necessary.

bk59, I am sorry if this sounds abstract to you living in a rich country but in fact it is very practical and easy to understand if you have lived in a poor country. In many ways, I don't disagree with your original idea. We need a good referee who can fairly, quickly, clearly decide who owns what and who has sold what to whom. In general, rich countries have referees who do this. Poor countries don't.

Rich country or poor country, we are discussing things at an abstract level. In fact, these ideas have nothing to do with where anyone comes from.

However there is a second part to the equation. Simply having a defined property and contract law system (that is fair, etc.) may also not be enough. Without enforcement measures the system could become meaningless. An impartial system for resolving disputes and applying the system is often needed. Again though, we need to be careful not to impose a Western system on other cultures. A society may not have a Western style court system, but this does not mean that there are no enforcement mechanisms.

I think we too easily look at another culture and say "They have no property law. They have no contract law." When in fact the reality is that they just don't have a Western style legal system. sharkman's post above is a perfect example. He says:

Societies that agree to live with property rights and contract law do rise above the others. It seems to me that some cultures, including certain Muslim ones that do not allow such things, suffer greatly.

And yet Sharia law, followed in Muslim countries, does have contract law. In fact, it may be that some of the contract law concepts that we still follow today in English, common law countries were actually formulated and followed in Sharia law before they were used in English, common law systems.

All of this is to say that having property and contract law is good, but may not adequately address the problem you have identified. Many of these countries do have a system of property and contract law.

[CANADIEN]

The relationship between rule of law, that is the notion that noone, not even the State, is above the law, and mass starvation is an interesting notion. Disregard for that fundamental principle, as much as natural conditions or war, can result in mass starvation.

But the notion of property rights or contract law as a remedy to mass starvation or poverty fails to recognize two things. First, that the common law notion of property rights and contract law is far from being the only one - both these notions appeared in islamic law about four centuries before corresponding notions in common law, and put the emphasis on mutual obligations and fairness. Second, property law and contract law of a given society is only as good in preventing poverty as the justice found in its principles and application. One prime example is 19th-century Ireland - it had very strong property law and contract law.

Edited May 19, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

The best line in your post is the following: "The only way we can be better off is if we work collectively and co-operate." I couldn't agree more.

As for the rest, I would mostly agree with you. However I would probably go a bit further. I think defining property and contract law is necessary. But is that enough? I am not sure. We could clearly define property and contract law and still have a system that is unworkable. If property rights only apply to white, adult men for example, I am not sure we can say that a workable system has been created. I would think that the definition of property rights must meet some minimum criteria before we can claim that it is workable. You can easily create a system of property and contract law that disenfranchises large minorities and this would be just as disastrous as having no property or contract law at all.

We must also be mindful of what we mean when saying property or contract law. In Western societies the term "law" has a very specific meaning. We talk about legislation and case law, regulations and administrative rulings. I would suggest that we should not impose this thinking on other cultures. Just because another society or culture has a different way of establishing "law" does not mean that they have no "law". Uncodified, social norms can sometimes be more effective in getting parties to adhere to acceptable behaviour than codified law. Simply because a culture does not have a written law, or more precisely does not have a law written in a Western format, does not mean that parties will feel free to break contracts whenever they want (for example). So we should be careful to not impose Western thinking or ways of doing things on others when it is not necessary.

Rich country or poor country, we are discussing things at an abstract level. In fact, these ideas have nothing to do with where anyone comes from.

However there is a second part to the equation. Simply having a defined property and contract law system (that is fair, etc.) may also not be enough. Without enforcement measures the system could become meaningless. An impartial system for resolving disputes and applying the system is often needed. Again though, we need to be careful not to impose a Western system on other cultures. A society may not have a Western style court system, but this does not mean that there are no enforcement mechanisms.

I think we too easily look at another culture and say "They have no property law. They have no contract law." When in fact the reality is that they just don't have a Western style legal system. sharkman's post above is a perfect example. He says:

And yet Sharia law, followed in Muslim countries, does have contract law. In fact, it may be that some of the contract law concepts that we still follow today in English, common law countries were actually formulated and followed in Sharia law before they were used in English, common law systems.

All of this is to say that having property and contract law is good, but may not adequately address the problem you have identified. Many of these countries do have a system of property and contract law.

You put it a lot better than I did. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[jbg]

You use a natural disaster to try to show that a society has no respect for human life? Disgusting. Next time why don't you show how Americans have no respect for human life because New Orleans was hit by a hurricane.

Or instead of that, next time just leave your moral superiority at home.

The Somalia situation has been an almost never-ending natural disaster since at least I can remember, at least back to 1974. This is not a rare event like Katrina; this is an area of the world that always, except in freak situations, gets less than 20 cms. rain per year.

[jbg]

I think this issue gets at the issue better than the knee jerk responses aimed at jbg. Societies that agree to live with property rights and contract law do rise above the others. It seems to me that some cultures, including certain Muslim ones that do not allow such things, suffer greatly.

Thanks.

It's intereting that my fellow leftists seem to want to have me for lunch, and that the Board's right-wingers agree with me. I personally see nothing liberal in the Muslim agenda as laid out by me in the opening post.

[August1991]

As much as I hate to link to wikipedia, well, here is a link to wikipedia: click here.

This is just me being nit picky about your choice of phrase. I'd rather discuss your ideas on property and contract law in my next post.

The wikipedia article seems to give the conventional definition of "rule of law" which makes life seem to be a board game like Monopoly. We need "rules" to play the game and an honest referee to apply them. That's the same comparison that I gave above about a referee in a hockey game.

In fact, life is not a game at all and it is entirely wrong to compare a successful society to a hockey game or a board game. Forced to choose such a comparison, I'd say life is a game without rules or rules that we make up as we go along.

Successful societies foster co-operation and the key to co-operation now is markets with prices. Markets with prices achieve a phenomenal degree of co-operation between disparate, anonymous individuals. To function, such markets require as a minimum defined property rights and contract law.

I think defining property and contract law is necessary. But is that enough? I am not sure. We could clearly define property and contract law and still have a system that is unworkable. If property rights only apply to white, adult men for example, I am not sure we can say that a workable system has been created. I would think that the definition of property rights must meet some minimum criteria before we can claim that it is workable. You can easily create a system of property and contract law that disenfranchises large minorities and this would be just as disastrous as having no property or contract law at all.

Even if we allowed for slavery (and hence I could own you), it would become quickly apparent that you would want to buy yourself. In a sense, I object less to slavery than the fact that in slave societies, slaves typically can't buy their own freedom or the freedom of their children.

This question pales in comparison to the real problem in many societies today. In poor countries, many people have no clear title to anything and anything they may own can be taken by arbitrary decision. They do not trade what they do own because it is not always clear what they will get in return. Consider, for a moment, how sophisticated credit markets in Canada are. A young person under 25 can borrow several hundred thousand dollars, buy a house and get on with the problems of life. In most countries in the world, that is unthinkable - and young people's choices remain restricted as a result.

Moreover, disputes about who owns what matter to the people involved in the dispute but the outside world is simply concerned that the property doesn't rust away while the parties litigate. The potential future wealth our grandchildren or great-grandchildren will have is much, much greater than we can argue over now - if we stop arguing.

The relationship between rule of law, that is the notion that noone, not even the State, is above the law, and mass starvation is an interesting notion. Disregard for that fundamental principle, as much as natural conditions or war, can result in mass starvation.

But the notion of property rights or contract law as a remedy to mass starvation or poverty fails to recognize two things. First, that the common law notion of property rights and contract law is far from being the only one - both these notions appeared in islamic law about four centuries before corresponding notions in common law, and put the emphasis on mutual obligations and fairness. Second, property law and contract law of a given society is only as good in preventing poverty as the justice found in its principles and application. One prime example is 19th-century Ireland - it had very strong property law and contract law.

I don't know why you mention "common law". There are two basic legal systems in the world: the Civil Code and common law. While they approach legal questions differently (and specifically property law and contract law), the end result is similar. By and large, when they work well, they offer a quick way to decide clearly who owns what and they have standard methods to resolve commercial disputes such that side-payments are made to compensate parties.

Your idea (as well as that of the wikipedia article) that the "rule of law" means no one is above the law intrigues me. This idea strikes me as one of fairness. It seems fair that the law should apply equally to everyone. Yet, it is obvious that many good legal decisions do not apply that way.

Given some thought, when we use the term "rule of law", that's not what we really mean. IMV, the legal system of a successful society is designed to foster co-operation. It is not designed to be fair.

Edited May 21, 2008 by August1991

[Peter F]

It's intereting that my fellow leftists seem to want to have me for lunch, and that the Board's right-wingers agree with me. I personally see nothing liberal in the Muslim agenda as laid out by me in the opening post.

Actually, jbg, you're original post didn't lay out much at all.

. Who here was suggesting Muslims are liberal? Why would you suggest a terrorist act is indicative of a "Muslim" agenda? What agenda is it the the Muslims have?

Somali's have kids for the same reason everyone else in the world has kids - Its a natural function of being Homo Sapiens. The only way for Homo Sapiens to avoid such procreating behaviour is through invasive medical procedures and/or the ingestion of drugs.

To suggest that Somali's are brutal animals because they have children; by having fewer children they become more human; is pretty close to the stupidest thing I have had the unhappiness to read on this board.

I say that because you seem to be unaware that you live in a vastly wealthy country filed with vast and various resources that is able to ship practically any food you can imagine from the worlds most advanced agricultural industry, across the worlds most advanced transportation network, to your door via the worlds most advanced storage and distribution network.

... and your considered conclusion is: Somali's shouldn't have kids. You obviously have no idea what makes people human -- Here's a hint: it isn't money.

[jbg]

Actually, jbg, you're original post didn't lay out much at all.

. Who here was suggesting Muslims are liberal? Why would you suggest a terrorist act is indicative of a "Muslim" agenda? What agenda is it the the Muslims have?

It laid out plenty; that most of the gratuitous violence in the world is not the West's fault.

[Peter F]

It laid out plenty; that most of the gratuitous violence in the world is not the West's fault.

Probably not. No body/culture/government/nation holds any monopoly on violence. But we in the west kill, murder, and blow people up too. You seem to be suggesting that we do such things more morally than others and that our justifications are more sensible.

That is delusional.