The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

More a problem of property rights than neocolonialism, right? Many developing worlds have this problem. Some third world economists say it is one of the largest factors to the great success of the west, the more clear nature of rights of control of goods.

The most ironic thing is that this clip is describing a former colony (India) acting as a neocolonial power. That's progress, I suppose.

@GeeSussFreeK, more of a problem with economic disparity, and studiously following property rights, I'd say. The already-rich have the property rights to the land, and they're using it to enrich themselves further. The poverty-stricken citizens of Ethiopia don't get any of the wealth, because they didn't have the skills to provide the labor, and didn't have any capital to invest or land to lease. That's capitalism.

Are you suggesting they deserved some sort of hand out?

Communist.

^NetRunner

You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government. It is to that I am referring. Many other third world nations do not have things like titles to land, a major problem if you were trying to get a loan. No hand out suggested, mealy clear lines in which individuals establish ownership/control over objects might help their situation some, not all, but you have to start somewhere.

And my comments seem to be breaking in response to some of your posts today, wonder what that's about.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government. It is to that I am referring. Many other third world nations do not have things like titles to land, a major problem if you were trying to get a loan. No hand out suggested, mealy clear lines in which individuals establish ownership/control over objects might help their situation some, not all, but you have to start somewhere.

So what's needed, in your opinion, is redistribution of wealth. Again, government is respecting property rights -- it just has them all. To "start somewhere" with "individuals establish[ing] ownership/control" over land would mean government hand outs of land.

You know, like the US government did with various homestead acts^*.

* Assuming by ownership of land you meant fee simple titles, and not allodial title
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And my comments seem to be breaking in response to some of your posts today, wonder what that's about.


VS gets all cranky when you quote someone using the at sign to direct their comment at someone. Usually stripping it out (or just the code around it) fixes it.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government. It is to that I am referring. Many other third world nations do not have things like titles to land, a major problem if you were trying to get a loan. No hand out suggested, mealy clear lines in which individuals establish ownership/control over objects might help their situation some, not all, but you have to start somewhere.
So what's needed, in your opinion, is redistribution of wealth. Again, government is respecting property rights -- it just has them all. To "start somewhere" with "individuals establish[ing] ownership/control" over land would mean government hand outs of land.
You know, like the US government did with various homestead acts.
Assuming by ownership of land you meant fee simple titles, and not allodial title
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And my comments seem to be breaking in response to some of your posts today, wonder what that's about.

VS gets all cranky when you quote someone using the at sign to direct their comment at someone. Usually stripping it out (or just the code around it) fixes it.


I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default. Does the government also own your body by default as well? If not, why the arbitrary distinction? If so, grounds for abortion are possible, as well as many other oppressive things. So I don't buy the claim that, government "owns everything", nor would you I would wager. Furthermore, their is a difference between distribution and redistribution. If there is X amount of unclaimed land in the US, it can only be expected that people will make claims for it. The fact that in most cases, the land wasn't bought, but rather given by homestead acts, it served more like individuals submitting initial claims of ownership over them. In reality, this is splinting hairs anyway, as there isn't much in the way of unclaimed land anymore.

I have often thought of using an idea something similar to the Ethiopian model of property rights, however, as a means to limit the ease of transmitting wealth easily (allowing for large accumulations of it) from generation to generation. I thought it might be an interesting means to stop people from trying to horde wealth, and instead, be constantly trying to create new wealth. Instead, I think it works backwards from that. Things you don't own, you are slow to invest long term in. If I own a house, I paint the walls, put in tile floors and other things. When I rent, well honestly you probably can't do most of things, but even if you could, most wouldn't. Owning something is as primitive as it gets, and usually the means in which we use to grow things. You only truly want to grow things that are in your control. If we recognize this, we can use the strengths of it, and try to deal with its weaknesses as best we can.

Not to be obnoxious, but you're arguing with yourself. First you say:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government.

Then:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default.

I'm not asserting that, you are. You can't lease what you don't own. You can't own what someone else owns. Those are property rights, no?

As for distribution vs. redistribution, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was an indigenous population that lived in North America. Also that the "initial" land ownership was claimed by various monarchies in Europe, who sent colonies of people to assert that ownership...

>> ^NetRunner:

Not to be obnoxious, but you're arguing with yourself. First you say:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
You can't own land in Ethiopia, you can only lease it from the government.
Then:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think I agree with your basic assertion that government owns all the land by default.
I'm not asserting that, you are. You can't lease what you don't own. You can't own what someone else owns. Those are property rights, no?
As for distribution vs. redistribution, I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was an indigenous population that lived in North America. Also that the "initial" land ownership was claimed by various monarchies in Europe, who sent colonies of people to assert that ownership...


That is why I hate talking via forums, if you try and condense what you want to say so it isn't so verbose, you get misunderstood. Not all systems are the same. The US system is NOT like the Ethiopian system in that government comes second, and people come first when rights are concerned. Or more to say, individuals are first, and groups second. I thought this would be clear, it apparently isn't. The Indians are all dead, that is how the story goes, can't change it. They weren't citizens anyway, nor were their property claims recognized. I didn't mean states "don't" own property, I was saying the idea when it comes down to a system that puts the individual first, it doesn't make since. SO it wasn't a case of redistribution in the since that is always meant, the relocation of citizens to citizens, but distribution of booty.

I think the least conflicting way of property rights, that also avails itself to massive wealth creations, and by consequence, hording, is that of initial claim. Just as one makes a claim to the first position in line at the post office. It is the most clearly understood universally that first come, first served. It results in unfairnesses at times, but dealing with those as they come seems like a better solution than having to make a moral derision on every land redistribution. First rights is the only means of rights language that seems to make since with property in the long term that I have been exposed to. I have tried several other models, but they all seem to break or be to arbitrary.

@GeeSussFreeK, I'm not really misunderstanding you, so much as trying to point out that there's another way to look at the difference between Ethiopia and the US than the instinctive "US is better because we have Freedom^TM!" sort of view.

Clearly you've got a viewpoint on the history, and think I'm the one confused. But look at what you're saying, and think about what I said some more.

In Ethiopia, they're obeying property rights, it's just that the government has the property rights, and doesn't have any interest in selling them. That's their inalienable right as property owners, assuming you "respect" property rights.

In the US, they didn't respect property rights because a) they took the land from the native Americans, b) the settlers here did so under agreement from their respective monarchies, and with the understanding that said monarchy owned the title to the land, though eventually these colonists decided to steal that land from the crown, and c) once the colonists stole the land, they engaged in a proto-socialist activity whereupon they redistributed the land from those who used to own it (either the crown, or native Americans) to any common man who was willing to stake out the claim and work the land. None of the things you like about the US would exist if they had "respected" property rights.

So, rightfully one shouldn't look at Ethiopia and say "they should respect property rights", but instead "they should have a massive redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots", at least if they're going to make the place more conducive to our conception of freedom.

*africa

Adding video to channels (Africa) - requested by longde.