November 5, 2003
MORE "PROGRESS":
-ESSAY: Private Property, Freedom, and the Rule of Law: Juxtapose the history of England with that of Russia. What emerges? The importance of private property. (Richard Pipes, Spring 2001, Hoover Digest)
I have long wondered why the course of Russian political history differed so profoundly from that of the rest of Europe, with which Russia shares a common religion, a common high culture, and a common frontier. The periods of freedom and the rule of law in Russia were always brief and precarious-fleeting episodes in the long history of autocratic government in which the country was governed not by law but by the will of its rulers. Some time ago, I concluded that the difference lay primarily in the weak and late development in Russia of private property, especially in agricultural land, which until the last century had provided the overwhelming bulk of its wealth.Western scholars have traditionally paid scant attention to the function of private property in the means of production because they simply took it for granted. The advantage of approaching Western history from the perspective of a non-Western country, such as Russia, is that you cannot help but notice the enormous role that private property has played in the West's evolution since the earliest times.
Economic historians such as Douglass North, David Landes, and Tom Bethell have shown recently how critical the institution of private ownership is for the development of the economy. The thesis has been reinforced by Hernando de Soto's studies of the contemporary Third World, which demonstrate how the absence of clear property rights in these societies inhibits the growth of credit and, consequently, retards economic development.
However, my emphasis here is not on the economic but the political and legal dimension of property rights. My argument is that such rights are a necessary if insufficient attribute of freedom and the rule of law-that is, you can have tyranny with property, but you cannot have freedom and the rule of law without it.
-ESSAY: Life, Liberty, Property (Richard Pipes, March 1999, Commentary)
As the 20th century draws to a close, the traditional threats to liberty no longer loom large. The downfall of Communism has eliminated the most direct and dangerous challenge, while the economic failures of socialism have discredited the notion that the abolition of private ownership in the means of production solves all social ills. Even though tyrannies still manage to hang on to power here and there, they are either isolated or else slowly yielding to the spirit of the times: the slogans of the day are democracy and privatization.Yet these welcome changes by no means signify that liberty's future is secure: it is still at peril, although from a different and novel source. The main threat to freedom today comes not from tyranny but from equality--equality defined as identity of reward. Related to it is the quest for security.
Liberty is by its nature inegalitarian, because living creatures differ in strength, intelligence, ambition, courage, perseverance, and all else that makes for success. Equality of opportunity and equality before the law--in the sense laid down to the Israelites through Moses in Leviticus 24:22: "Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for the home-born; for I am the Lord your God"--are not only compatible with liberty but essential to it. Equality of reward is not. Indeed, it is attainable only by coercion, which is why all utopian schemes presuppose despotic authority and all despots insist on the equality of their subjects. As Walter Bagehot observed over a century ago, "there is no method by which men can be both free and equal."
Ironically, the enforcement of equality destroys not only liberty but equality as well, for as the experience of Communism has demonstrated, those charged with implementing social equality claim for themselves privileges that elevate them high above the common herd, It also results in pervasive corruption, inasmuch as the elite that monopolizes goods and services--as must be done if those goods and services are to be equitably distributed--expects, in return for distributing them, rewards for itself.
And yet the ideal of a Golden Age when all were equal because there was no "mine and thine" has never ceased to appeal to humanity: it is one of our persistent and seemingly indestructible myths. In the contest between equality and liberty, the former holds the stronger hand, because the loss of liberty is felt only when it occurs, whereas the pain of inequality rankles every moment of the day.
The trend of modern times appears to indicate that citizens of democracies are willing heedlessly to surrender their freedoms to purchase social equality (along with economic security), apparently oblivious of the consequences. And the consequences are that their ability to hold on to and use what they earn and own, to hire and fire at will, to enter freely into contracts, and even to speak their mind is steadily eroded by governments bent on redistributing private assets and subordinating individual rights to group rights. Despite the commendable reforms of recent years in the United States, the entire concept of the welfare state as it has evolved in the second half of the 20th century stands in tension with individual liberty, for it allows various groups with common needs to combine and claim the right to satisfy them at the expense of society at large, in the process steadily enhancing the power of the state that acts on their behalf.
It's a curious thing that, no matter how much we all hate taxes and government bureaucracy, folks uniformly insist that we are freer today than our grandparents and great-grandparents were. Imagine if you were to sit someone from 1903 down and tell him about just all the zoning restrictions and the like on your house and the property taxes you pay, but how much more free you are than he. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 5, 2003 7:49 AM
You also have to tell Mr. 1903 how...
your kids can't sing Christmas songs in school
American history is no longer taught
if you employ someone you have to pay the government for the priviledge.
True freedom of association has been outlawed.
Yeah, much freer overall.
I read after 9/11 the greatest gift America could give the world is private property rights.
Posted by: Sandy P. at November 5, 2003 12:02 PMThe Shes and the African Americans and the Jews of 1903 might have a different take, however.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 5, 2003 1:41 PMThay all pay taxes and get regulated too.
Posted by: OJ at November 5, 2003 2:34 PMYeah, they'd be disgusted that they live in houses that are hard to burn and that when they call the government for help when a fire does start, they get it.
They'd rather be free to fry.
I find Pipes more thoughtful than most who write about Russia, but not everybody agrees that Europe and Russia "share the same religion." And the Russians did have that little interlude of 250 years of Mongol domination. That could have had something to do with different outcomes.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 5, 2003 3:23 PMComparing today's tax rates to those of 1903 is dumb. It's like comparing per capita incomes in different places without looking at local costs of living. Complaining that government's present role as the Great Regulator makes us less free is valid, though.
Peter:
I'm unclear as to why you can't compare the rate you're taxed at across time periods?
Posted by: oj at November 5, 2003 6:21 PMOJ:
Because price comparisons across time periods is practically impossible, and darn difficult over even short terms.
1970 Ford Galaxie: $4000
2003 Ford Taurus: $20,000
Inflation over the period: 500%. One problem though: you couldn't have bought a car in 1970 with anything like the features or durability of a Taurus, no matter how much money you had to spend. And that simple price comparison is extremely difficult to make over even a 34 year span.
And no matter how you slice it, 5% of darn little leaves a heck of a lot less left over than 30% of a whole lot more.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 5, 2003 10:35 PMJeff:
Here's a deal for you:
You can either work for the government for 5% of the year or 30%?
Posted by: oj at November 5, 2003 11:14 PMHere's a deal for you, Orrin. Next time your house catches fire, you can put it out yourself or you can call the fire department.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 6, 2003 1:13 AMOJ:
Lemme see. I have $1500 left over after the former choice, and $45,000 left over after the latter.
Is this a trick question?
I don't mean to justify high taxes. Rather, disposable income enables certain kinds of freedom (among them far more money to donate to anti-tax candidates, should I so choose).
You do an excellent job of citing the ways our freedom has been curtailed over the last (fill in the blank) years. But a far less comprehensive job of looking at the other side of the coin.
And you completely fail to consider the freedom of other than white males entirely.
On balance the ledger is far less one sided than you portray.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 6, 2003 7:43 AMNo. Jeff, that's precisely the point. As a materialist, you are looking at wealth. A spiritualist, I'm referring to freedom. Slaves lived more comfortably than freed blacks--it wasn't worth it.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 7:54 AMIf you are willing to live in the manner of a person from 1903, you will pay no net taxes whatsoever.
Your EIC credits and other benefits should more than make up for your property, sales, and payroll taxes.
However, spiritual or not, few choose to live that primitively. Contrast the Amish population numbers, with the population of the country as a whole.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 6, 2003 9:37 AMGovernment service. Lighthouses are another good example.
Maybe you've never even seen a lighthouse. I'll bet that if the drummers for the Lighthouse Construction Fund came to your door for a contribution, you'd send 'em away emptyhanded.
Nevertheless, your living standards are higher because taxes build lighthouses.
It's an involuntary benefit you are forced to accept, and the low-tax fanatics never cease to complain about it, but none of 'em ever opt out.
A child's ingratitude is not the only thing sharper than a serpent's tooth.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 6, 2003 12:51 PMAh yes, I recall when FDR built the first lighthouse and firehouse.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 3:17 PMAlexander Hamilton, actually.
Stevenson's history of lighthouses is one of those historical documents that makes rubble out of classical economics.
Lighthouses were originally state functions. When the state decayed, they were revived (after a lapse of centuries) by religiously-inspired hermits. This system developed into a private charity, operating under a government monopoly, which built lighthouses for profit and used the profits for doing good.
However, that meant lighthouses were built only where they could make a profit, not where they could do the most good for mariners.
One of the first things the US government did was to take over the lighthouses and build more.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 6, 2003 6:12 PMOJ:
Slaves lived more comfortably than freed blacks. Are you talking about the freed blacks of 2003, or 1866? I suggest you wander around even center city Detroit and ask an opinion poll on that question. I'll bet at least 100 out of 100 think it was worth it.
And, in case you weren't reading closely, I wasn't talking about wealth itself, but that wealth enables certain kinds of freedom that poverty doesn't.
Like the freedom to buy the computer and the modem to come here and learn from different points of view, for instance.
You aren't going to tell me that is materialistic, are you?
Speaking of lighthouses. Lots here in Michigan. Which meant lots of people had the freedom to remain alive. Bloody materialists.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 6, 2003 7:45 PMFor pete's sake Harry, lighthouses served a number of purposes that encompassed the general welfare. The bulk of federal revenue at that time was generated through customs duties and national defense is a clear federal responsibilty. The states had no power to tax imports directly only the feds. Fire co's were locally organized and funded, still are. Assigning all kind of power and responsibility to the central gov't by citing what they are supposed to do is like hiring a great plumber to perform a heart operation since he installed your toilet flawlessly.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at November 6, 2003 8:20 PMJeff:
Yes, that's materialism. There's nothing unsensible about trading freedom for material, but you do end up with less freedom.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 10:08 PMHarry:
So, there were lighthouses and firehouses without the New Deal then?
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 10:09 PMNot to any great extent, there weren't.
The idea that the market will deliver a lighthouse in a remote area is silly. Just like the idea that private enterprise will deliver good roads.
Never happened, never will, though it had its chances.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 8, 2003 12:21 AMThat's certainly true--only government would put one in a remote area, where, by definition, it's unneeded.
Posted by: oj at November 8, 2003 7:15 AMYou'll also mention to Mr. 1903 that:
That personal aircraft he thinks everyone will have... won't happen. See, there was this little thing called the FAA that stand guard and keep the skies nearly empty.
Oh, and space travel? Nope. NASA grabbed a monopoly on it and did zilch with it. 100 years in his future, private companies are just beginning to try for the Final Frontier, with lots of interference.
How about that anti-aging pill... well, life expectancies have gone up, but Mr. 1903 isn't going to live to see 2003. See, there was this thing called the FDA, that delays every single step of the development of new medicines.
So we're better off... but the life that Mr. 1903 reasonable expected us to have (and himself to live to see)... that never panned out, thanks to intervening changes in government.
Posted by: Ken at November 8, 2003 12:06 PMI suppose that's meant as sarcasm but is fairly accurate--NASA has retarded space travel; the FDA obviously limits the availabilty of treatments and makes research far more expensive; the FAA is a poor substitute for the system airlines themselves would have had to institute; etc., etc., etc.
But, again, your argument, as Jeff's, revolves around the notion that the desire for safety, affluence, comfort, etc. are more important than freedom. That is obviously true for the majority or else we'd choose freedom. But it does mean we forsake some significant measure of freedom in exchange for security. And that's the central thesis of the Brothers, so you'll get no opposition from us.
Posted by: oj at November 8, 2003 12:21 PMIn fact, mariners do need lighthouses in remote areas.
Under the market system, as highly developed up through about 1820, though, the only way to collect user fees was on lighthouses near ports of entry.
The cost of piling up a ship on a remote reef is the same as piling one up at the entrance to Boston harbor.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 9, 2003 1:50 AMBut it must be less than paying for the lighthouse or else the shippers would. So the trade-off is economical.
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2003 6:57 AM