Riches, poverty and the Kelo decision

A recent discussion on another blog about the dangers of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision generated over 100 comments. Kelo, to give a breif explanation, was the last of a series of decisions expanding the government's powers of eminent domain. It allowed  the government to take land from a private individual and give it to a corporation, based on the justification that the move would increase tax revenue. The backlash has been tremendous.
This was probably due to the fact that the expanded government powers weren't limited to poor 'blighted' neighiborhoods but also threatened wealither ones. Many states have enacted laws which forbid the government from stealing private property for some one else's private use, even if the reallocation would increase tax revenue.

More than 93% of the American population is opposed to the results of the decision. My previous posting was in regards to progressive vs. conservative opposition. I think that I may have overstated conservative opposition and understated progressive opposition in that post. Nader and Dean have both condemned Kelo. Volokh gives an interesting explanation of how Bush's "executive order" banning Kelo-style takings actually supports them. And while the justices who opposed Kelo were described as having a 'conservative judicial philosophy' they were appointed by Democrats, while the supposedly 'liberal' judges were the reverse.

Though in their defense, one blogger writes;

"In fact, the "liberal" justices in Kelo did exactly the opposite of what conservatives always complain they do; they refused to read into the Constitution a textually-dubious right, and instead left the issue to be decided by state and local governments, who are better able to address these issues anyway. If the dissenters had prevailed and the Court had drawn an arbitrary line been "good" economic redevelopment takings and "bad" economic redevelopment takings, it would only have invited endless litigation and discouraged any action by the political branches of government.

Granted, I've still seen a good deal more conservative or libertarian blogs on Kelo than social-liberal blogs. In part, this may be a matter of priorities; regard for property rights vs. (other more important) human rights in terms of the respective political bases. However given the above, part of the conservative base's rush to blame Kelo on "the opposition" may have been, in fact, defensive.

Because the theft of private property for the sake of corporate development in Kelo was justified as supporting "the public good," eventually, the debate spilled over into a broader discussion of economics and the "public good."

Generally speaking, why are some nations blighted with malaria, while we've managed to eradicate the disease within our own borders decades ago? Use of pesticides helps, certainly, but I don't think that's the end of the story.

Is innovation good? And if so, what types of governments or economies would slow the rate of innovation?

In a recent discussion with my girlfriend, she referred to her time in Uganda and how the most effective method to solve these problems was not to create reliance on foreign aid, but instead to be a "change agent" and alter culture from within. This seems like a good method to me.

In some cultures people tend to view all their income as disposable income and don't save or invest. Thus, there is no economic growth outside the accumulation of anecdotal wisdom through the generations. People need to invest, and need to feel that their investments will not be stolen. (Kelo impedes this, by threatening private property) Similarly, strong family structures promote investment in the next generation. And the American system of venture capitalism, angel investing, and IPOs has been helpful in seeing that the best businesses get the money that they need to grow. And that money is provided by people who are very interested in making good choices about who they give their funds to.

Government corruption of any form is a tremendous impediment to growth. When I lived in the Philippines, the country could barely fund its schools due to corruption. Policemen took bribes rather than writing tickets (I was in a cab and got to actually see this happen), those involved in school funds frequently stole or misdirected money to their own ends, Arroyo was caught on tape having rigged the election, and the Philippine stock market is so rife with insider trading that it largely fails in its purpose. (To help businesses generate capital for growth and insure liquidity.) To put it simply, for a country to be successful economically, people have to be able to trust one another.

Statist governments like the Soviet Union, and even the (relatively less corrupt) modern socialist democracies like Sweden are evidence that too much government control of the economy slows growth.

Sweeden's current economy manages to rack up debt even without the US's dramatic millitary expenditures and grow far more slowly than it's younger self.

Sweeden previously had a lower tax rate, no taxes on investment, was the most conservative, economically, and was the first to rebound from the Great Depression.

Equality of opportunity is important. Pre-colonial India involved a caste system which effectively prevented large portions of its population from capitalizing on their natural abilities. Many societies had similar divisions. The Roman system at least allowed some flexibility from generation to generation. Judiasm and Christianity are both include some ideological opposition to slavery, even though the faiths account for its existance within their tenants. Likewise, publicly funded education is important in this regard, since time lost in childhood is difficult to make up as an adult.

Price controls, subsidies, and tax breaks to specific businesses to induce them to relocate are all impediments on the free market and inefficient. Inefficiency means that there's less 'stuff' like medical care, good education, or other crucial goods and services to go around.

Finally, P.J. O'Rourke noted that lack of government control is not enough. Relatively anarchical societies like Romania are often violent and poor. The only possible exception I can think of to this is the breif-lived African nation of Biafra, which was an anarchy based on an extended family structure, and was relatively effective during its breif existance.

Industrialized nations, due to improved clenliness, an understanding of disease theory, and antibiotics, are enjoying a temporary break from pathogenic diseases which were the #1 cause of death for most of human history. Increased sexual promiscuity may threaten this. Paul Ewald makes a powerful argument that sexual promiscuity doesn't just spread disease, but actually helps it evolve into more deadly forms. HIV is one example of this, and the NIH, operating under an old model of infectious disease, seems slow to recognize this fact. Also, antibiotic resistance is developing rapidly because of overuse on humans and on livestock.

However control of disease is pretty easy for any modern country with a good economy and strong family structure. Epidemics take their biggest hit when disesases are simply not allowed to spread. Disease in general is not prevented only by the availability of drugs and vaccines to fight infections, but by changing the environment so that disease cannot cycle from host to host. Furthermore, STDs like AIDS are of such a nature (rapidly changing viral capsid) that traditional vaccines are certain to fail.

The crucial thing to a society's well-being seems to be, not redistribution of wealth, but finding ways to actually increase the total wealth that exists in a society. That's where any prosperity we enjoy comes from. My life is generally improved if my income has 20% more value each year, even if my neighibor's income has 100% more value. The only time that this becomes a problem is if we're competing for fixed quantity resources like land, or if we want to purchase legal services or possibly in politics. Though even in politics, if 90% of the population makes an additional 20% they can still balance out a 100% increase in the upper 10%. And if we're actually creating value by making new cars, new phones, new clothes, then it doesn't matter very much what my neighbor makes, because we can both share slices of a larger pie.

These problems of political and economic organization are basic.
Failure to solve them leaves a society open to a host of other problems, including disease, institutionalized theft, and a state of poverty that, from an historical vantage point, seems the natural state of human existance.