Replies

The basic point is correct, however the writer injects largely irrelevant issues, which partially disguise her basic point.

We have dealt with the unsuitability of Democracy in most multi-racial, multi-ethnic lands, in a number of essays. While the basic malefactor leading to the persecution of the high achievers, is not Capitalism, but the demagoguery of Socialists, the phenomenon is not limited to post Marxian assaults on human success. (For example, see Compulsion For Uniformity.)

For more on the Socialist aspect of the onslaught against high achievers, see The Lies Of Socialism. For more on the unsuitability of Democracy for many Third World countries, in part because of the factors which the writer discusses, see Democracy In The Third World.

William Flax

Its not necessary to agree with every line of this article to see that it is a valuable piece of analysis. She is correct in noting that there is tremendous resentment of the wealthy in third world nations. The resentment comes from the belief that the wealth is somehow unfairly obtained. It often is, of course.

In countries where rule of law is weak or non-existent, the protection of property comes completely from personal relations. That is what we call "corruption". Corruption comes in more than one variety; there is obviously the venal, greed-driven variety, but it remains a fact that where rule of law is imperfect the reliance on personal contacts is the necessary replacement.

Thus, in most corrupt third world countries, the corruption is a necessary feature of life. I don't mean that in a cynical way, but as a simple statement of reality.

Furthermore, in societies where the legislative body pumps out volumes of intrusive and contradictory laws, corruption is how normal people create a space for personal liberty. Such societies are often more free at a practical level than advanced societies, because law has become so restrictive that it breaks down and people revert to custom and personal ethics, with "corruption" to grease the legal gearbox.

But you can only navigate such societies if you have friends or family in the institutions that affect you, or you have to money to hire attorneys who will navigate these waters for you, paying the fees you might be too proper to pay yourself.

But the people who do not have these contacts, and these attorneys are bound to resent those who do. We understand that wealth is the natural byproduct of productive work. But in third world countries, everyone works, and the entrepreneurial spirit is often pervasive at all levels of society. But where rule of law is weak, those without contacts cannot easily defend the fruit of their labor. Therefor they cannot accumulate wealth, or borrow against it, or defend it in court.

In a democracy, as the article points out, they suddenly have political power, and politicians promise to correct injustices in the system. But since no one understands the source of the injustice, they can only exacerbate it. Each successive government enters office promising to set things aright, passing reform after reform, but often the reforms simply add confusion and uncertainty, and reduce the security of property rights. The natural reaction to more intrusive laws is to resort to personal contacts to finesse the system.

In other words, efforts to make life more fair simply result in more uncertainty, more corruption, and more perceived unfairness.

The answer, as others have noted, is personal liberty, clear and predictable commercial law, honest and transparent courts. "Rule of law", in other words. But "rule of law" will never satisfy people who do not understand how wealth is created, and it will never satisfy people to tell them that there is no magic bullet.

In a poor society, people who have mastered business and technical skills are often resented. Where they are of a different ethnic origen, the resentment almost unavoidably becomes racial in nature, which intensifies the likelihood of violence and revolution. Crime can become an evil that is tolerated when the victims are the "rich". Where populist governments take power, it is not uncommon to see an explosion of crime, simply because resentment has been legitimized philosophically. The explosion of crime in Venezuela since Chavez' rise to power is not only due to the collapse of the economy, it is very much a symptom of a philosophy that justifies resentment of the "rich".

I have observed this close up. In countries where populism predominates, a management team building a factory will be resented as "stealing" jobs from locals, for example. People will look past the several hundred new jobs the factory brings and focus on the half-dozen foreigners doing jobs that supposedly their own nationals should do. The resentment is irrational, but it is real. The difference of nationality or ethnicity only exacerbates it.