A Tale of Two Gardens

A land owner had two gardens. He gave his first son the northern garden and his second son the southern garden. Each garden had equal sun light, rain and supply of workers. The first son loved tulips. He studied their varieties and the science of their growth. He commanded his workers to plant in his field all these varieties in colors and hues. He commanded them to rise early and care for this garden every day with no rest. The second son loved the garden and its workers. He gave them each a plot of the garden and told them to plant as they wish. They may work as they please, and sell their plot to another worker.

The two sons later died. In the northern garden, there was no one to command the workers. The tulips died and the workers abandoned the field. The southern garden's workers continued to take care of their plots. Lazy workers would sell their plots to give way to more eager and productive workers.

We live between these two gardens. We work for the son who treats the field as would a mercenary, without regard for the garden or the worker. The purpose of the garden and the worker is his own glory and the glory of his tulip. Some of us live in gardens where despite knowing a better flower, are restricted from growing. For some of us this is not flowers but rice, or automobiles or new business models that may lift our countrymen out of poverty.

May we all one day live in the southern garden, with a master who loves the field and its worker. May we live in such a garden where the master's reward is the growth of the field and worker for its own sake. May wild flowers in all their sizes and shapes grow in this garden with worker and flower alike surviving beyond the life of their master.

The Great Society

Why are we addicted to central authorities? Why is it that we progress to great heights in human progress of democracy, freedom, rights to property and the pursuit of happiness when suddenly tyranny prevails? Why does a society rich in culture and human values suddenly become subservient to a single leader that rules with an iron fist?

The Bible in Micah 4:

1 In the last days
the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and peoples will stream to it.

2 Many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

3 He will judge between many peoples
and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

4 Every man will sit under his own vine
and under his own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the LORD Almighty has spoken.

In the last days we will have a final sovereign king of all things. He will not rule with an iron fist, but with justice and mercy. Every nation will submit to this ruler. Finally, all will bury their weapons.

The greatest question that governs all debate is to what degree can humans govern their own actions and their own property, be that property land, votes, or resources. We see in this prophecy that the final yearning in human hearts for an ultimate sovereign ruler and ultimate personal freedom will one day be reconciled.

Every human being will sit under their own fig tree and their own vine. They will no longer fear. This is the ultimate fulfillment of property rights and sovereign rulership.

The True Cost of Compulsory Licensing

Brazil's AIDS program utilizes 'compulsory licensing' to provide cheaper medications to its HIV positive population in hopes of copying Thailand's strategy (Economist, A conflict of goals, May 10, 2007). What is the true cost of breaking patents in order to provide lower cost medications?

Rothbard defines property rights as two fold: 1) the right to ownership of your own person, and 2) the right to ownership of those resources or transformed resources acquired through investment of your own person. By Rothbard's definition, a breaking of patent, is a breaking of property rights.

The breaking of pharmaceutical patents has been a trend throughout the world, not just Brazil and Thailand. As a consequence, there has been decreased financial return for pharmaceutical companies on their blockbuster drugs. The Economist cites how the pipeline for drug companies discoveries have been decreasing as well as their returns in the market (Dec 5, 2006).

The true cost of compulsory licensing and the breaking of patents is the decrease of new drugs on the market. This is fine if we are satisfied with the current options we have at our disposal for our patients.

China's Substantive Property Protection Law

Hayek defines in Planning And The Rule of Law "formal rules" and describes them "as a kind of instrument of production", meaning the Rule of Law drives economic prosperity. An anomaly of this is the fact that a land rife with human rights abuses, corruption, and bribery has one of the largest GDP growths in the world. You know who - China. Let's assume that China's government officials are honest and report their GDP growth fairly, what do we make of this anomaly?

Surprisingly, Chinese officials have decided to become a modern society and attempt at property protection law (Economist March 10th - 16th 2007). This isn't something to cheer about because a look under the hood shows a substantive law rather than a formal one.
We learned from Hayek that a substantive law serves a unique group and must define the terms and conditions of every situation. As Hayek writes, "It must provide for the actual needs of people as they arise and then choose deliberately between them...It must set up distinctions of merit between the needs of different people."

Hayek's description of substantive law is just what China's property law applies. In fact it serves to benefit a remnant of their society while the pheasant populations do not. However, just this week in the Economist (Apr 7th-13th 2007), there is news of a family who fought AND WON for their compensation over their forcefully confiscated home! They are the first in China who fought for their property rights and won!

I'm not saying Americans are better than Chinese that made us inherently form a formal law system of government. It is something in our history that made a group of human beings who otherwise would accept and perpetuate a central authority, form a rule of law. My question is, why did the rule of law spontaneously develop in America? What made our history special that our country's foundation is stewardship of the rule of law? Understanding this, I think, would help understand how we can translate otherwise non-rule of law cultures into thriving societies.