Department of Impractical Schemes

I totally sympathize with the ethical position Leif Weinar is adopting when he suggests that dictators who sell their country's natural resources should be thought of as thieves, but boy-oh-boy does prosecuting them in court as if they were thieves not seem like a workable response to the problem. See also Tyler Cowen's remarks.

People often seem to forget when talking about foreign policy notions that it's not good enough to adopt policy ideas that express admirable sentiments about sundry global scumbags -- what's needed are ideas that are actually helpful, and few if any ideas for moving into a new era of dictators vs. democrats global clashes will actually have beneficial humanitarian impacts over the long- or medium-terms.

Comments

Are we going to back various ad-hoc efforts to try particular state leaders as criminals without backing an actual, daily, regularized system of international laws & courts which can be equally enforced whether we're talking about tiny marginalized states or global superpowers?

Because otherwise it seems wrong to speak overgeneralizedly about arguments about laws & trials & courts when it's really just a set of individually applicable initiatives.

Posted by El Cid | May 15, 2008 11:21 AM

"..it's not good enough to adopt policy ideas that express admirable sentiments about sundry global scumbags.."

Matt did you leave out a negative here?

Posted by sd | May 15, 2008 11:21 AM

FYI, the literal meaning of "scumbag" is "used condom." Really.

I just had to bring that up. The new popularity of "scumbag" and "douchebag" as general pejorative terms just bugs me. I mean, actual scumbags and douchebags are neutral objects with useful social and hygenic purposes--their indiscriminate metaphorical use of late seems stylistically sloppy.

Posted by James Gary | May 15, 2008 11:22 AM

What is the proper description of people who knowingly buy stolen goods from thieves over multiple decades?

Posted by Will Allen | May 15, 2008 11:27 AM

James, I don't know a woman in the world who uses a douchebag (at least in the literal sense; I've known many a figurative douchebag to be used by a woman). They all tell me they lead to yeast infections and that there are better methods for cleaning the vagina.

Posted by mark f | May 15, 2008 11:31 AM

Did we read the same article? He's not talking about just prosecuting the thief but also the fence who helps him get rid of stolen property. And by "legal action", I'm fairly sure he meant civil lawsuits and not criminal prosecutions.

In international law, there is the (under-used) "odius debt" doctrine. A bank that loans to a dictator for anything other than humanitarian necessities has no right to collect the money from the country once the dictator ends. Likewise, any bank or corporation that does with criminals shouldn't be surprised when they get sued or prosecuted for their actions.

Posted by beowulf | May 15, 2008 11:35 AM

The problem with this "ethical" position is how slippery the slope. He says the natural resources of a "country" belong to its "people." Well that is not really the reality anywhere. It certainly is not the law in this country. Property rights themselves are not immutable or natural. It takes an authority to define and enforce property rights.
The mineral wealth of Texas, for instance, which people does that belong to. The natives?, the Spanish?, the Mexicans?, the settlers who were granted land?, the settlers who bought land?, the slaves who worked on the land?, the oil companies that leased minerals decades ago? The state itself owns some in public lands too, but whoever it is depends on what the law is now and whether that law can be enforced.

Posted by doug | May 15, 2008 11:36 AM

beowulf, if I go to Best Buy to buy televisions every month, with full knowledge that Best Buy obtained the televisions from a thief, I'm no less morally culpable than Best Buy.

Posted by Will Allen | May 15, 2008 11:43 AM

Here's a nice rule of thumb, whether the people vote in a free and fair election to either share their oil profts equally or instead, give the oil wealth to their president's idiot son, either way that's their business.

The issue isn't whether they have an efficient or equitable system of wealth distribution, but rather whether the decisions are made democratically or by a dictator.

Posted by beowulf | May 15, 2008 11:52 AM

beowulf, if I go to Best Buy to buy televisions every month, with full knowledge that Best Buy obtained the televisions from a thief, I'm no less morally culpable than Best Buy.

Of course you're less morally culpable if you buy a TV from someone knowing that some fraction of the TV's they're selling are stolen than the person that actuallys stole the TV's. We may criminalize your purchase for good and sufficient policy reasons, but to assign moral equivalence to the two is just plain silly.

Posted by Led | May 15, 2008 12:24 PM

Will Allen,

I would agree with you, even a good faith purchaser of stolen goods has an inferior claim of ownership to the true owner.

Posted by beowulf | May 15, 2008 12:27 PM

No, Led, what is silly is to presume that one can willfully benefit from the knowing cooperation with other actors who are willfully receiving stolen goods, and be less morally culpable than the actor/fence who originally received the stolen goods. Initially, one may be marginally less culpable than the original thief, but I'd say that after mutiple decades of knowing participation in such a scheme, even that difference tends to fade.

Posted by Will Allen | May 15, 2008 12:38 PM

beowulf, in the area of retail sales of internationally traded natural resources, I'd say that good faith purchasers are so rare as to be nearly non-existent.

Posted by Will Allen | May 15, 2008 12:50 PM

And what was Marc Rich doing at the time Clinton pardoned him?

I believe it had something to do with "looting Russia" of its natural resources? Along with all the other Russian oligarchs who are now living in London and Israel.

And, uhm, exactly what part did the oil companies play in the Iraq war again, according to Greg Palast, who has the documents?

Before we go prosecuting foreign dictators, how about prosecuting the organized crime called the US government in THIS country?

Law enforcement begins at home, along with charity.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 6:00 PM

zayiflama haplari

Posted by zayiflama haplari | May 17, 2008 11:01 AM

diyet proğramı

Posted by diyet proğramı | May 17, 2008 11:13 AM