Poverty and Property: Global Justice and Property Rights

This monster is my 100+ page senior thesis from completing my 2003 double major in Philosohpy and Government. The topic, basically, is how to solve global poverty, since we live in a world where over 20,000 children die each day from hunger and malnutrition. If something can be done, it must. I argue that there is much to be done, but it is not at all what most writers on global poverty suggest.

Comments

[Sumita Rachapudi]

Dear Rich,

That was a wonderful thesis! Reading it made me wonder why I didn’t pursue a thesis my senior year at Duke University. Also, I am sorry for not giving you my thoughts on this topic earlier, although I am glad now that I didn’t, as we do see very differently on the issue of global poverty, and maybe it is better for you to get your idea out (as in out for good ;) just kidding. Your idea of productive justice, though very seductive, is not practical. I am afraid that if you really wish to improve the standard of living of the whole world, you will have to take my side and that of the current political leadership on fighting poverty world wide, and start believing in distributive justice.

Distributive justice, the side you don’t want to take on this issue is what makes more sense than does the proposition you made so eloquently. For example in India, the government addresses poverty with the presupposition that India as a country has enough resources to feed every citizen, educate every man and every woman, and its problem of overpopulation. However, it does recognize that these resources are tied up at the hands of a selective few. It is hence the government’s job to implement changes so that the poor are able to feed themselves. Indira Gandhi, one of the prime ministers of India raised taxes for the rich and lowered them for the poor, and the tax break that resulted took care of a lot of India’s poor. During her administration, many people were taken off the poverty line and many people were educated, who wouldn’t otherwise be if it weren’t for the tax cuts. That’s the fix nationally. This strategy, namely distributive justice, is the right angle in politics.

I have a problem with your analysis of Kant on this issue. You say that Kant’s words, “freedom as a human being, equality as a subject, and independence as a citizen” refers to the rich as much as it does the poor. You are right literally, but Rich, the poor are made poor. They are not born poor, they are made poor! Most of the time, it is the either the politics of the time, or religious intolerance, or unfortunate circumstances (not just personally, but also nationally such as the colonization) that make a nation poor. What about the rights of the oppressed people? Fine, fight for the rights of the religious fundamentalists of India, and that of the intolerant Muslims and Hindus who burn whole villages of Christians leaving them with nothing, and that of the Britishers who took away India’s rights for over a century! But, know that fighting for their rights infringes on ours!

I do agree with you on your principle on minimum coercion. I think that any politics should be free of corruption. Even if we us coercion or bullying to achieve one end to poverty, that character will work against us in another situation. Also, there is no room for envy in global affairs, as it is an indication of moral flaw than it is a tool for growth. I agree with you that these principles that I am sure are being practiced in third world countries, mostly, should be corrected out.

I am also impressed with your suggestion of reducing the cross-continental tarrifs, etc as a means of getting more of the same goods to the poorer countries in “Forced Exclusion” Chapter. I think that that is a great idea, and could be of great benefit. I could think of how this could help India, for example. If we could reduce the export tax of wheat to India, that would help the Indian government buy more wheat from us and distribute it to the poor. Also, we reduce taxes on AIDS drugs to Africa, they could buy more for the same amount of limited money. There are things we could both work on getting implemented, as people who care about global poverty.

I disagree with you however on your discussion of “Assets.” To say that some people in the third world countries hide their assets to make themselves look poor is preposterous. True, some of the poor have a source of income such as a college degree, but due to the unemployment rates, it is nearly impossible to get jobs, and actually cash those degrees. My father told me stories about how people with M.D.s had to work as waiters because of the gross unemployment in the nation. So, these people are not disgenuine, but are forced to underperform until the economy improves, and everyone is employed at the level they are qualified for. The problem is not with individuals who lie, it is with the administration that makes them live a lie.

As for your discussion, “Absolute improvement,” I think that it is refreshing that you count one more baby being born in India and China to be a step toward improvement. Spiritually, I agree with you, “Children are an inheritance from the Lord.” But, politically, this is not so, especially if the children are raised in these countries. I have driven past the slums of Calcutta where I saw firsthand how five to six children are raised in a hut smaller than the size on one average-sized American home. It is pathetic. What we need are more good-hearted Americans who will adopt these kids! Making this feasible as well as educating women in the third world countries on how to use birth control are effective ways to fight the problem of overpopulation, and its contribution to poverty.

I have a lot to comment on your section titled “faltering foundations.” You point out that the world bank has failed on many of its projects across the world. As true as that may be, it in no way should be taken down, unless a competing organization provides the same services without the corruptions you so meticulously pointed out. Organizations and charities that help the poor around the world are so few and hard to find that I don’t think we have the luxury to criticize their work until more of them are founded. That’s the first thing, the second is that we must trust the good nature of people. You say that if there was free bread being given out by the United Nations, people who are otherwise well off would stand in line reserved for the poor. I don’t think that would be the case. A middle class citizen of a third world country would have enough respect for the poor to not accept free bread. This may be due to two reasons: first, s/he would defer to his/her underpriviledged brothers and sisters; second, bread being given away to the poor may not be as good as the ones sold at the local bakery. I don’t think that we should question the good nature of people in any circumstance. For example, when I grow up  I would like to establish free health care clinics all across the United States. I know that there are a lot of them in places like Miami Shores, but I want to make sure that every underpriviledged part of this country has access to free health care. Now, in going about my project, I cannot have mistrust toward an average American citizen and think that s/he would opt to go to the free health care clinic for a visit instead of paying the $10-$15 co-pay at the regular clinic. If I do that, my whole theory of undertaking this project would fail. I trust that a middle class citizen would pass up these free clinics, no matter how well-maintained and no matter how well serviced.

I do agree with you on your discussion of productive justice. I have never heard of the idea before, though I have seen it practiced. It reminds me of Oprah’s project around the world where she gives goats to the impoverished of Africa and Asia, and they use the animal as a means of income. With selling the goat milk, they make enough to feed themselves. I think such projects are to be commended and continued. I also think of this recent India movie called “Swades” by one of my favorite Indian actors, Shah Rukh Khan. In it, he plays an aeronautical engineer who works for NASA and goes to visit India. While in India, he is so moved by the current situation on poverty that he decides to build electricity privately. About a hundred men help him build the dam and the electric poles. The project is a success, and is a good example of how private business takes people off of the unemployed lines and gives them a means to earn their income. I think that more people need to practice the system of productive justice. The only problem with that is that it may require sources from other nations (an engineer from U.S.A. in this case.)

I know that you are interested in empowering each nation to be self-sufficient, but that is highly improbable. India often complains that its best and the brightest go away from completing their education. Each year, India lost substantial numbers of its engineers, doctors, and other professionally trained individuals to economically well-off countries such as the U.S.A and parts of Europe. However, many of these individuals are interested in taking part of their incomes or part of their service, which maybe more valuable in the long run, to India time to time. I think that this system makes more of a difference than does productive justice. This new emerging system of distributive justice can radically change India in a way the Indian government cannot. The plans implemented by the native government can take decades to have significant improvement on the lives of its poor citizens, but whereas the system of distributive justice can change lives in weeks. And, India of course is a case in point. The similar strategy can be adopted to other third world countries as well.

I really do like your theory of productive justice altogether (except for the fact that in some situations poor countries need the support of other countries in terms of personell or money to get started .) But there are cases of the kind of productive justice that you talk about, private practices founded and run by a nation’s own citizens. Growing up in India, I deeply admired my family doctor, Dr. Rao. He had a private practice composed of a room, and an adjacent waiting area flooded with people all the way to the street. He worked with very little equipment: a boiler to sterilize one needle after patients, gauge, a few bandages, and other items. He was one doctor in the area that people who could not afford health care could turn to. Consequently, he saw a lot more patients per hour than the usual, treating them as if they were paying the regular fee. My parents went to him because of his medial expertise (he was the best doctor in town.) This private practice that he founded is a good support for your theory that the third world nations should run their own private practices. But, these are not very prevalent. When we go India, we can visit him and his clinic, which always does quite well, even though many of the patients it sees are poor and do no pay for the services they receive. I guess we need more doctors who less concerned about becoming wealthy, and more interested in contributing to the current problem of poverty.

I sincerely hope that you are not offended by any of my comments. I love you very much, and enjoyed your thesis. I think that this definitely deserves a Harvard Honors award, and should be accessible to everyone in the Harvard archives. I just disagree with you on the practical application of your ideas. I think that if you really want to affect change, you need to fight alongside with me and along with everyone who follow distributive justice, and productive justice within the context of global distributive justice.

Sincerely,
Sumita Rachapudi

[Sumita Rachapudi]

I reread your article and I agree with your focus on other countires and what they have to offer to the rest of the world, actually. So, you are right on!