Afghan warlord

I was listening to some interviews about the Afghan warlord found guilty in a British court. Some important points did not come across in the online article.

First, it was relatively easy for the BBC to find this guy. They had reporters who knew a lot of people in Afghanistan. so they knew the suspect had come to London. And there was a fair sized Afghan community in London, so they knew where this guy was living. It was not as hard as you might think (according to an interview with John Simpson).

Second, the police do not normally investigate this kind of thing. Sure, if somebody else does the work, they will follow up, but they have to prioritize British villains.

Which brings us to land rent (you knew it would, wouldn't you?) The principle behind land rent is you own the results of your actions. The BBC spent a modest amount of money, and created a much greater amount of wealth (by making everyone feel safer, and discouraging future warlords). The BBC created wealth. But they won't be able to benefit from it, apart from having one more news story. So they probably won't do it again.

Now imagine a world where anyone who knew the location of a villain could claim the full value of handing him in. Not just some token reward, but the full market rate. What a great incentive! A lot more bad guys would be caught and the world would be a safer place.