THE NATURE OF PROPERTY IN SOCIETY: Toward an Authentic Social Science Alvin Lowi, Jr. November 20, 1998 (Revised 4-15-01) (C) 2001, Alvin Lowi, Jr., - All Rights Reserved PART 4 MANAGING PROPERTIES IN SOCIETY The social institutions of property and ownership give rise to proprietary, entrepreneurial or profit-and-loss methods of administration. As the institutions of property have developed and elaborated, the entrepreneurial pattern has grown in magnitude and spread in scope for the management of resources of every kind. Entrepreneurism has now grown to the point where it challenges the prosaic bureaucratic pattern left over from ancient times. The delivery of public services, thought to be impossible except by bureaucratic means just a few years ago, is now seen to be economic only under proprietary administration. 23 The competence of proprietors derives from their concentration on perfecting their own lives, about which they are the world’s foremost expert. However, there is the inevitability of competition in being able to do so, a challenge they are bound to face every day unless they can obtain political protection. A form of reciprocity develops between people acting in their alternating roles as seller and buyer in the marketplace. Unless legally privileged, they are always disciplined by competition from others acting similarly. This kind of reciprocity is distinct from that between individuals and their social environment as addressed in the postulate of socionomics.2 It is this form of reciprocity with its attendant competition that accounts for "government" in spontaneous society. As the late E.C. Riegel observed,24,25
Bureaucracy consists of administration by non-owners. In the absence of ownership, profit-and-loss management is impossible and new resources are created only by accident. As a rule, bureaucracies dissipate the resources under their control and are driven to taxing or pandering in order to continue in existence.26,27 As a result, the resources under the control of non-owners consist primarily of forcefully seized assets (plunder) or properties abandoned by owners (public easements, rights-of-way, etc.), usually under political duress. Thus, the existence of bureaucracies diminishes the integrity of property and impairs economic growth. Furthermore, the resources commandeered by bureaucracies seldom again become property except by dissolution of the bureaucracies, whereupon intelligent individuals can proceed to claim, consent and contract anew. Meanwhile, the assets are in a state of limbo insofar as society is concerned. (Present social conditions in the former Soviet Union represent a vivid case in point.) PROPERTY AND CIVILIZATION Clearly, the institution of property is a central feature of spontaneous civil society. This is not a recent discovery. It is enshrined quite clearly in Hebraic, Anglo-Saxon and early Roman common law. It is also found in Sumerian and many ethnic traditions. Moses’ TEN COMMANDMENTS represent one of the earliest known expressions of a community covenant of quiet possession.28 Wherever there is peace in the world, there is evidence of substantial compliance with these tenets. This result explains the value and durability of such moral convictions, although there is probably some truth to the cynicism of G. B. Shaw who said:
Thus, the strictly covenantal version of morality is inadequate to explain how human social life has evolved and prospered, nor how it is frequently exploited by those ambitious to rule over others without an iota of equity. However regrettable, it is a fact that some people use force in the pursuit of their lives, and such usurpations put the rest at a competitive disadvantage, at least temporarily. Consequently, the rise of gangs in proportion to the opportunity to obtain legal privilege or forbearance should come as no surprise. Since patience is a rare commodity among humans, and fear of loss is often stronger than the drive for improvement, it is understandable that some will be enticed to organize a retaliatory apparatus. Inevitably, as the history of such movements clearly shows, these apparati of supposedly retaliatory coercion victimize the innocent as well as the accused. The recurrence of such protection rackets seems endless and this waste is likely to continue as long as people focus more on protection than production. One should ask: What is the incidence of fraud and violence apart from institutionalized coercion perpetrated by organized politics? Is free-lance criminality as significant as institutionalized coercion (political government) in inhibiting social growth? If not, why not? Perhaps it is because most people acting on their own recognizance find the initiation of coercion against their fellows to be excessively tedious and hazardous, and not worth the increase in complexity and cost of living that results. On the other hand, most people really are preoccupied with productive activities and resent intrusions that call for defensive distractions. Although the desire for peace does not fully explain society, it may well explain the origin of and excuse for institutionalized government. But that only goes to show that government is not everything. On further examination it will be found that government actually has little if any positive influence on social behavior as such. Political government would not exist in any institutionalized form but for the prior existence of society or community and the substantial ignorance of the community members as to the nature of their prize. Without exception in history, political government preys on the society that sanctions and tolerates it. The admonition "Love your fellow as yourself" is among the teachings attributed to Moses.29 Subsequently, this expression was embellished to form the Golden Rule: "Do for others as you would have them do for you."30 These expressions, being stated in the affirmative rather than in a prohibitive sense, clearly anticipated the contractual aspects of property now so much in evidence. The apprehension and practice of this positive sentiment by entrepreneurs begins to explain how society actually works and grows. Humans find reciprocity with their neighbors agreeable with their natures, i.e. profitable. Notwithstanding the moral failings of humans alluded to by Shaw, contractual practices fully account for the fact that the earth now supports billions of humans in relative peace, comfort and longevity, whereas only a short time ago, a few million could barely subsist long enough to reproduce themselves. Indeed, until recently, few people knew their grandparents. It may well be that progress in the evolution of society can be measured in terms of what is happening to "property."31 Whatever improves the integrity of property grows contractual competence. The growth of contractual competence buttresses the expansion of the market economy evidencing a spreading of reciprocal human action throughout the population. In the wake of market expansion, a general improvement in the standard of living occurs along with an increase in human longevity. This is the creative thread of the history of mankind. CLOSURE Should the reader fail to notice the citations and credits listed in the endnotes, I wish to express before closing my gratitude to Andrew J. Galambos and Spencer Heath whose intellectual estates capitalized my thinking on the subject of property in society. I am also deeply indebted to Spencer Heath MacCallum for his years of patient cultivation of my thinking beyond its initial tack, and for his encouragement to write it down. MacCallum’s anthropological perspectives were instrumental in helping me overcome orthodoxy to become a student of nature. As a result, I was able to dispense with polemics and engage heuristic means for expressing my conclusions. I also appreciate the opportunity provided by David Ferguson to participate in the proceedings of the Cactus Club internet dialogue regarding his Socionomics project. Ferguson's questions have had exceptional value to me in inspiring further inquiry, as the introduction to this paper attests. While I find in Spencer Heath’s "Socionomy" most of what Ferguson’s "Socionomics" is searching for and a good deal more at this point, it is indeed remarkable to me that the latter was advanced in total ignorance of the former. It is a highly rewarding experience to be able to participate in bringing these two schools of thought together, and then to contribute the dimension of scientific method that came to me from the teachings of Andrew Galambos.32 |