In the Best of Times,
Under the Best of Conditions

Part 2

Edward J. Dodson

[1997]

Private Virtues and the Stateless Society

The Underlying Principle of Justice

Identifying the point at which the exercise of freedom by one individual interferes with the liberty of others has been for the political philosophers a point of great contention. On this issue rests the entire basis for building a just society. A philosopher of this century, Mortimer J. Adler, combines the essence of Judeo-Christian teachings with the socio-political philosophy of John Locke in this, very thoughtful treatment of the basis for true liberty:

Liberty is freedom exercised under the restraints of justice so that its exercise results in injury to no one. In contrast license is freedom exempt from the restraints of justice and, therefore, injurious to others in infringing their freedom as well as violating other rights. When no distinction is made between liberty and license, the freedom of the strong can destroy the freedom of the weak. For the freedom of any one individual to be compatible with an equal measure of freedom on the part of all others, the freedom of each must be limited and limited precisely for the purpose of preventing the freedom of one from encroaching upon or destroying the freedom of others. Hence maximization of freedom for all, with an equal measure of freedom for each, is impossible without the restraints of justice which confines the freedom of doing as one pleases to conduct that in no way injures anyone else.

Adler's view that liberty must be constrained by justice lacks, however, a certain specificity. Certainly, to physically attack another without provocation is an action best described as license. Other actions based on the acceptance of certain socio-political arrangements have more subtle yet no less life-threatening consequences. Is, for example, an exclusive title to nature granted even under fully voluntaristic arrangements just? Does the individual have the freedom to relinquish what are in principle unalienable natural rights? If we do in fact possess certain natural rights, and these rights by their very nature are unalienable, then any socio-political arrangements inconsistent with such principles must inherently be unjust.

Given the constraints I have placed on the historical development of New Eire, the question I now pose is whether the society's history would unfold with liberty, or with license, as the victorious principle? This is not a Social Darwinist society in which there are no bounds placed on individual actions; there are accepted social mores and a means of enforcement -- banishment. And yet, one aspect of this society remains suspect: the legitimacy of how New Eire itself came to be occupied and controlled is only as strong as any compact made by a limited number of individuals of one generation. The only claim these persons have to the exclusive use of the island of New Eire is based on the claim of a right of first occupancy. Theirs is a society that tacitly ignores, therefore, the assertion raised by the principles of cooperative individualism that the earth is the birthright of all persons, equally. New Eire is clearly not sufficiently large or naturally endowed to support an unlimited human population; however, who is to decide who shall become a shareholder of the charter company and who shall not? Or, who shall be permitted to settle on New Eire and who shall not?

We further speculate that at the beginning there is far greater equality of opportunity -- as well as equality of condition -- than had existed in the Old World of Ireland and the rest of Eurasia. The founders made no attempt, however, to objectively measure their societal structure for its promise to achieve justice. They had experienced the state as an oppressor, had eliminated the state and found the result to be an immense improvement. For most, that would be enough. I, on the other hand, am unable to settle for less than justice. And so, I ask some additional questions.

Natural Law And The Market For Locations

Remember, if you will, that in New Eire there is no power of taxation. The setting aside of nature for purposes other than production of wealth or the conduct of commerce would occur as a shareholder decision or when individuals allocated their own incomes in payment of ground rents under charter company leaseholds. Each person would begin with a relatively strong degree of equality of opportunity; however, there would be plenty of room for individual differences to find a level of reward appropriate to that individual's success at operating within the constraints of private arrangements. Remember that those whose larger accomplishments were acknowledged received nonvoting shares entitling them to a greater distribution of dividends each year.

The question I now return to is whether the success of New Eire would last; and, if so, for how long? Are there the same seeds of monopolistic growth within this stateless society as have repeatedly shown themselves everywhere throughout history?

The key to appreciating the dynamics of even this societal structure is, I suggest, to be found in the concept of tendency. New Eire still depends in the same way as did Eurasian societies on the interaction of nature with human beings and the tools we craft. That is, the political economist's factors of production (land, labor and capital) are still the essential components to what is accomplished and by whom. The structure of the charter company guarantees to each shareholder what no hierarchically-structured society ever did. All benefited as the society's storehouse of wealth expanded and as the knowledge gained from investigating the laws of nature made new forms of wealth possible. All benefited by the absence of any authority that could force individuals to accept as payment for goods or services unbacked paper notes in lieu of money.

For a full century, the people of New Eire managed to live as a closed society, beyond even the periphery of influence by the core nation-states of the Old and New Worlds. Yet, New Eire was destined to come under the influence of one or more of these aggressive, hierarchical nation-states. In the end, the most serious challenges faced by the people of New Eire are external.

The advance of technology, the improvements in communication and travel between societies and the relatively free movement of people from society to society are important externalities to consider. Our experience has been one of a gradually expanding world economy. We no longer have purely national economies, with closed markets within which domestic public policies or private arrangements operate unaffected by the outside world. New Eire would be hard pressed not to succumb to these external pressures, particularly should it become the target of territorial expansion by an envious and aggressive state.

In a situation analogous to the debate now raging in the United States over social security benefits being paid to legal aliens or naturalized citizens who never worked and therefore did not contribute to the social security fund, the shareholders might reasonably vote to exclude new arrivals from becoming shareholders for some period of time. These persons who be required to pay others to sublease locations. How would they fare in New Eire?

A Truly Closed System

The advance of civilization is characterized by our growing stock of physical wealth and how this wealth is used to reduce the hardship of labor; labor saving is, in fact, the reason we turn saved wealth into capital goods. Henry George described in great detail how wealth production and distribution generally operates, pulled ahead or held back by the socio-political arrangements existing in society. Yet, a major challenge remains; namely, to explain this process scientifically in accordance with the principles or laws by which this closed system of wealth production and distribution operates. This is the task Henry George felt he accomplished but which his successors have largely abandoned because of the complexities associated with such a closed system analysis. The economist Alfred Marshall, in an 1883 criticism of what he felt was George's pessimistic view of the long run, noted:

Mr. George says that progress drives a wedge into the middle of society, raising those that are above it but lowering those that are below it. If this is true at all, I think it is clear that the great body of the working classes are above the wedge, and that progress is pushing them upwards, though unfortunately at a very slow rate. If there are any whom the wedge of progress is pushing down, it is the lowest stratum of all.

Marshall's argument was poorly supported by any real facts of the situation as it existed at the time, but turns out to be a fairly accurate short run prediction of what later occurred in the second half of the twentieth century within the social democracies. Neither George nor Marshall anticipated how two major factors would generate a substantial rise in the purchasing power of those who had access to little or no land. First was the gains made by trade unions in securing for their members greater security and a larger share of the value of production; and, second, was the competition by industry for highly educated and trained individuals required to manage an expanding array of assets and enterprises. As a result, George's wedge was hammered into the global economy between the industrialized nations and the so-called less developed countries. Poverty is not only still present in every society but in an absolute sense is growing (particularly when one includes in the equation the destruction of the earth's life-supporting capacity), so that in a large number of societies the overwhelming majority of citizens live at or below bare subsistence. And so, when looking at our world in an aggregate sense, George's analysis of the principles underlying the production and distribution of wealth demand closer attention. The tendencies for such relationships to determine the distribution of wealth produced were put by George into laws of distribution, and he offered his own vision of how societies ought to be organized and governed in order to achieve the maximum level of freedom consistent with liberty and equality of opportunity. Under certain, perhaps idealized circumstances, the contract-based society offers a viable alternative to the nation-state. At least that is what I have attempted to demonstrate by this example.

RETURN to PART ONE