"My principles are those of cooperative individualism."
Would Henry George agree?

Edward J. Dodson

[Reprinted from Fragments, ...... 2001]

For reasons neither the behavioral nor the biological scientists have yet to explain, some few of us are born with an insatiable appetite for unraveling mysteries. We are all born with an instinctive moral sense of right and wrong, nurtured from birth by those around us and by society. Nature and nurture combine in some fashion so that each person develops a sense of self. Some accept the status quo or become resigned to it. Some find refuge as "true believers" in hierarchical and rigid socio-religious-political collectives. Some are unable to cope and passively withdraw. And, some of us are drawn to the experience of inquiry, in search of universal first principles that perfect our moral sense of right and wrong. This quest and the thrill experienced by discovery is, in my view, the fundamental and most important difference between us and the other species of animals. I have long been absorbed by this quest, and in the year 1980 I began, with some expectation of discovery, the study of Henry George's writings and ideas. As with many who made this journey before me, I was not disappointed.

Henry George is often described as a "self-taught" political economist because he attended no college or university and sat in no classroom with other students in pursuit of a degree. Instead, he embarked on a journey of skeptical research and discovery of his own design. Many others who came before and who were George's contemporaries did the same. What distances George's accomplishment from these others is an intangible - he acquired a deeper (and, to my satisfaction) a truer moral sense of right and wrong. This difference is, of course, a difference of degree. And, I have no insight into the relative importance of nature versus nurture as causal factors. Whatever the source of his abilities, however, Henry George came to see more clearly than most others, and expressed more clearly than virtually any others before him, truths he reasoned to be self-evident. His contribution to political economy, important as it was, must be relegated to a subordinate position to his contribution to moral philosophy.

Political economy had always been a tool of the moral philosopher. However, by the time Henry George became a public figure, the modern era of specialization was already well under way. The military-industrial State, engaged in acquisitive adventures of an ever-expanding scale, required a cadre of technicians trained in the arts of planning and production. Success on the battlefield required that the State know what resources were available and how to best command their reallocation as needed. Economics was born to serve this mission, and the universities were funded to recruit and train people in economics to meet the needs of the State. Although a global movement involving tens of thousands of supporters developed around the person of Henry George, they were irrelevant to the real struggle of the times - that between the industrial-landlord statists and the socialistic statists. Only a few of Henry George's supporters themselves grasped and accepted the essence of the moral principles espoused by George. Most were captivated by George's revelation that the cause of poverty was monopolistic privilege which could be eradicated by practical measures. Most felt this way, but not all.

Among those whose thinking was stimulated and influenced by reading Henry George or listening to him lecture in person was Ernest B. Gaston, an Iowa newspaperman who pulled together a small group of idealistic reformers and headed south to establish the community of Fairhope on the Alabama coast of Mobile Bay.

Gaston believed communities must be constructed on the basis of just principles. He used the term "cooperative individualism" to describe the ideals upon which Fairhope would operate. Historian Paul Gaston (grandson of E.B. Gaston) wrote to me some years ago that E.B. Gaston wanted to organize "a Bellamy-like socialist colony" with the collection of ground rents on land parcels as one of the key principles followed. In any event, the future of Fairhope was determined less by Gaston's ideals than by demographics and external dynamics. Later generations of the founding families exhibited less and less interest in the ideals of their parents and grandparents, and new arrivals sought nothing more than a comfortable existence and steady employment. Yet, this term - "cooperative individualism" - when I first read it struck me as the very essence of the moral principles espoused by Henry George. I made this discovery sometime in the early years of the last decide. From that point on, my own quest was to fully identify and refine the principles of cooperative individualism, an effort that took the form of a course I developed (and began teaching at the Henry George School in Philadelphia) titled "The Search for the Just Society."

Drafting, discussing and refining this statement of principles over the last seven or eight years has often caused me to think of Thomas Paine and his commitment to truth in the face of unrelenting opposition. These are principles I believe Paine and George would accept and defend. I have, in fact, described Paine as the "architect of cooperative individualism" even though he never used these words to describe his moral principles. To turn a phrase made popular by Rene Descartes, "I think: therefore, I am … a cooperative individualist." Here are my principles:

· That, all persons share the same species-specific characteristics and have a similar need for the goods (e.g., adequate food, clothing, shelter, nurturing, medical care, education, leisure, culture and civic involvement) for a decent human existence.

· That, we join together in society to enhance our ability to acquire such goods and for our mutual benefit and enjoyment.

· That, the source of the material goods necessary for our survival is the earth, equal access to which is the birthright of all persons, as is the full enjoyment of what individuals produce therefrom.

· That, liberty is the basis for moral human behavior, inherent in which is the constraint that such behavior in no way infringes on the liberty of others.

· That, human behavior falls outside the realm of liberty and within the realm of criminal license when such behavior violates the liberty of others.

· That, the orderly functioning of society requires the granting to individuals of licenses that distribute privileges not enjoyed by others. To the extent such licenses come to have exchange value in the marketplace, this value is acknowledged to be societally-created. Justice requires, therefore, that society collect this value as a fund for equal distribution to all members of society and/or for societal expenditures democratically agreed upon; and

· That, a society is just the extent to which liberty is fully realized, equality of opportunity prevails, criminal license is appropriately penalized, the full exchange value of economic licenses is collected for distribution and/or societal use, and the wealth produced by one's individual labor (directly, or indirectly, with the assistance of capital goods) is protected as one's naturally rightful property and not subject to taxation or other forms of confiscation.

In 1997 my commitment to introduce these principles to thoughtful people wherever they might be gained momentum and new expression. I founded an internet-based educational project called The School of Cooperative Individualism. I invite Fragments readers to visit often. Answer for yourself this question: Was Paine's torch of cooperative individualism lifted from the ground by Henry George and its flame restored?