Need for a Strategic Plan

In the previous posting on this subject, we discovered that using the United States Supreme Court to create law and impose the views of one group on everyone else in the country is something of a double-edged sword.  Specifically, when the slave-owning “interests” in the American South succeeded in making human chattel slavery a federal issue instead of confining it to the individual states, they got what they wanted — legal justification to extend slavery anywhere in the United States, regardless whether or not it was legal in a specific state.

The Time for New Wine

Today we have a guest blogger, Dawn K. Brohawn, CESJ’s Director of Communications, who crafted this New Year’s message a short time ago.  Although it’s a New Year’s message, it is appropriate for any time of year:

Why "Own or Be Owned"?

By Norman Kurland

Our evolving "movement" is made up of individuals. Some are more individualistic than others in their attitudes toward working in solidarity with others. Yet each of these individuals share in common an ability to understand and use in their communication with others such terms as "binary economics", "the Just Third Way", "Capital Homesteading", and, for some, even "capitalism" as that word was used by Kelso and Adler and in our "Glossary" of Just Third Way terms.

Kelso and Adler, as scholars are increasingly coming to understand, distinguished their property and free market-based and limited government system of economic democracy from what Marx and his inventors of the term "capitalism" meant. To socialists, "capitalism" describes a social order based on greed, exploitation and power over the most of humanity by a tiny elite. This is maintained through highly concentrated ownership of the means of production.

The global justice movement is united behind the essential triad of principles of economic justice (participation, distribution and harmony) and so-called "theory of capitalism" as articulated by Kelso and Adler. This distinguishes supporters of Kelso's vision of a property-based and just free market, limited government system from the system of political economy advocated by Marx and others on the left.

It also distinguishes the Kelso-Adler semantic use of the word "capitalism" from that of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman on the intellectual right. They take the word to mean "greed is good" and that systemic barriers to creating national and global of individually independent capital owners can be ignored. This is because (in their opinion) free markets alone without lifting unjust institutional barriers to widespread capital ownership will create a moral society.

Some of the Just Third Way supporters of the Kelso-Adler vision, including myself, reject the word "capitalism" as a morally confusing use of semantics. We would argue that if "capital" is defined in Kelsonian binary economic theory as non-human "things," and these "things" are integrated with all human contributions to the production of marketable goods and services, then "capitalism" is "thing-ism" and a "capitalist" can also be called a "thing-ist."

Differences in semantics exposes our movement to diversionary criticism from others that we glorify "things" rather than "human beings." But semantic arguments need not weaken the need for greater solidarity among all supporters of the principles, logic and vision of the Kelso-Adler vision of a new system of economic democracy based on equality of opportunity for every person to become an owner of capital.

Without economic democracy — articulated by a common mantra like "Own or Be Owned" — political democracy will never work. Being a capital owner is better than being a slave, including a wage slave, a welfare slave, a credit slave and even a charity slave. To strengthen our movement we need to tolerate differences, including semantic differences, as long as we agree on basic principles. If all of us reflect on and begin communicating the common sense reality of these four words to reflect the essential unity of our new movement, every "elevator speech" by each of us could begin with this term to open up the minds of others to "the new big picture."

We should invite everyone we meet to learn more by visiting the website of the Coalition for Capital Homesteading, and the growing "virtual libraries" of the Kelso Institute and the Center for Economic and Social Justice.

Words are important for uniting highly diverse people to gain a passionate commitment to a new and revolutionary set of morally compelling ideas, including our blueprint for changing the "social disorder" of today's world to a new "social order." "Own or Be Owned" can easily be explained to offer new and realistic hope that Peace, Prosperity and Freedom for all in America and throughout a more participatory global community.

#30#

"Nader Kindles Fires of Revolt"

This is the second in our series of letters we've written to the Wall Street Journal in the past week or so, otherwise known as "Letters That the Wall Street Journal Ain't Gonna Publish, or, I'm Too Lazy to Write a Special Blog Posting for Today, So I'm Glad They Didn't." Or you could just call it "Today's Blog Posting." Anyway:

Dear Sir(s):

Color me (pleasantly) surprised. I had no idea, from my previous experience with Ralph Nader [this was written for Norman Kurland to send], that he would come out in favor of restoring the rights of private property to corporate shareholders. ("Nader Kindles Fires of Revolt," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2011, C1.)

Nader's demand that Cisco Systems start paying out bigger dividends probably wouldn't increase share value. It would, however, restore some of the traditional rights of private property, e.g., the right to receive the "fruits of ownership" (income), taken away from minority owners in such decisions as Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668. (Mich. 1919), in which the Michigan Supreme Court did affirm the right of minority shareholders to a dividend . . . but only if (under the "Business Judgment Rule") the withholding of dividends did not harm the company.

Kudos to Nader for championing the property rights of minority owners, and challenging the erroneous belief that retained earnings are essential to financing new capital formation. Let's finance growth by using the commercial banking system and the Federal Reserve as intended, by discounting and rediscounting eligible paper. Let's make all dividends tax deductible at the corporate level, and put corporate income in the hands of people who will spend it on consumption to sustain effective demand at the level needed to make new capital financially feasible and accessible to enable all citizens to become owners of newly issued shares.

#30#

Own or Be Owned

Possibly "the" catch phrase of the Just Third Way (unless you've got a better one to suggest), "own or be owned" pretty much sums up the basic situation. Of course, it seems inevitable that some people, perhaps more hard of hearing than most or with low grades in reading or listening comprehension, will hear the socialist demand, "Owner, be owned." Disregard this at your peril, for it demonstrates just how widespread misunderstanding of private property has become. This is odd, especially considering the importance of private property as the basis of the civil order. A number of people dispute this claim, but the argument is fairly straightforward.

First, we have to understand that "property" is not the thing owned, but, one, the right each and every person has by nature to be an owner. Because this is a right "by nature," that is, part of what it means to be a human being and thus one of the rights that define each and every human being as automatically a "natural person," the right to be an owner is inherent, inalienable, and absolute.

Two, in everyday life, property consists of the bundle of socially determined rights that define how an owner may use what he or she possesses and even, given sufficient and just cause, what may be owned. By nature, every human being has the inalienable right to own directly, individually or in free association with others, anything that can be owned that does not already have an owner. If we left our understanding of "property" at that, any one of us could own and use atomic weapons, poison gas, bottle rockets, and red dye number 2.

Man being political by nature, however, and finding his full development as a person within a justly structured social order, it's common sense to say that, one, no one should be able to use what he or she possesses to harm him- or herself, other individuals, groups, or the common good as a whole.

Two, there are some things that, for the sake of expedience, the general consensus considers too dangerous or harmful to be under the control of a single individual or group. Therefore (without prejudice to the natural right to be an owner), there are certain things that society restricts to State regulation, control, or outright ownership.

It is in defining the exercise of property where most people seem to come to grief. There are many reasons for this, a few of which we comment on here:

Not understanding that private property is the natural right every person has to be an owner, as well as the bundle of socially determined rights that define how an owner may use what he or she possesses, some people conclude that "absolute" refers not to the fact that each person has by nature the right to be an owner, but to the exercise of property. Some people therefore claim that once they own something, they can do anything they like with what they own, as long as other individuals are not directly harmed. Harm inflicted on individuals indirectly, or harm inflicted on groups or the common good as a whole is not an issue, for other individuals are not directly harmed, and the individual is all that matters.

In reaction against this distorted understanding of human nature, others advance an unequal and opposite distortion. They conclude that, since a justly ordered society clearly requires some limitation on the exercise of property, property may be a right, but it is not an absolute right. This, too, confuses the absolute right to be an owner, with the socially determined exercise of the rights of ownership. It also changes what it means for something to be a "right," and makes something other than nature — usually "society" or something we believe to be God's command — the basis for rights. Since the State in the person of the government stands in for the collective or the community ("society"), the State, not nature, becomes the source of all rights, even in those cases in which the claim is made that the role of the State will be reduced . . . and its place taken by "social groups," which are simply the State under another name.

For theists, the shift from nature to the State as the source of rights has a profound effect. God, as Hugo Grotius reluctantly admitted, becomes a nullity, unless His followers impose what they believe to be His Will by force, and (literally) to Hell with anyone who disagrees. The dictates of church, mosque, temple, or synagogue must be enforced with the coercive power of the State, or God's Will is not being done. The "double whammy" of the totalitarian religious State becomes established as the norm in any society that dismisses private property as a natural right, or where people misunderstand what it means for something to be a natural right.

This is true even if the State is officially atheist, for — as the source of all rights — the State, in effect (and in a gross misreading of Hegel) becomes God. Worship of the State becomes the officially sanctioned religion. Nor are theists free of this danger, for the demand for an established church or official State religion inevitably makes religious teachings a political football, and turns religious authorities into enforcers of political correctness, or of politically inspired or influenced interpretation of religious doctrine.

How does this relate to private property being the basis of a just social order? Isn't, rather, the recognition and protection of human dignity the basis of a just society?

Well . . . yes, of course it is. But what is "human dignity" other than the recognition of protection of each person's natural rights, among which are life, liberty (freedom of association/contract), property, and the pursuit of happiness (the acquisition and development of virtue)? Here another danger surfaces.

If we leave the general "human dignity" as the basis of a just social order, and misunderstand or redefine various natural rights, substituting what we think they should be, rather than what thousands of years of human history have told us they are, we slide very quickly into a totalitarian political order. It is far too easy to admit the truth of the statement that it is an offense against human dignity that people live in poverty, are pushed around, and so on, and then make the leap that, because these things are clearly an offense against human dignity, respecting human dignity necessarily means that the State must ensure that everyone has an income sufficient to meet common domestic needs adequately, is accorded fair treatment, and so on.

That is, if people have a right to something, the State not only makes certain that others do not infringe on that right, it guarantees the results. The right to the means to make a living becomes the right to a living, the right to be free from unjust coercion becomes State enforcement of all demands as long as victim status is established, the "right to choice" becomes taxpayer funded abortions, and so on. In this view, the State in a justly structured social order guarantees not equality of opportunity, but equality of results. If a right can be asserted, then the entire force of the State must be marshaled to ensure that not only is there a reasonable opportunity to exercise that right, but all other rights must be swept away in order to guarantee absolutely that the desired outcome is achieved. Which rights are "enforced" in this way depends on who can best establish victim status.

Once we get specific about our primary natural rights and the secondary, derived rights, however, the orientation shifts back to equality of opportunity — and that means true equality of rights . . . and true equality of rights rests firmly on a foundation of private property:

Life: As Aristotle pointed out and Aquinas reiterated, neither the good life, nor life itself is possible without ownership of the means of production.

Liberty: Within a justly structured social order, liberty — freedom of association — is most commonly understood as freedom to enter into contracts.

All contracts, however, because they are "money," necessarily involve private property — there must be "consideration" or "inducement to enter into a contract," or there is no contract. You cannot promise to perform an act or deliver something of value if you do not have a right to the performance of the act or delivery of the thing of value, i.e., you "own" it; you own the labor by means of which the act is performed, or you own the good that is delivered, otherwise you cannot satisfy the debt created by the offer and acceptance.

Property: As Daniel Webster observed, "Power naturally and necessarily follows property." Property being not the thing owned, but the natural right to own the thing and the socially determined bundle of rights that define what you can do with the thing you own, without property you have no effective right to life or liberty. If you do not own the means of production, whether capital or labor, then you do not have the right to receive what that capital or labor produces. Your only alternatives to ownership are, one, to receive what you need as charity, two, redefine private property individually by stealing what you want or need, or, three, redefine property throughout the society, and base distribution on need rather than equality of exchange, enforcing it with the club of the State.

Of the three alternatives to private property as the basis of a justly structured social order, only charity respects human dignity — with a catch. That is, someone in need has a moral right to receive what he or she needs as charity. He or she does not have a legal right . . . and justice, not charity, is the basis of the law and legal rights in civil society. As Pope Leo XIII pointed out in § 22 of Rerum Novarum, "It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity — a duty not enforced by human law." (See above about the urge to enforce religious teachings with the coercive power of the State and the dangers thereof.  We won't get into the the dark hint as to what might happen to people who take God's law into their own hands and decide to enforce it; "Vengeance is Mine" or something.)

Pursuit of happiness: That is, the acquisition and development of virtue. As Heinrich Rommen, the student of the great Father Heinrich Pesch, S.J., in agreement with Aristotle and Aquinas, pointed out, "It is morally impossible to exist as a free person without property" — and he did not mean "private property" as redefined by the legal and moral positivists, the religious modernists, or by John Maynard Keynes.

Thus, if you have the right to take what you want from what others produce, either by means of their labor or their capital, regardless who holds legal title, you own those others. If others have the right to take what you produce by means of your labor or capital, whether or not you hold legal title, then those others own you. As William Cobbett explained, "Freedom is not an empty sound; it is not an abstract idea; it is not a thing that nobody can feel. It means, — and it means nothing else, — the full and quiet enjoyment of your own property. If you have not this, if this be not well secured to you, you may call yourself what you will, but you are a slave." (A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, 1827, §456.)

Own or be owned.

#30#