Timothy Wilken
The possession of an object does not mean that the possessor has a moral or rational claim to ownership of the object. The political, economic, and social structures of our present world are all based on our concept of ‘property’ and property rights. Recall from the Basics section, my discussion of the shifting of human values as humanity evolves from adversary processing to neutral processing to synergic processing. Adversary wealth is physical force. Neutral wealth is money. And, synergic wealth is mutual life support. Therefore adversary ‘property’ is property obtained by force or fraud, and then held with physical force. Neutral ‘property’ is property purchased in the fair market, and held by right of law enforced by neutral government.
Remember Neutrality was an evolutionary advance from Adversity, at the time of Neutrality’s inception most possessions were adversary. They had been obtained through force or fraud and held with physical force. The new institutions of Neutrality never made any attempt to correct what by the new values of Neutrality would be past injustices. Neutral values would prevail in future, but the past was left alone. This resulted in the legal precedent wherein possession is 9/10 of the law.
In other words, at the time Neutrality was institutionalized, all existing ‘property’ whether adversary or neutral was made legal ‘property’. However, all new ‘property’ was required to be neutral ‘property’– that is ‘property’ acquired by paying a fair price in a free market to the rightful owner, or that ‘property’ which is created directly by the mind and labor of the owner.
Most of the founding fathers of Neutrality were beneficiaries of ‘adversary’ property and in no hurry to give it up. They also believed that in the long run these injustices would slowly be corrected, and all property would eventually come to be ‘neutral’ property. We will see later that this was not the case.
While synergic ‘property’ is not yet defined, it would have to be property that was obtained without hurting or ignoring anyone, and even more importantly, it would have to be property that was mutually life supporting—that is it would have to be property that had a beneficial effect for self and others. If humanity is to advance to Synergy, our concept of ‘property’ and property rights must change radically in the future. How this could work will be explained in the Future section, but now let us examine ‘property’ as it exists today.
The Territory Imperative
The need to control land begins in the Adversary world as Robert Ardrey explains:
“A territory is an area of space, whether of water or earth or air, which an animal or group of animals defends as an exclusive preserve. The word is also used to describe the inward compulsion in animate beings to possess and defend such a space. A territorial species of animals, therefore, is one in which all males, and sometimes females too, bear an inherent drive to gain and defend an exclusive property.
“Observations of twenty-four different hunting peoples so primitive that their ways differ little from the ways of paleolithic man revealed that their homes were isolated and far-spread. So remote were they from each other that there seemed small likelihood that any one could have learned its ways from others. Yet all formed social bands occupying exclusive, permanent domains.
“Lions, eagles, wolves, great-horned owls are all hunters, and all guard exclusive hunting territories. The lions and wolves, besides, hunt in cooperative prides and packs differing little from the bands of primitive man.”
Frederick G. Kempin, Jr., Professor of Legal Studies at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania explains further:
“The concept of property goes far back into history. Records of primitive societies indicate a degree of private ownership of personal property. Private ownership of real property—the land itself—is apparently a much later concept, one that evolved after nomadic tribes settled down in permanent agricultural communities. Even in agricultural societies the land was often considered the property of the tribe or of a clan within the tribe and was rarely privately owned. Even as late as the Middle Ages the absolute ownership of the land by its individual occupants was unusual. Under feudalism, for example, land was held subject to obligations to a superior lord. The breakdown of the feudal system gradually destroyed the feudal relationship between lord and vassal, and the settlement of the New World increased by millions of acres the available land. In the Western Hemisphere absolute ownership of the land became the norm.”
Institutional Neutrality seeks to protect the free and independent citizens from loss. The escape from the Adversary way is the escape from losing. This fact makes property, private ownership of property, and property rights the very foundation of Institutional Neutrality. In today’s America:
“Property is anything that can be possessed and disposed of in a legal manner. Running water in a stream is not anyone’s property, because no one possesses it. If one, however, lawfully takes water from a stream in a container, the water in the container becomes property. In a legal sense property is the aggregate of legal rights of individuals with respect to objects and obligations owed to them by others that are guaranteed and protected by the government.Ownership of property is classified as either private or public. Private property is ownership by an individual or individuals, whereas public ownership implies possession by some kind of a governmental unit. In another sense property is classified as either real or personal. Real property, also known as realty, is land, any buildings that may be on the land, any mineral rights under the land, and anything that is attached to the land or buildings with the intention that it remain there permanently. Personal property is simply defined as any property that is not real property.
“During most of human history, real property—the land itself—was considered the greatest source of wealth. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, however, personal property—especially in the form of stocks and bonds—gradually outstripped land as the basis of the industrial nations’ wealth. Classical Marxism views the private ownership of both forms of property as symptoms of the capitalist system that needs to be abolished to make way for a communist society. Therefore, in traditional communist nations very little real property and wealth-producing personal property is individually owned. Private ownership is generally limited to such personal articles as furniture and clothing. Small farms and dwellings in some Marxist countries remain privately owned, but most land is cooperatively owned. In the reformist and democratic socialist countries a mixture of private and public ownership of property generally prevails.
“Perhaps because land was traditionally the main source of wealth, the transfer of real property from one owner to another used to be much more complicated than the transfer of personal property. Since the Middle Ages this difference has diminished. Two basic instruments of transfer are used: the deed and the will. The government may cause land to pass from some form of public ownership to private ownership by a grant (and reclaim private land for public use by eminent domain). Much of the land in the American West, for example, was granted by the government to the original settlers.”
Who has the Right of ownership?
When children sit down to play the board game Monopoly, the first step after choosing your game piece is to count carefully so all players begin with exactly the same amount of play money. That is the only fair way to begin.
The control of property did not begin with the institutionalization of Neutrality. The players of Neutrality did not start out as equals. The adversary way dominated all human relations until 1776. It continues to dominate most human relationships throughout the rest of the world.
However, in the United States in 1776, the empty continent with its seemingly unlimited resources allowed the new players of Neutrality access to land that could be turned into private property by simple occupation. If you didn’t have what you needed here—you just moved west. There appeared to be land enough for all—available for the taking. However even in America in 1776, the empty continent of North America was not as empty as it appeared. The native Americans were simply swept aside by the American colonists. The lands they occupied were seized by force and fraud.
“In 1851, Chief Seattle and the Suquamish and other Indian tribes around Washington’s Puget Sound, were “persuaded” to sell two million acres of land for $150,000 or seven and one half cents per acre.”
And what of the large plantations in the South that were build on the backs of ~12 million negro slaves? Did those land owners have a moral claim to their ‘property’? And, what of the “carpet baggers” who stole the same lands after the Civil War, did they then represent the rightful owners?
Even those who settled in empty spaces did not pay any price for the land. They either just took it or received as a grant from the government. That is certainly not a fair exchange. And, who gave the land to the government in the first place? Of course, the Government had simply seized the land. After all, might made right. The strong dominated the weak—it was the adversary way.
Galambos Redefines ‘Property’
Today ‘property’ clearly has many different meanings. In the early 1960s, one capitalistic theorist, Andrew J. Galambos proposed an advanced capitalistic system which was non-coercive. Galambos’ Moral Capitalism was based on a new definition of ‘property’ designed to eliminate and prohibit loss. Galambos’ Moral Capitalism promised to eliminate losing relationships. Galambos’ Moral Capitalism was a type of Super-neutrality. It allowed win-draw, draw-win, draw-draw, or win-win. In Galambos’ own words:
“What is Property?
“Most people think of Property in terms of material possessions. Because of this, many have successfully denounced the morality of the pursuit of material well-being and claimed it produces conflicts with human rights.
“The above is a restricted and erroneous point of view on Property. A more satisfying and total concept arises from the following definition:
“Property is individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.
“Property is the basis of ownership because to own means to have and hold Property. From the definition of Property, it follows that man must first own his life before he can own anything else. Life itself is defined as primordial Property.
“No one may own any man but himself. Thus, Property excludes slavery at the outset.
“The first derivatives of man’s life are his thoughts and ideas. Thoughts and ideas are defined as primary Property.
“From the definition, man owns primary Property and, through this ownership, intellectual freedom arises and inspires knowledge and production. From primary Property (ideas) stem actions. Ownership of one’s own actions (clearly a Property right) is commonly called liberty. Liberty, then, as well as life itself, is a Property right. Since all so-called human rights depend upon man’s liberty, it follows that all human rights are Property rights. There can be no conflict!
“Ideas and actions produce further, or secondary, derivatives. These include the access to and use of land and the production, utilization, enjoyment, and disposal of material, tangible goods of all kinds from ash trays to television sets, from log cabins to skyscrapers, from oxcarts to jet planes.
“These are called secondary Property. They are secondary both logically and chronologically. In all instances, their existence is antedated by primary Property which led to their generation and employment.
“Further derivatives of man’s life lead to voluntary transactions involving Property transfers (sales, trades, gifts, etc.). Involuntary Property transfers are derivative not from the property owner’s life but from the life of the coercer. Therefore, Property ceases to remain Property and is converted to Plunder when subjected to involuntary (coercive) transfer.”
Property or Plunder?
Galambos acknowledged Frederick Bastiat as his antecedent in recognizing the distinction between property and plunder. Bastiat recognized that French society in 1848 was heavily influenced by the Adversary way, and he was calling for a better way when he wrote the following words:
“A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
“Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
“But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man—in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.”
*Here Bastiat is describing the Adversary way and the Principle of Least Action, he continues:
“Property and Plunder
“Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
“But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
“Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
“When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
“It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.”
This then is one of the major problems with human society even in today’s world. It is based on a definition of ‘property’ which makes no distinction between possessions held through honesty and possessions held through thievery—possession and ownership have long been considered synonymous. This is a belief that persists even in our present world.
Galambos reserved the word property for those possessions that were acquired by 1) either paying a fair price in a free market to the rightful owner, or 2) that which is produced by the mind and hands of the owner. Using this definition, most of today’s possessions are plunder and not property. Galambos continues:
“Children—being young human beings—have Property rights of their own and cannot themselves be owned; children are not property.
“Your ownership of Property is the basis of all you are, all you have, and all you can hope to achieve. Therefore, protect your property as though your life depended upon it. It does!”
Galambos’ Moral Capitalism– in his own words
“Moral Capitalism is the societal structure that produces freedom by ensuring that each individual is fully (100%) in control of his own property (property being individual man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life). Either each individual controls his own life and all of its derivatives—or he does not. If he does, capitalism is the societal structure that prevails—by definition. From this definition of capitalism, it is evident that capitalism is an absolute concept. It does not depend upon time, place, and circumstance.
“There are no possibilities of this being compromised or misunderstood.
“Thus, capitalism—an absolute—requires new ideas to bring it into existence. How do we know this? Because it doesn’t exist at this time—anywhere on this planet. Furthermore, it has never existed to this date—anywhere on this planet. Before you jump to the false conclusion that it is impossible, consider that the reason for this is not that it would violate any law of nature (the condition for impossibility), but that the social technology to establish it has not been known in the past. Thus, capitalism requires the constant search for new ideas, new theories, and new applications. It is, therefore, a progressive and liberal development because it requires forward-thinking and increased individual freedom (liberation from property interferences and controls). Capitalism’s only tie with the past is the American Revolution and its ideological antecedents.
“Today moral capitalism does not exist. And those who argue that if more enlightened men are appointed or elected to high office and if the present restrictive laws are repealed then we will achieve freedom are wrong.
“The trouble is not with men, but with a system that can do nothing but coerce. Regardless of who holds the reins of power, the individual is still at the mercy of the state authority. It is not true that good men will reform the state.
“It is true that the state will corrupt the best of men. No one—and this includes the most sincere and well-meaning of politicians—is immune to Acton’s disease. Acton first defined the symptoms of the world’s foremost political disease: “Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”“Moreover, conservatives worship tradition. Capitalists, on the other hand, honor the knowledge of the past, but believe themselves capable of improving upon it and do not succumb to self-derogation by assuming they can do nothing but repeat the processes of the past. The conservatives who concern themselves most with the rituals of the past traditions and their codification into a party line become the major conservative politicians. The capitalists who concern themselves most with improvements and progress become the major innovators and entrepreneurs. Conservatism is concerned with codifying past controls of property, capitalism is concerned with the improvement of property, the protection of property, and the moral utilization of property.
“The final point to be emphasized is that capitalism is not a political concept and that the purpose of capitalism is to construct a society wherein man is free by controlling all of his own property all of the time. Because property does not have a political origin (but oftentimes it has a political destruction), capitalism does not concern itself with improving the state or any of the political apparatuses employed either to run the state or to exchange the administration of the state. Politics, at best, is a game which never ends. First, the “ins” and “outs” play until the “outs” get “in.” Then they switch sides and play it again. And so on, until man loses all his property and ends up enslaved. Capitalism is the vehicle of progress and the builder of civilization through property sanctity. Freedom is its attainable goal. Freedom is not a game. Freedom is a man’s loftiest goal and the prerequisite for all his other permanent goals.
“And when it is finally achieved, freedom is forever!”
Galambos’ Capitalism offers us better protection of property, increased human freedom, and a fairer concept of justice.
However while, his Capitalism does prohibit hurting others, it does not require helping others. Thus in the final analysis, Galambos’ Capitalism is a neutral and not a synergic system. However it is a much better neutral system then the one in place today, therefore we should embrace and make use of those mechanisms of Galambos’ Capitalism that do offer clear benefits. One of these is the need for a clear distinction between property and plunder. This distinction is essential if we are to repair our present world.
In today’s world plunder is common and property is rare.
The truth is especially hard to believe if it requires that we take action—if it requires that we change. If humanity is to have a future, we must take action—we must change. If humanity is to have a future, we must believe the truth.
Then we can build a future where the very opposite is true—a future where property is common and plunder is rare.
TrustMark August 2001 by Timothy Wilken