Two Forms of Social Organization

Over the history of mankind, there have been many types of social organization. The relationships within a group of people increase geometrically as the size increases, so it becomes practically impossible to comprehend all of the relationships in any society beyond a very small community. If we are to consider the forms of social organization, we must start with the nature of mankind. First, it is unquestionable that each individual must be a self owner, since control of the body, to the extent that it can be controlled, rests solely with the will of the individual inhabiting that body. Second, no two humans are the same in size, color, ability, etc. This seems ridiculously simple, but these two laws are important concepts to grasp because they allow us to understand many ethical aspects of the condition of societies of any size.

Assume that just two people exist. Both are self owners, and so also logically are owners of any goods that they have originally gathered from nature or have made using their own faculties. And, since people are not identical, each person will be endowed with greater abilities in some areas than the other, and so their possessions will also be somewhat different.

In this simplest of societies, if one person uses aggression to enrich himself at the expense of the other, this is a violation of the law of self-ownership. But this immediately introduces two ethical questions:
1. Should each individual in a society be a self-owner, or should some or all people be forced to be owned to some degree by another individual or group?
2. Should each individual in a society be allowed to be different, or should some or all people be forced to some degree to become closer to identical in possessions and / or abilities?

The answer to these two questions will define whether one is fundamentally a Socialist or an Individualist. So let's investigate how each would answer the following questions about our two person society.

In the simple society of two, how should the inequity in ability and possessions be addressed?

Socialist: The person with greater possessions should voluntarily give his excess to the one with less. The person with greater abilities should voluntarily attempt to increase the abilities of the other, or decrease his own. Failing to do either of these gives the less privileged person the moral right to achieve equality by force.

Individualist: The person with greater possessions should engage in voluntary exchange with the other, thereby allowing both to enjoy goods they would not have enjoyed otherwise. Therefore, both people regardless of abilities cooperate and use those abilities to enrich their society.

So, let's say that the society of two is one man and one woman and they cooperate by creating a family and a slightly larger society. How should this small community be organized?

Socialist: Those whom nature has favored by situation and ability should voluntarily give to the less fortunate. If and when they fail to do so, an organization of compulsion (call it Government) should be formed by right thinking citizens to force them to contribute to equality for all.

Individualist: Those with greater abilities should specialize in producing a particular good, trading what they produce with others who specialize in different goods. Those who have less ability, nevertheless have their own labor to trade, and so the entire society will produce more and better goods and will be richer by cooperation.

As the society grows it becomes obvious that the more Socialistic it becomes, the greater the level of organized violence and poverty there will be, and the more Individualistic it becomes, the greater the level of cooperation and prosperity.

Of course the inequality of individuals extends beyond physical and mental ability to ethical ability also. And for that reason, there will always be a criminal element in any society of appreciable size. So, how would crime be handled by the opposing philosophies?

Socialist: Criminals will be pursued by the organization of compulsion (Government), then locked away for a sufficient time and re-educated if possible until their debt to the society is repaid. Strong groups of enforcers will be required to make sure that those whom society favors will be safe from these criminals. Restitution, if any, will be paid to support the operation of the enforcers. Any level of force, up to and including the taking of life may be used to make society safe.

Individualist: There will be some producers in society who will provide protection services on a voluntary basis. Since there will always be a criminal element, nearly everyone will voluntarily retain some level of protective services. Criminals will then be pursued by a protection service and restitution will be paid to the victim. Apprehending criminals would be a high priority for the protective service, because otherwise they must reimburse the victim. Only proportional violence could be used in apprehending a criminal since members of the protective service would be private citizens liable to the same rules as everyone.

In the history of man, we have an almost unbroken tendency to organize ourselves into societies that are violent and predatory, but even in the most repressive of these, Individualism is never completely crushed. When you have thousands of years of history invariably indicating the same method of organization there must be a reason.

Cut open an ant hill and examine their organization. Why do they organize themselves in this way? Is it not because of the nature of the ant? And the nature of man causes the forms of society we see today and have seen throughout history. But what is it about the nature of man that causes so much misery?

Since individuals vary in strength and in ethics, those who are the strongest and most unethical will inevitably rise up to dominate any society that does not prevent them from doing so. And yet even when the worst happens and violence reigns, self ownership cannot be completely erased. Regardless of the reigning tyranny there is always an element of resistance through black markets, civil disobedience, lack of cooperation and flight if necessary. In the formation of societies, we are trapped in a struggle between two aspects of our own nature, and there is no prospect in sight of emerging into societal perfection.

Karl Marx envisioned the perfect state of society in Socialism, where everyone worked diligently for the good of the whole. But every society formed in the image that Marx conceived has been impoverished, murderous and short-lived. Meanwhile, self ownership has never been completely crushed, and yet never fully adopted either. Where is the Individualist who will influence the world for good as much as Karl Marx did for evil? We may search for such a person, but while we search, let each of us work to improve ourselves by recognizing the evil of Socialism and resisting that evil.

The Rock

As I watch the relative value of world currencies fluctuate day to day, it occurs to me that the numbers simply indicate which national currency is circling the toilet bowl the fastest. In the end they are all heading toward the sewer.
Step back, as if viewing the spectacle from the moon. What is stable? What is real money? How can one judge the dollar, euro or yen objectively? Find a position of stability and watch from there.