I am late in picking it up, but in a brief response to Joseph Doggett under
this label (July 12 or 13) I noted the importance of psychological elements in
promoting broader access to the benefits of collective wealth and suggested that
we need to address it directly. It has been playing in the background since the
very beginning of our discussion, sometimes so loudly that the thread of
rational argument gets hard to follow. Further exploration of our subject matter
will be served by taking explicit account of emotions in the propagation of
policy ideas and ideals. Given "ownership" as a generally accepted
objective, our focus should be on evaluating the probable effectiveness and
possible side effects of various instruments.
One obviously vital instrument is a political constituency for change. This
is true even if some important changes can occur without specific action at the
level of legislatures. The bottom line, nevertheless, is that the general intent
to broaden rights of access to collective productive capacities is an
ineluctably collective concept and cannot be achieved without some degree of
collective action, no matter what level of aggregation is addressed. That
entails the rousing of emotions around a set of ideas. Until the ideas are
shared by a sufficient number to mobilize an active force, however, an effort of
education is required. And it can work. I remember the propaganda efforts of the
Foundation for Economic Education and similar political movements in the 1960s
which built up to a tide of support for ideas personified and institutionalized
by the Reagan revolution. By extension, there is no doubt that both education
and mobilization for political action are essential elements to achieving the
goal of distributive justice in a society complexified by sophisticated
technology.
Norm Kurland has made it clear from the start that his focus is on building
the political constituency, including the work of education. He has also
endorsed a few works as textbooks for the educative process, notably the recent
exposition on Binary Economics by Ashford and Shakespeare. This corner of the
COG Forum, called Economics of Ownership was opened, however, not as part of the
political campaign or even as the educative process. Instead, it was initiated
because there were competing ideas about effective and appropriate mechanisms
for achieving the general objectives of broader participation in the ownership
of wealth (recognizing that the latter term is subject to many refinements).
That being the case, a reader of our archive ought to find that we have tried to
confine our scope to evaluating the mechanisms (policy and organizational)
rather than to matters of pedagogy or to political campaigning.
The implicit but nonetheless obvious position taken by Norm and his allies in
this discussion is that "binary economics" is sufficient as a
pedagogical instrument, and furthermore that it is a necessary breakthrough in
theoretical understanding to justify the financial and regulatory instruments
proposed (by Kelso in particular) to democratize capital ownership. Extensive
consideration of the scope and essential elements of the binary theory by its
promoters and by sympathetic critics in this forum has not established a strong
conceptual link between the theory and the techniques. That is, the binary
theory does not seem to be necessary in demonstrating the efficacy of Kelsonian
techniques. On the other hand, binary economics as understood by CESJ (including
its consolidation in the book by Ashford and Shakespeare) may have some
pedagogical power, according to claims by Norm that his political constituency
is growing. It may therefore be sufficient from the perspective of CESJ
objectives.
It does not follow that everyone else with an interest in the promotion of
specific legislative/regulatory measures favorable to broader ownership will
find binary economics either necessary or even helpful. Other techniques with
similarity of intent and application have been devised without assistance from
the binary theory. My understanding of the purpose for this particular
discussion group was to explore the cogency of various approaches to economic
justice, with a focus on ownership. In writing an initial description for it, I
did suggest that expanding the number of economists who take explicit interest
in ownership would be a reasonable gauge of success. Norm appears to have
interpreted this as a drive to sign up recruits, by any and every means. My own
intent was that we engage the interest of public-spirited analysts by the
relevance and rationality of our issues and arguments. This has so far proved to
be impossible with respect to "binary economics" because its
proponents do not manifest the requisite degree of intellectual honesty.
Although this behavior (as a general phenomenon) may be due to deliberate guile
on the part of some individuals, it seems more often to be the consequence of
passion overriding reason. That is, the refusal to focus on evidence and
reasoning is most often accompanied by an emotional commitment to some notion or
image, frequently one that is sacred to the tribe or clan. This psychological
problem is not only stupifying to the individual; it is also a threat to the
political idea of democracy, as emphasized by the likes of Erich Fromm, for
example.
In a subsequent installment (Part III), I will address the use of
"binary theory" as an icon or sacred mantra in rallying troops to a
quasi-religious political cause and in testing the strength of their
allegiance.