OWNERSHIP: Civilization and its Malcontents

[Keith Wilde <kwilde@magi.com>]

Although behind in summarizing several topics from the late winter and
early spring, manifestations of current interest suggest that I should
respond to Rodney's recent complaints about my report to COG from last
fall. I have in mind about three elements for response. They are not easy
to separate cleanly, but they include 1) some specific complaints; 2) the
moderator's role; 3) the COG context.

I begin with the second, because it seems to be the most fundamental. It
has been noted that some of our disagreements in the past might be
attributed to the different working styles of lawyers and social
scientists, given that a generous share of binary proponents have further
identified themselves as lawyers and that they have targeted economists as
their natural adversaries. The implied difference is that lawyers are
interested only in winning for their side, with minimal consciousness of
their role as agents in a process of revealing reality. While that view
seems close to reality in our litigious societies, I think it is more
useful to emphasize the ideal in juridical systems and its similarity to
social science. Both have procedural rules that are designed to avoid the
worst excesses of barbarism by discovering elements of truth in situations
of dispute. The role of moderator in debates over ideas and policy is
analogous to that of a judge in the court system; that is, to assist in the
discovery of truth by insisting that participants respect some fundamental
rules of order.  Other Officers of the Court are expected to understand the
rules. If some participants don't seem to know the rules, then it is part
of the judge's role to provide some instruction and to insist on their
observance.

At the outset of this discussion I assumed that participants understood
these principles of order and so made no explicit effort to lay out a set
of rules or guidelines. It was a professional courtesy which turned out to
be a mistake, for when I later attempted to invoke the implicit rules, it
was interpreted by binary proponents as taking sides against them.  I tried
to rectify this with suggestions of what the rules are like for social
science investigation, by quoting from some eminent authorities on the
subject.  These include some principles about what is admissible as
evidence and the grounds for allowing opinion to be part of the
proceedings. Since these get in the way of accepting some of the binary
assertions as truth, however, this tactic provoked outrage instead of
better behavior.  I have redoubled efforts of this kind over the winter and
spring, assisted by the discussion with Richard Stutsman about Popper and
Kuhn, the invocation of Ortega y Gasset and Ziman in addressing John
Medaille's assertion that credentials don't count, and by pointing to
Erskine and Clifford in my explanation to Michael Sarofeen of why the
barbarism of binary proponents is also unethical and even contrary to
popular morality.  In every case, the reaction has been anger against me
for daring to quote the offending words; never a reasoned counter-argument
to the positions of the authors. By simply dismissing these citations as
irrelevant, the binarians only underscore their insistence that rules not
apply to them.

The difference between being a moderator and a judge is that the former
cannot punish unruly participants directly for contempt of court.  The
technical structure of this Virtual Think Tank does not give the moderator
the same power to refuse recognition to persistent hecklers with nothing
new to say as is available in the context of a town meeting or crowded
auditorium. Beyond direct remonstration with unruly participants,
therefore, the only tool available to the moderator is an occasional report
to the outside.  Rather than simply branding the binarians as barbarians
whose actions ought not be encouraged (in the interest of preserving civil
society), I elected at an earlier stage to offer some explanation of their
behavior. The religious analogue seemed unavoidable from the binarians'
repeated invocation of "paradigm shift" and their interpretation of it as a
sudden change of gestalt rather than the grinding process of scientific
orthodoxy described by Kuhn and his fellows.  After years of failing to
make a dent with what they assumed to be reasoned arguments, it seems that
they have come to view acceptance of their vision as a sign of something
equivalent to divine grace, like the Pharisee Saul's experience on the road
to Damascus. 

This brings me to a point of content in Rodney's letter, the element of
"mystery".  Rodney sees something sinister in it, but I intended no more
than that it was a mystery to me why the binarians insist so vehemently on
the ideas around "productiveness" when it seemed to be the only sticking
point in the way of getting broader acceptance of their policy
prescriptions.  This has become less mysterious to me since that October
report, thanks to contributions from Richard Stutsman and Stephen Kane.
Richard has put his finger on the Bucky Fuller connection (technology will
save us), in contrast to the often pessimistic implications of "the dismal
science".  That explains the mystery for me, and Stephen has pointed out
that it is an element of binary economics that has not been subjected to
thorough evaluation. 

Rodney also complains that I have misrepresented binary economics in my
brief summary of its main points.  This is the only surprise for me in his
letter, for I thought I was representing accurately what I had seen in the
lengthy discussion.  I have absolutely no wish to be a spokesman for binary
economics; the offending appendix was written in response to a request from
COG officers that I include a brief summary of the binary view after I had
submitted an earlier version of the report. (I note, nonetheless, that
Stephen Kane at least seems to find my characterizations reasonably
accurate.) Interested readers have plenty of archival material to select
from, identified by author, and as Rodney and Norm have demonstrated on
more than one occasion, anyone can send a report to the people who are
performing and orchestrating the COG activity, including the solicitation
and husbanding of the Ford Foundation resource.

Which brings me to the COG context, including the stated purpose of the
Economics of Ownership discussion group within the Virtual Think Tank.  I
assumed from the outset that this activity entailed some responsibility to
use the facility for the exploration of ideas under rules of reason.  The
Ford Foundation had given a tacit blessing to the notion that broader
ownership might be a good idea; I did not and do not believe that they
intended to fund a gladiatorial circus in which he who shouts loudest and
longest is declared the winner. These were my presuppositions about our
exercise.  I was given no rules by COG Central, and they asked for nothing
but a periodic report.  As Dan has said in response to Rodney, the reports
are my reports and have not been influenced in content by anyone else.
Complaints about the moderator have all focused on my identification of
statements that violate the rules of reason.  This has been attributed to
training in economics, and I have to acknowledge that it is true in the
sense that economics is an application of the rules of reason and I learned
those rules primarily in the context of thinking about economic problems.
On the other hand, the complaint underscores the desire of binarians to
protect their favored notions from the scrutiny of reason and empiricsm. 

I have no control over COG decisions, and no objection if its Board wishes
to expend part of their resource to give binary believers a window through
which to propagate their political faith.  On the other hand, I believe it
would be a serious mistake for them to allow conversion of the Economics of
Ownership window to that purpose, implying as it does that there is some
serious attention to finding facts that bear on assertions and otherwise
respecting rules of reason.  I think sufficient distance has been drawn,
however, that it could be called Binary Economics.  The caution must be to
protect the COG activity generally from too close an affiliation with what
have increasingly appeared to be binary delusions.  It was with these
considerations in mind that I made plans to attend the COG meeting in May
and recommend that appropriate changes be made, including Richard
Stutsman's offer to be moderator of a binary discussion.  This plan was
jarred by the sudden appearance of Stephen Kane and his request to keep the
window open yet a little longer.  There is now a chance that some
economists might be drawn into further discussion of binary economics, but
I still incline to the view that a new title and statement of purpose
should be established for it.  Richard may yet be willing to moderate an
internecine debate among the binarians.  (Without names, this is the gist
of my most recent report to COG, which will probably be made public soon,
if not already.)

I did attend the COG conference, but the agenda was very full and there was
no time for taking up my recommendation with the key officers.  One item of
business was nevertheless the identification of some new discussion groups
via the Virtual Think Tank. Ideas for such were presented by a few
individuals, then a break-out into groups for development and refinement of
specific proposals, a report back to plenary by all the groups, and then a
balloting procedure to decide which themes would be selected.  When the
ballots were tallied, first place by a large majority was a proposal that
other aspects of "ownership" be explored, such as the right of members in
an organization to claim a share of its net revenues without that right
being tied necessarily to possession of equity shares.  A proposal that
credit policy of central banks be examined as a policy instrument did not
make the cut; neither did another for exploration of the Ownership Transfer
Corporation.  A large share of the participants, perhaps even half, were
from outside the United States, and that fact had something to do with my
impression that the issues of binary economics are peripheral to the
concerns of many active promoters of equity in the control and enjoyment of
productive operations. 

To conclude this response to Rodney, so that I can take a look at some of
the more recent postings on his theme, note that my critical comments apply
more to persons than to the  subject of binary economics. (Kane has revived
the prospect that it may have some objective substance.) I am alarmed by
barbarism. It does not reliably advance the cause of social justice, but is
rather an endemic disease of democracy. My impression from the Kent State
meeting is that our discussion group has been a lightning rod for the
lunatic fringe, allowing the real work to go forward with minimal
disturbance elsewhere. 

Keith Wilde
Canada Pension Plan
Ottawa
kwilde@magi.com
613 990-8125 (office)
613 747-6847 (res)