An Electronic Magazine for Thinkers
Work vs. Plunder
A man far more worthy than I, for he has spent considerable time at college, challenged me not long ago about one of my favorite axioms; There are only two ways to live - by working, or living out of the pockets of people who do.
"It's nonsense," he said. "Where did you get such a stupid idea? Besides, it's not an axiom in the first place. An axiom must be something entirely self-evident and needs no detailed explanation."
I argued that it was, too, self-evident but admitted I couldn't remember where I picked up the idea. It certainly wasn't my own invention. Since so few people seem to know of it perhaps it's something that snuck into my mind of its own accord in the dead of night. Somehow it got there, and it makes abundant sense. Moreover, it may clarify the dreadful political split that exists in the United States in which bright people look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions.
Having
once played Sherlock Holmes in a stage play I put on my deerstalker cap,
whipped out my trusty magnifying glass, lit a pipe full of tobacco, and set to
work. How would Holmes track down the origin of a one-sentence statement
that makes such an outrageous claim? Through the haze of tobacco smoke
(I was on my third pipe,) a name came to me. Franz Oppenheimer!
That's all the Google search engine needed. Within seconds my
computer screen revealed the face of Professor Oppenheimer himself and I
was reading the very passage I was seeking from his 1908 book, The State.
It all came back to me. Years ago I encountered a reference to Oppenheimer's thesis in an article by Albert J. Nock. I suspected at the time there must be a flaw in his idea. It was too simple to conform with society of the late 20th century. Okay, maybe, for 1908, but not today. I was wrong. Oppenhemier's explanation is still air-tight.
"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others," writes Oppenheimer. He went on to define one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of that labor for the labor of others, as the "economic means" for the satisfaction of needs. The unrequited appropriation of the labor of others he called "the political means." He argues that the purpose of the state is to exercise the political means and that all of history has been primarily a report of the contest between political and economic means with emphasis always on the state. (This is why written history is all about kings, wars, etc., and not very much about the struggle of commoners.)
Is his thesis true? Of course! There is not a single exception to it. Some blowhard will insist that it's necessary for the government to take some of the people's assets and distribute them equitably "for the good of society." To be sure, that's the way the system works. Oppenheimer doesn't claim otherwise. Government takes money from the pockets of some citizens and puts it into the pockets of others. And it does so by force of law. All he did was clarify the terms so we may all understand "economic means" vs. "political means."
Both liberals and conservatives are fans of the political means of social operation. Here and there you will find an oddball dreamer who would prefer the "economic means" be given a chance, trusting charity to support those who cannot support themselves. That concept will never take hold. However, that's not the point. All we're trying to clarify is there are only two means to the same end in satisfying human needs. This concept should be taught in sixth grade, or sooner, so that future political debate can be more easily understood.
There are only two ways to live - either by working, or living out of the pockets of people who do. My critic may not like the axiom, but, as yet, he has not come up with a single example to refute it.
| August 2, 2003 |