“[…] unless there is some form of collective recognition of property rights, and unless the participants have the concept of a “right” in the first place, the system of private property will not work, nor will it even be intelligible.”
John R. Searle [1]
THE importance of collective recognition of social institutions cannot be sufficiently stressed. This is in large part ideological, in the sense that collective recognition depends on the zeitgeist of a population. An unhampered free-market cannot function if a society does not recognize the validity of social institutions that are necessary for its functioning, such as private property or money. Similarly, if rights are not sufficiently collectively recognized, then a political structure founded on such rights cannot be maintained. It appears that some libertarians do not adequately appreciate this point, that the imposition of an unhampered free-market onto a population which does not recognize such a system or its necessary institutions will not be able to function. An ideological change is necessary before any of this structure can function, beginning with understanding the structure elaborated in this work. In this case, it is as stressed by Ludwig von Mises, that ideas drive history.[2]
It is worth considering why people accept social institutions even in the face of apparent unfairness such as vast wealth inequalities. The key to understanding the recognition of social institutions is that they provide benefits that people would not have without them. Praxeological economic understanding is necessary for the continued recognition of many social institutions which are essential to modern civilization, such as a legal structure which upholds the rights of persons, particularly the Right of Private Property.
The critical point is that the market system overall, even with the potential downsides that can occur when there is liberty, dramatically improves the living standard of all within the society and inequality is essential for this to function. Moreover, even the less well-off have a higher standard of living than they would otherwise, and, therefore, for all members of that society, their freedom is increased as a result of an increase in options for action.
This is demonstrated in an absolute epistemically objective manner by Mises’ Law of Association (Mises, 1949: 159). Failure to understand praxeological economic theory[3] results in political philosophers such as Rawls claiming that inequalities should exist so long as it benefits the least well-off members (Rawls, 1971, 65-73), but as a result of his economic ignorance he subsequently proceeds to posit solutions which contradict this principle.
The Network of Intentional states which compose the general zeitgeist for Western civilization involves a period of evolution of approximately two millennia. This occurred through the Middle Ages, with ideas of market exchange (Stark, 2014: 131-139; Hülsmann, 2008: 237), science (Stark, 2014: 159-179), free-will (Brann, 2014[4]; Stark, 2014: 120-121), and liberty (Stark, 2014: 347-355), mainly within the sociocultural context of Christianity (van Dun, 2001).
This evolution has established a Network of Intentional states upon which the philosophy of Natural Rights, liberty, and laissez-faire have evolved. This is essential to recognize for any society which may attempt to adopt this doctrine of Natural and Human Rights because it requires a complex ideological Network to function properly.
Due to the intricate workings of social institutions as ontologically subjective entities, fundamental structural social institutions cannot simply be imposed on a population whose Network is alien to the proposed changes. Similarly, if a population is replaced by those with an ideology foreign or hostile to one currently in place then social institutional function will begin to erode. It is important to stress the point that belief in Christianity is not a necessary precondition, but the point is merely to recognize the complexity of the Network of Intentional states which contribute to the functioning of social institutions through collective Intentionality or recognition.
Currently in the West, the background understanding of the nature of the world, human action, and social institutions is in a state of crisis in large part due to a divergence resulting from what is best referred to as a Newtonian Worldview. The nihilism at the heart of this worldview has been embraced by an alarming number of people in postmodernism and its offshoots, but even intellectually respectable people embrace a related and out-dated physicalist stance erroneously believed to be supported by modern physics.
The academic, intellectual, legal, and political assault on natural law and human rights stemming from this erroneous worldview has undermined and continues to further undermine the collective Intentionality necessary to support critical institutions for civilization. Without a better understanding of the nature of the world, human action, and social institutions, the loss of collective Intentionality necessary for the existence of essential social institutions may reach a critical point, but the deconstruction of the Newtonian Worldview must be left for another post.
[1] John Searle, Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization (2010) pp. 102.
[2] See Chapter nine of Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (1949)
[3] A crude objection must be blocked in reference to the term “theory” as used here. That economic theory is a theory does not imply that it is merely an interpretation or that there are valid alternative economic theories that can be used, or worse, that it is “just a theory” and therefore cannot be used to justify any claims. Economics is praxeological economic theory and is apodictically certain insofar as its deductions are correct, and is a theory since it requires construction of deductive chains of reasoning for qualitative economic relations.
[4] From the preface, “This will began as a perverse potency for resistance to God, and God having been occluded, it morphed into an approved power of internal discipline, consequent self-assertion, and thus, finally, into externally asserted control.” (xii)
Works Cited:
Brann, Eva. (2014) Un-Willing: an Inquiry into the Rise of Will’s Power and an Attempt to Undo it, Philadelphia, U.S.A.: Paul Dry Books, ISBN: 978-1-58988-096-2.
Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. (2008) The Ethics of Money Production. Auburn, U.S.A.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, ISBN: 978-1-933550-09-01.
Mises; Ludwig von. (1949) Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn, U.S.A.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, The Scholar’s Edition (1998) ISBN: 978-1-933550-31-2. Available online: https://cdn.mises.org/Human%20Action_3.pdf
Rawls; John. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, U.S.A.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Revised Edition (1999) ISBN: 0-674-00078-1
Searle; John R. (2010) Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press, 1 edition, ISBN: 978-0-19-539617-1.
Stark; Rodney. (2014) How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity. Wilmington, U.S.A.: ISI Books, first edition, ISBN: 978-1-61017-139-7.
van Dun; Frank. (2001) “Natural Law, Liberalism, and Christianity.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 15(3): 1-36.
