A Theory of Fairnessrnby David Gordonrn”Mine is better than ours.”rn—Benjamin FranklinrnThe Noblest Triumph: Property andrnProsperity Through the Agesrnhy Tom BethellrnNew York: St. Martin’s Press;rn578 pp., $29.95rnTom Bethell, here as often before,rnuses sturdy common sense to challengernexperts in their own field, hi a controversialrnarticle many years ago, herndared to suggest that evolutionary biologistsrnhave exaggerated the evidence forrnDarwinism. Though roundly criticizedrnby supporters of orthodoxy, Mr. Bethellrnmanifested an uncanny abilit)’ to ask disconcerhngrnquestions.rnThat ability is continually on displayrnin The Noblest Triumph. Here, he indictsrneconomists because they havernfailed to set forth in detail an answer tornwhat should be a basic question of theirrndiscipline: Under what institutions will arnsociet}’ prosper? Since the days of AdamrnSmith, economists have neglected to analyzernpropert’ rights, which are, in Mr.rnBethell’s view, the key to economic success.rnClassical economists such as DavidrnRicardo continued Smith’s policy of takingrnproperty rights for granted, and withrnJohn Stuart Mill, the last of the classics,rnthings got worse. Mill often criticizedrnprivate property and seemed to look for-rnDavid Gordon is the editor of the MisesrnReview and of the recent volume, Secession,rnState, and Liberty (TransactionrnBooks).rn^^^^S?i^<^^Eirn^^^^MrnInrnwHHrn•p;. :sffiifS^..rn^iftpaww^iwwi^rn.”.mjuusl ^Stt^L :^rn> ^ ^ M ^ ^rnrWSi IBUP^’^^SiSS^ •if^^rnH>rn• •rnHi*rnHIrnLnffirnH Brnr*’s,rn„.,|i|rnMi^*«wiMi:S^rn.Mbrn*#» %*.rn^^e^AX.V»^U«J>rnward to the onset of socialism, althoughrnMill’s ambiguous prose mirrored hisrndithering on the issue. Of course, KarlrnMarx said a great deal about properb,-;rnbut his fervent denunciations contributedrnlittle to understanding. The Austrianrnschool, including Ludwig von Mises andrnFriedrich Hayek, stands out as an exceptionrnto Mr. Bethell’s catalogue of neglectrnof property, while in recent years, publicrnchoice economists have written with illuminationrnon the topic. But in large partrnthe record of the economics professionrnin discussing property is blank.rnThis is surprising, since, Mr. Bethellrnholds, the case for private property is easilyrnmade. To grasp the role of privaternproperty’, an essential truth must be keptrnin mind. Human beings have a fixed nature,rnwhich governments thwart at theirrnperil.rnAt the time of the French Revolution,rnor shortiy before it, somethingrnnew arose. What might be calledrnthe Future Perfect began to replacernnostalgia for the past. . . . Arngreater human perfection was to bernexpected in the future.. .. Therngreat error of Enlightenmentrnthinkers and of more recentrnphilosophers was to imagine thatrnhuman transformation would be arni straightforward business. But hu-rn> man nature proved more in-rn; tractable . . . than was imagined.rni Very well, then: human nature is not sornmalleable as Bernard Shaw and thernWebbs held. Few today would deny this,rnbut how does the fact of a fixed humanrnnature suffice to make the case for property?rnIn Mr. Bethell’s view, the argumentrnis simple. People tend to placerntheir own well-being, and that of theirrnfamilies, above a murky “common good”rndefined by the state. Thus, if property isrnmade collective, disaster will quickly follow.rnUnder a system without privaternproperty, an individual has littie incentivernto conserve resources. Instead, hernwill seize as much as he can for his immediaternbenefit; if he does not, othersrnwill quickly step into the gap. Moreover,rnonly a regime that mandates individualrnproperty rights can avoid what GarrettrnHardin has memorably called the “tragedyrnof the commons.” With secure propertyrnrights, an owner will not scuttle hisrnlong-term gains through indiscriminaternexploitation of land. Instead, he will endeavorrnto maintain his property since it isrnas an economic asset.rnBut is not this argument simply an instancernof the ancient fallacy, that humanrnbeings are narrowly selfish, unmotivatedrnby the good of others? In the guise of arnDECEMBER 1998/27rnrnrn