Of hungry ducks and private property

Diving duck (scaup)

Consider the scaup (diving duck). On an early February day at low tide, upper Narragansett Bay, the duck is diving for clams, oysters, and mussels. Each time spending fifteen seconds or more under water, swimming and foraging vigorously, he often comes up empty. Only to take a deep breath and go down again into the icy depths.

This is an application of search theory. Search theory is claimed by several fiefdoms of bright scientists. Economists think it has to do with buyers or sellers who can’t immediately engage a trading partner and are thereby obligated to search for one. Military strategists are certain that search theory pertains to locating enemy submarines or finding the black box from a downed aircraft. Biologists use it as a tool to describe foraging behavior in species as disparate as early humans, wolf packs, and herds of elephants.

They are all right. Search theory has to do with optimizing success while minimizing time and energy spent in the search. And searching for food is fundamental to all living organisms.

Diving ducks employ search theory to locate mollusks, their primary sustenance. Honed by millions of years of evolution, their search techniques are polished to maximize results while minimizing time and energy expenditures. The outcome is mortal. If they expend more energy in searching than they gain in prey, they will perish.

This particular scaup, on his fifth dive, is successful and surfaces with an oyster in his beak. And is immediately accosted by a marauding seagull who steals the oyster and flaps off to enjoy his purloined meal. The scaup, its energy expended and wasted, must initiate a new search. This could be deadly, as each unsuccessful search in the frigid water drains his vital life force.

Which underscores the importance of private property. In early human times, weaker tribes were plundered by stronger and had their livestock and stored grains stolen. The result was often a gruesome death by starvation, especially if this occurred in the depths of winter. 

In the Middle Ages, the hard life of peasant farmers was one of overwork and difficult survival as they were forced to give up most of their production to feudal lords. This was a long, dark era with much poverty and little to recommend it. It all began to change with the Magna Carta in 1215, when the rights of the king's subjects began to be recognized.

The evolution of individual rights brought stability and countered these lawless expropriations. Individuals and families and traders were able to benefit from their labor, storing the fruits thereof and building a strong community capable of withstanding severe winters and occasional droughts. Governments began to enshrine the concept that producers owned the product of their labor, motivating them to produce more.

As technology developed and surpluses increased, protected by private property laws, society was able to spin off musicians and artists and sculptors, as not every individual was required to produce food for everyday survival. Private property encouraged the production of surpluses, and protected them. But it also required that consumers must purchase foodstuffs from the producers.

A bad bargain? No, unless you’d prefer that each individual spend all their waking hours producing food for survival. That would be turning the clock back 10,000 years.

The next time you hear the concept of private property vilified, imagine competing with your neighbors to pick the local apple trees bare and hunt down every rabbit and deer in the nearby woods and fields. Bare knuckle brawls and all, as you struggled for your family’s survival.

The anarchist movement, such as  Occupy Wall Street who eschew private property, want to take you for a trip in the way-back machine. Might not be as delightful as you think. At least the scaup doesn’t think so. If only he could get a restraining order on that seagull.