Justice
— Changing Conceptions of Justice
Our concept of justice is not
fixed. We ended chattel slavery
after several centuries. We recognized women as full citizens long after
we held it to be a self-evident truth that all men were created equal. We lowered
the age at which one is entitled to vote from 21 to 18. We
debate
capital
punishment,
both
for
all persons and for those below some age or below some threshold of
understanding of right and wrong.
As our common conception of
what constitutes justice changes, we need to be prepared to help each
other adjust. And just as slaveholders were not reimbursed for
the value that their former slaves represented to them, we need to
think about how we adapt.
At some point — if Clarence Darrow was
right, it will be when we figure out that we've already tried everything
else, and it hasn't worked — America will recognize the truth
and significance of what Henry George figured out, and there will be a widely
shared moral imperative to share the land rent among us all, rather than
let some privatize huge rent-flows as if they were somehow God's
eldest sons — and at the same time to privatize that which rightly
belongs to the individual.
It may also be that our conception of justice will change as we come to
understand the distribution of wealth and income in this country.
The opening paragraphs from the prologue to David Brion Davis's Inhuman
Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World are these:
In 1770, on the eve of the American Revolution, African
American slavery was legal and almost unquestioned throughout the New
World. The ghastly slave trade from Africa was still expanding and for
many decades had been shipping five Africans across the Atlantic for
every European immigrant to the Americas. An imaginary "hemispheric
traveler" would have seen black slaves in every colony from Canada
and New England all the way south to Spanish Peru and Chile. In the incomparably
rich colonies in the Caribbean, they often constituted population majorities
of 90 percent or more. But in 1888, one hundred and eighteen years later,
when Brazil finally freed all its slaves, the institution had been outlawed
throughout the Western Hemisphere.
This final act of liberation, building on Abraham Lincoln's
emancipation achievement in the American Civil War, took place only a
century after the creation of the first antislavery societies in human
history — initially small groups in such places as Philadelphia,
London, Manchester, and New York. The abolition of New World
slavery depended in large measure on a major transformation in moral
perception — on the emergence of writers, speakers, and reformers,
beginning in the mid-eighteenth century, who were willing to condemn
an institution that had been sanctioned for thousands of years and who
also strove to make human society something more than an endless contest
of greed and power. [emphasis mine]
Henry George: The Wages
of Labor
In speaking of measures for
improving social conditions, it
seems to us that in the teachings of morality is to be found the
highest practicality, and that the question, What is wise may always
safely be subordinated to the question, what is right?
But expressed moral truths are
deprived of all practical
meaning when accompanied by unjust sanctions as when the American
people, while they legalised chattel slavery, were accustomed to read
solemnly on every national anniversary the declaration which asserts:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal
and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
What did this truth mean on the
lips of men who asserted that
one man was the rightful property of another man who had bought him,
who asserted that the slave was robbing the master in running away, and
that the man or the woman who helped the fugitive to escape, or even
gave him a cup of cold water in Christ’s name, was an accessory to
theft, on whose head the penalties of the State should be visited? ...
We ask for consideration of our
proposals, and we would seek
to promote discussion along the line of greatest importance – the line
of morality.
We have no solicitude for the
truth, knowing that it is of the
nature of truth always to prevail over error where discussion goes on.
And the truth for which we stand
has now made such progress in
the minds of men that it must be heard; that it can never be stifled;
that it must, go on conquering and to conquer!
Faster than ever the world is
moving! ...
Forty years ago slavery seemed
stronger in the United States
than ever before, and the market price of slaves both working slaves
and breeding slaves – was higher than it had ever been before, for the
title of the owner seemed growing more secure. In the shadow of the
Hall where the equal rights of man had been solemnly proclaimed, the
manacled fugitive was dragged back to bondage, and on what to American
tradition was our Marathon of freedom, the slave master boasted that he
would yet call the roll of his chattels.
Yet forty years ago, though the
Party that was to place
Abraham Lincoln in the Presidential chair had not been formed, and
nearly a decade was yet to pass ere the signal gun was to ring out,
slavery, as we now see, was doomed! ... read
the whole article
Rev. A. C. Auchmuty: Gems from George, a
themed collection of
excerpts from the writings of Henry George (with links to sources)
NATURE acknowledges no ownership or control in man save as the result of
exertion. In no other way can her treasures be drawn forth, her powers directed,
or her forces utilized or controlled. She makes no discriminations among
men, but is to all absolutely impartial. She knows no distinction between
master and slave, king and subject, saint and sinner. All men to her stand
upon an equal footing and have equal rights. She recognizes no claim but
that of labor, and recognizes that without respect to the claimant. If a
pirate spread his sails, the wind will fill them as well as it will fill
those of a peaceful merchantman or missionary bark; if a king and a common
man be thrown overboard, neither can keep his head above the water except
by swimming; birds will not come to be shot by the proprietor of the soil
any quicker than they will come to be shot by the poacher; fish will bite
or will not bite at a hook in utter disregard as to whether it is offered
them by a good little boy who goes to Sunday school, or a bad little boy
who plays truant; grain will grow only as the ground is prepared and the
seed is sown; it is only at the call of labor that ore can be raised from
the mine; the sun shines and the rain falls alike upon just and unjust. The
laws of nature are the decrees of the Creator. There is written in them no
recognition of any right save that of labor; and in them is written broadly
and clearly the equal right of all men to the use and enjoyment of nature;
to apply to her by their exertions, and to receive and possess her reward.
Hence, as nature gives only to labor, the exertion of labor in production
is the only title to exclusive possession. — Progress & Poverty — Book
VII, Chapter 1, Justice of the Remedy: Injustice of private property in land
PRIVATE property is not of one species, and moral sanction can no more be
asserted universally of it than of marriage. That proper marriage conforms
to the law of God does not justify the polygamic or polyandric or incestuous
marriages that are in some countries permitted by the civil law. And as there
may be immoral marriage, so may there be immoral private property. — The
Condition of Labor, an Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII
THAT any species of property is permitted by the State, does not of itself
give it moral sanction. The State has often made things property that are not
justly property but involve violence and robbery. — The
Condition of Labor, an Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII
TO attach to things created by God the same right of private ownership that
justly attaches to things produced by labor, is to impair and deny the true
rights of property. For a man, who out of the proceeds of his labor is obliged
to pay another man for the use of ocean or air or sunshine or soil, all of
which are to men involved in the single term land, is in this deprived of his
rightful property, and thus robbed. — The
Condition of Labor, an Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII
HOW then is it that we are called deniers of the right of property? It is for
the same reason that caused nine-tenths of the good people in the United States,
north as well as south, to regard abolitionists as deniers of the right of
property; the same reason that made even John Wesley look on a smuggler as
a kind of robber, and on a custom-house seizer of other men's goods as a defender
of law and order. Where violations of the right of property have been
long sanctioned by custom and law, it is inevitable that those who really
assert the right of property will at first be thought to deny it. For
under such circumstances the idea of property becomes confused, and that is
thought to be property which is in reality a violation of property. — A
Perplexed Philosopher (The
Right Of Property And The Right Of Taxation)
LANDLORDS must elect to try their case either by human law or by moral law. If
they say that land is rightly property because made so by human law, they cannot
charge those who would change that law with advocating robbery. But if
they charge that such change in human law would be robbery, then they must
show that land is rightfully property irrespective of human law. — The
Reduction to Iniquity (a reply to the Duke of Argyll), The Nineteenth
Century, July, 1884
THE common law we are told is the perfection of reason, and certainly the
landowners cannot complain of its decision, for it has been built up by and
for landowners. Now what does the law allow to the innocent possessor when
the land for which he paid his money is adjudged to rightfully belong to another?
Nothing at all. That he purchased in good faith gives him no right or claim
whatever. The law does not concern itself with the "intricate question of
compensation" to the innocent purchaser. The law does not say, as John Stuart
Mill says: "The land belongs to A, therefore B who has thought himself the
owner has no right to anything but the rent, or compensation for its salable
value." For that would be indeed like a famous fugitive slave case decision
in which the Court was said to have given the law to the North and the nigger
to the South. The law simply says: "The land belongs to A, let the Sheriff
put him in possession! " — Progress & Poverty — Book
VII, Chapter 3, Justice of the Remedy: Claim of Landowners to Compensation
COMPENSATED for what? For giving up what has been unjustly taken? The demand
of land-owners for compensation is not that. We do not seek to spoil the Egyptians.
We do not ask that what has been unjustly taken from laborers shall be restored.
We are willing that bygones should be bygones, and to leave dead wrongs to bury
their dead. We propose to let those who, by the past appropriation of land-value,
have taken the fruits of labor, retain what they have thus got. We merely propose
that for the future such robbery of labor shall cease. — NOW, is the State
called on to compensate men for the failure of their expectations as to its action,
even where no moral element is involved? If it make peace, must it compensate
those who have invested on the expectation of war. If it open a shorter highway,
is it morally bound to compensate those who may lose by the diversion of travel
from the old one? If it promote the discovery of a cheap means of producing electricity
directly from heat, is it morally bound to compensate the owners of all the steam
engines thereby thrown out of use and all who are engaged in making them? If
it develop the air-ship, must it compensate those whose business would be injured?
Such a contention would be absurd. — The
Condition of Labor
Yet the contention we are considering is worse. It is that the State must compensate
for disappointing the expectations of those who have counted on its continuing
to do wrong. — A Perplexed
Philosopher (Compensation)
COMPENSATION implies equivalence. To compensate for the discontinuance of a wrong
is to give those who profit by the wrong the pecuniary equivalent of its continuance.
Now the State has nothing that does not belong to the individuals who compose
it. What it gives to some it must take from others. Abolition with compensation
is therefore not really abolition, but continuance under a different form — on
one side of unjust deprivation, and on the other side of unjust appropriation. — A
Perplexed Philosopher (Compensation)
INNOCENT purchasers of what involves wrong to others! Is not the phrase
absurd? If, in our legal tribunals, "ignorance of the law excuseth no man," how
much less can it do so in the tribunal of morals — and it is this to
which compensationists appeal.
And innocence can only shield from the punishment due to conscious wrong; it
cannot give right. If you innocently stand on my toes, you may fairly ask me
not to be angry; but you gain no right to continue to stand on them. — A
Perplexed Philosopher (Compensation)
WHEN a man exchanges property of one kind for property of another kind he gives
up the one with all its incidents and takes in its stead the other with its incidents.
He cannot sell bricks and buy hay, and then complain because the hay burned when
the bricks would not. The greater liability of the hay to burn is one of the
incidents he accepted in buying it. Nor can he exchange property having moral
sanction for property having only legal sanction, and claim that the moral sanction
of the thing he sold attaches now to the thing he bought. That has gone with
the thing to the other party in the exchange. Exchange transfers, it cannot create.
Each party gives up what right he had and takes what right the other party
had. The last holder obtains no moral right that the first holder did not have. — A
Perplexed Philosopher (Compensation)
ONLY a little while ago nations were bought and sold, traded off by treaty
and bequeathed by will. Where now is the right divine of kings? Only a little
while ago, and human flesh and blood were legal property. Where are now the
vested rights of chattel slavery? And shall this wrong, that involves monarchy,
and involves slavery — this injustice from which both spring — long
continue? Shall the ploughers for ever plough the backs of a class condemned
to toil? Shall the millstones of greed for ever grind the faces of the poor?
Ladies and gentlemen, it is not in the order of the universe! As one
who for years has watched and waited, I tell you the glow of dawn is in the
sky. Whether it come with the carol of larks or the roll of the war-drums,
it is coming — it will come. The standard that I have tried to raise
tonight may be tom by prejudice and blackened by calumny; it may now move
forward, and again be forced back. But once loosed, it can never again be
furled! To beat down and cover up the truth that I have tried tonight to
make clear to you, selfishness will call on ignorance. But it has in it the
germinative force of truth, and the times are ripe for it. If the flint oppose
it, the flint must split or crumble! Paul planteth, and Apollos watereth,
but God giveth the increase. The ground is ploughed; the seed is set; the
good tree will grow.
So little now, only the eye of faith can see it. So little now; so tender and
so weak. But sometime, the birds of heaven shall sing in its branches; sometime,
the weary shall find rest beneath its shade! — Speech: Why Work is
Scarce, Wages Low and Labour Restless (1877, San Francisco) ... go
to "Gems from George"
Louis Post: Outlines of Louis F. Post's
Lectures, with Illustrative Notes and Charts (1894) — Appendix:
FAQ
Q60. If the value of land be destroyed by the single tax, would not
justice require that land-owners be compensated?
A. No. Land is given for the use of all, and rent is produced by the community
as a whole. To legally vest land-ownership in less than the whole, excluding
those to come as well as those that are here, is a moral crime against all who
are excluded. Therefore no government can make a perpetual title to land which
is or can become morally binding. Neither can one generation vest the communal
earnings of future generations in particular persons by any morally valid title,
as they certainly attempt to do when they make grants of land. There is both
divine justice and economic wisdom in the command that "the land shall not
be sold in perpetuity." In the forum of morals all titles to land are subject
to absolute divestment as soon as the people decide upon the change.... read the book
Nic Tideman: Being Just
While Conceptions of Justice are Changing
A conception of justice is a
framework for resolving questions of
what liberties people ought to have. The smooth functioning of
society requires substantial consensus about conceptions of justice,
because without such consensus, people will take actions and make
claims on resources that others regard as intrusions upon what is
properly theirs. This can be expected to lead, at a minimum, to
disharmony and possibly to violent conflict. On the other hand, when
people agree on a conception of justice and who is competent to
interpret it, conflicts will be less likely to arise, and those that
do arise can be settled more easily. Thus there is strong impetus
toward stability in any society's conception of justice: Any doubts
about a shared conception of justice may be suppressed or hidden to
preserve the advantages of consensus.
Moral evolution, however, can
require conceptions of justice to
change, as when the world came to recognize that slavery could not be
just, or that women must be accorded the same civil rights as men.
When, as with the abolition of slavery, a new conception of justice
entails the elimination of the sale value of what had previously been
assets, there will be calls for compensation, on the ground that, as
provided in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S.
Constitution, governments should not take property without
compensation. ...
The paper argues that there are a variety of factors that
attenuate claims for compensation and make a justifiable system of
compensation so complex that it may be unworkable. But if there is to
be a system of compensation, the one justifiable source of funds to
finance it is assets that have been acquired by appropriating or
buying land and then selling it. ...
The issue of compensation will be examined by considering some
idealized cases, identifying the principles they exhibit, and then
asking how those principles apply to the circumstances in which
modern societies are likely to find themselves. ... Read
the whole article
Nic Tideman: The Constitutional
Conflict Between Protecting Expectations and Moral Evolution
The main point of this paper is simple. Unless the process that generates
a constitution is perfect, there should be provision for the possibility of
changing the constitution. It is true that the stability provided by constitutions
is valuable. By limiting the opportunities for transient majorities to redistribute,
constitutions protect property rights. The resulting stability promotes efficiency
by reducing rent-seeking. But as valuable as stability is, it is not lexically
more valuable than the chance to incorporate new moral understandings into
a constitution. And when a society perceives the need to incorporate a new
moral understanding into its constitution, a disappointment of pre-existing
expectations is likely to be
necessary. ... read the whole article
The Most Rev. Dr Thomas Nulty, Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath
(Ireland): Back to the Land (1881)
Human Slavery Once Generally
Accepted.
Slavery is found to have existed, as a social institution, in
almost all nations, civilised as well as barbarous, and in every age
of the world, up almost to our own times. We hardly ever find it in
the state of a merely passing phenomenon, or as a purely temporary
result of conquest or of war, but always as a settled, established
and recognised state of social existence, in which generation
followed generation in unbroken succession, and in which thousands
upon thousands of human beings lived and died. Hardly anyone had the
public spirit to question its character or to denounce its excesses;
it had no struggle to make for its existence, and the degradation in
which it held its unhappy victims was universally regarded as nothing
worse than a mere sentimental grievance.
On the other hand, the justice of
the right of property which a
master claimed in his slaves was universally accepted in the light of
a first principle of morality. His slaves were either born on his
estate, and he had to submit to the labour and the cost of rearing
and maintaining them to manhood, or he acquired them by inheritance
or by free gift, or, failing these, he acquired them by the right of
purchase -- having paid in exchange for them what, according to the
usages of society and the common estimation of his countrymen, was
regarded as their full pecuniary value. Property, therefore, in
slaves was regarded as sacred, and as inviolable as any other species
of property.
Even Christians Recognised
Slavery.
So deeply rooted and so universally received was this conviction
that the Christian religion itself, though it recognised no
distinction between Jew and Gentile, between slave or freeman,
cautiously abstained from denouncing slavery itself as an injustice
or a wrong. It prudently tolerated this crying evil, because in the
state of public feeling then existing, and at the low standard of
enlightenment and intelligence then prevailing, it was simply
impossible to remedy it.
Thus then had slavery come down
almost to our own time as an
established social institution, carrying with it the practical
sanction and approval of ages and nations, and surrounded with a
prestige of standing and general acceptance well calculated to
recommend it to men's feelings and sympathies. And yet it was the
embodiment of the most odious and cruel injustice that ever afflicted
humanity. To claim a right of property in man was to lower a rational
creature to the level of the beast of the field; it was a revolting
and an unnatural degradation of the nobility of human nature
itself.
That thousands upon thousands of
human beings who had committed no
crime, who had violated no law, and who had done no wrong to anyone,
should be wantonly robbed of their liberty and freedom; should be
deprived of the sacred and inalienable moral rights, which they could
not voluntarily abdicate themselves; should be bought and sold, like
cattle in the markets; and should be worked to death, or allowed to
live on at the whim or caprice of their owner, was the last and most
galling injustice which human nature could be called on to
endure.
The World's Approval Cannot
Justify Injustice.
To arrest public attention, and fix its gaze effectively on the
intrinsic character and constitution of slavery, was to seal its
doom; and its death knell was sounded in the indignant cry of the
great statesman who "denied that man could hold property in man."
Twenty millions of British money were paid over to the slave owners
as compensation for the loss of property to which they had no just
title, and slavery was abolished forever. Read
the whole letter
Jeff Smith and Kris Nelson: Giving
Life to the Property Tax Shift (PTS)
John Muir is right. "Tug on any
one
thing and find it connected to everything else in the universe." Tug on
the property tax and find it connected to urban slums, farmland loss,
political favoritism, and unearned equity with disrupted neighborhood
tenure. Echoing Thoreau, the more familiar reforms have failed to
address this many-headed hydra at its root. To think that the root
could be chopped by a mere shift in the property tax base -- from
buildings to land -- must seem like the epitome of unfounded faith. Yet
the evidence shows that state and local tax activists do have a
powerful, if subtle, tool at their disposal. The "stick" spurring
efficient use of land is a higher tax rate upon land, up to even the
site's full annual value. The "carrot" rewarding efficient use of land
is a lower or zero tax rate upon improvements. ...
In the final analysis, can those who would
redefine progress and other social reformers avoid the issue of what to
do with the immensity of Earth's worth? No. The present policy of low
land taxes and the movement to abolish all taxes on landed property
assume that Earth is ours for the exploiting. It is a mindset that must
be contradicted and laid to rest -- as was the justification for
slavery -- if environmental and planetary values are ever to ascend to
the same level as property rights. The profit from speculation or
over-extraction withers away when land dues are put in place.
...
A big problem needs a big solution which in turn
needs a
matching shift of our prevailing paradigm. Geonomics -- advocating that
we share the social value of sites and natural resources and untax
earnings -- does just that. Read the whole article
Dave Wetzel: Justice or
Injustice: The Locational Benefit Levy
We all have our own personal interpretation of how “justice” can be
achieved.
Often “justice” is interpreted in a very narrow legal sense and only in
reference to the judicial system, which has been designed to protect
the status quo. ...
Of course, all citizens (and subjects in the UK) -- need to know
exactly what are the legal boundaries within which society operates.
But, supposing those original rules are unfair and unjust. Then the
legal framework, being used to perpetuate an injustice -- does not make
that injustice moral and proper even if within the rules of
jurisprudence it is “legal.”
Obvious examples of this dislocation between immoral laws and natural
justice is
- South Africa's former policy of apartheid;
- the USA's former
segregated schools and buses;
- discrimination based on race, religion,
disability or sex;
- slavery;
- the oppression of women;
- Victorian
Britain's use of child labour and colonialism.
All these policies were
“lawful” according to the legal framework of their day but that veneer
of legality did not make these policies righteous and just.
Any society built on a basis of injustice will be burdened down with
its own predisposition towards self-destruction. Even the most
suppressed people will one-day, demand justice, rise up and overthrow
their oppressors.
Human survival demands justice. Wherever slavery or dictatorship has
been installed -- eventually, justice has triumphed and a more
democratic and fairer system has replaced it. It is safe to predict
that wherever slavery or dictatorship exists today -- it will be
superseded by a fairer and more just system.
Similarly, let's consider our distribution of natural resources.
By definition, natural resources are not made by human effort. Our
planet offers every inhabitant a bounty -- an amazing treasure chest of
wealth that can supply our needs for food, shelter and every aspect for
our survival.
Surely, “justice” demands that this natural wealth should be equally
available to all and that nobody should starve, be homeless or suffer
poverty simply because they are excluded from tapping in to this
enormous wealth that nature has provided. ...
If our whole economy, with the private possession of land and other
natural resources, is built upon an injustice -- then can any of us
really be surprised that we continue to live on a planet where wars
predominate, intolerance is common, crime is rife and where poverty and
starvation is the norm for a huge percentage of earth's population.
Is this inherited system really the best we can do?
There must be a method for fairly utilising the earth's natural
resources.
Referring to the rebuilding of
Iraq in
his recent speech to the American Congress, Tony Blair stated “We
promised Iraq democratic Government. We will deliver it. We promised
them the chance to use their oil wealth to build prosperity for all
their citizens, not a corrupt elite. We will do so”.
Thus, Tony Blair recognises the difference between political justice in
the form of a democratic Government and economic justice in the form of
sharing natural resources.
We have not heard any dissenting voice from this promise to share
Iraq's natural oil wealth for all the people of Iraq to enjoy the
benefits. But if it is so obviously
right and proper for the Iraqi people to share their natural
wealth – why is it not the practice to do the same in all nations?
No landowner can create land values. If this were the case, then an
entrepreurial landowner in the Scottish Highlands would be able to
create more value than an indolent landowner in the City of London.
No, land values arise because of natural advantages (eg fertility for
agricultural land or approximity to ports or harbours for commercial
sites) or because of the efforts of the whole community -- past and
present investment by both the public and private sectors, and the
activities of individuals all give rise to land values. Why do we not
advocate the sharing of these land values, which are as much a gift of
nature and probably in most western economies are worth much more than
Iraqi oil?
One solution would be to introduce a Location
Benefit Levy, where each site is valued, based on its optimum
permitted use and a levy is applied – a similar method to Britain's
commercial rates on buildings but based soley on the land value and
ignoring the condition of the building.
The outcome of this policy would be to give all citizens a share in the
natural wealth of the nation. ...
It is an injustice that landowners can speculate on empty sites,
denying their use for jobs or homes.
It is an injustice that a factory owner can sack all their workers,
smash the roof of their building to let in the rain and be rewarded
with elimination of their rates bill.
It is an injustice that the poorest residents pay the highest share of
their incomes in Council Tax.
It is an injustice that people are denied their share of the earth's
resources.
The Location Benefit Levy is a simple way to start addressing the
world's last great injustice. Read the whole article
Henry George: The
Land Question (1881)
The galleys that carried Caesar to Britain,
the accoutrements of his legionaries, the baggage that they carried,
the arms that they bore, the buildings that
they erected; the scythed chariots of the ancient Britons, the horses
that drew them, their wicker boats and wattled houses–where are
they now? But the land for which Roman and Briton fought, there it is
still.
That British
soil is yet as fresh and as new as it was in the days of the Romans.
Generation after generation has lived on it since, and generation after
generation will
live on it yet. Now, here is a very great difference. The right to
possess and to pass on the ownership of things that in their nature decay
and
soon cease to be is a very different thing from the right to possess
and to pass
on the ownership of that which does not decay, but from which each
successive generation must live.
To show how this difference between land and such other species of property
as are properly styled wealth bears upon the argument for the vested rights
of landholders, let me illustrate again.
Captain Kidd was a pirate. He made a business
of sailing the seas, capturing merchantmen, making their crews walk the
plank, and appropriating their cargoes.
In this way he accumulated much wealth, which he is thought to have buried.
But let us suppose, for the sake of the illustration, that he did not bury
his wealth,
but left it to his legal heirs, and they to their heirs and so on, until
at the present day this wealth or a part of it has come to a great-great-grandson
of
Captain Kidd. Now, let us suppose
that some one – say a great-great-grandson of one of the shipmasters whom
Captain Kidd plundered, makes complaint, and says: "This man's great-great-grandfather
plundered my great-great-grandfather of certain things or certain sums, which
have been transmitted to him, whereas but for this wrongful act they would have
been transmitted to me; therefore, I demand that he be made to
restore them." What would society answer?
Society, speaking by its proper tribunals,
and in accordance with principles recognized among all civilized nations,
would say: "We cannot entertain such
a demand. It may be true that Mr. Kidd's great-great-grandfather robbed
your great-great-grandfather, and that as the result of this wrong he
has got things
that otherwise might have come to you. But we cannot inquire into occurrences
that happened so long ago. Each generation has enough to do to attend
to its own affairs. If we go to righting the wrongs and reopening the
controversies
of our great-great-grandfathers, there will be endless disputes and pretexts
for dispute. What you say may be true, but somewhere we must draw the
line, and have an end to strife. Though this man's great-great-grandfather
may
have
robbed your great-great-grandfather, he has not robbed you. He came into
possession of these things peacefully, and has held them peacefully,
and we must take
this peaceful possession, when it has been continued for a certain time,
as absolute evidence of just title; for, were we not to do that, there
would be
no end to dispute and no secure possession of anything."
Now, it is this common-sense principle that
is expressed in the statute of limitations – in the doctrine of vested
rights. This is the reason why it is held – and as
to most things held justly – that peaceable possession for
a certain time cures all defects of title.
But let us pursue the illustration a little further:
Let us suppose that Captain Kidd, having established a large and profitable
piratical business, left it to his son, and he to his son, and so on, until
the great-great-grandson, who now pursues it, has come to consider it the most
natural thing in the world that his ships should roam the sea, capturing peaceful
merchantmen, making their crews walk the plank, and bringing home to him much
plunder, whereby he is enabled, though he does no work at all, to live in very
great luxury, and look down with contempt upon people who have to work. But
at last, let us suppose, the merchants get tired of having their ships sunk
and their goods taken, and sailors get tired of trembling for their lives every
time a sail lifts above the horizon, and they demand of society that piracy
be stopped.
Now, what should society say if Mr. Kidd got
indignant, appealed to the doctrine of vested rights, and asserted that
society was bound to prevent any interference
with the business that he had inherited, and that, if it wanted him
to stop, it must buy him out, paying him all that his business was worth–that
is to say, at least as much as he could make in twenty years' successful
pirating, so that if he stopped pirating he could still continue to live
in luxury off
of the profits of the merchants and the earnings of the sailors?
What ought society to say to such a claim as this? There will be but one answer.
We will all say that society should tell Mr. Kidd that his was a business to
which the statute of limitations and the doctrine of vested rights did not
apply; that because his father, and his grandfather, and his great- and great-great-grandfather
pursued the business of capturing ships and making their crews walk the plank,
was no reason why lie should be permitted to pursue it. Society, we will all
agree, ought to say he would have to stop piracy and stop it at once, and that
without getting a cent for stopping.
Or supposing it had happened that Mr. Kidd had sold out his piratical business
to Smith, Jones, or Robinson, we will all agree that society ought to say that
their purchase of the business gave them no greater right than Mr. Kidd had.
We will all agree that that is what society ought to say. Observe, I do not
ask what society would say.
For, ridiculous and preposterous as it may
appear, I am satisfied that, under the circumstances I have supposed,
society would not for a long time say what
we have agreed it ought to say. Not only would all the Kidds loudly
claim that to make them give up their business without full recompense
would
be a wicked
interference with vested rights, but the justice of this claim would
at first be assumed as a matter of course by all or nearly all the influential
classes–the
great lawyers, the able journalists, the writers for the magazines,
the eloquent clergymen, and the principal professors in the principal
universities.
Nay,
even the merchants and sailors, when they first began to complain,
would be so tyrannized and browbeaten by this public opinion that they
would
hardly
think of more than of buying out the Kidds, and, wherever here and
there any one dared to raise his voice in favor of stopping piracy at
once and
without
compensation, he would only do so under penalty of being stigmatized
as a reckless disturber and wicked foe of social order.
If any one denies this, if any one says mankind are not such fools, then I
appeal to universal history to bear me witness. I appeal to the facts of to-day.
Show me a wrong, no matter how monstrous, that ever yet, among any people,
became ingrafted in the social system, and I will prove to you the truth of
what I say. ...
What is the slave-trade but piracy of the worst kind? Yet it is not long since
the slave-trade was looked upon as a perfectly respectable business, affording
as legitimate an opening for the investment of capital and the display of enterprise
as any other. The proposition to prohibit it was first looked upon as ridiculous,
then as fanatical, then as wicked. It was only slowly and by hard fighting
that the truth in regard to it gained ground. Does not our very Constitution
bear witness to what I say? Does not the fundamental law of the nation, adopted
twelve years after the enunciation of the Declaration of Independence, declare
that for twenty years the slave-trade shall not be prohibited nor restricted?
Such dominion had the idea of vested interests over the minds of those who
had already proclaimed the inalienable right of man to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness! ... read the whole article
Henry George: The Condition
of Labor — An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII in response to Rerum
Novarum (1891)
Thus, that any species of property is permitted by the state does not
of itself give it moral sanction. The state has often made things property
that are not justly property, but involve violence and robbery. For instance,
the things of religion, the dignity and authority of offices of the church,
the power of administering her sacraments and controlling her temporalities,
have often by profligate princes been given as salable property to courtiers
and concubines. At this very day in England an atheist or a heathen may
buy in open market, and hold as legal property, to be sold, given or
bequeathed as he pleases, the power of appointing to the cure of souls,
and the value of these legal rights of presentation is said to be no
less than £17,000,000.
Or again: Slaves were universally treated as property by the customs
and laws of the classical nations, and were so acknowledged in Europe
long after the acceptance of Christianity. At the beginning of this century
there was no Christian nation that did not, in her colonies at least,
recognize property in slaves, and slaveships crossed the seas under Christian
flags. In the United States, little more than thirty years ago, to buy
a man gave the same legal ownership as to buy a horse, and in Mohammedan
countries law and custom yet make the slave the property of his captor
or purchaser.
Yet your Holiness, one of the glories of whose pontificate is the attempt
to break up slavery in its last strongholds, will not contend that the
moral sanction that attaches to property in things produced by labor
can, or ever could, apply to property in slaves.
Your use, in so many passages of your Encyclical, of the inclusive term “property” or “private” property,
of which in morals nothing can be either affirmed or denied, makes your
meaning, if we take isolated sentences, in many places ambiguous. But
reading it as a whole, there can be no doubt of your intention that private
property in land shall be understood when you speak merely of private
property. With this interpretation, I find that the reasons you urge
for private property in land are eight. Let us consider them in order
of presentation. You urge:
1. That what is bought with rightful property is rightful property.
(RN, paragraph 5) ...
2. That private property in land proceeds from man’s gift of reason.
(RN, paragraphs 6-7.) ...
3. That private property in land deprives no one of the use of land.
(RN, paragraph 8.) ...
4. That Industry expended on land gives ownership in the land itself.
(RN, paragraphs 9-10.) ...
5. That private property in land has the support of the common opinion
of mankind, and has conduced to peace and tranquillity, and that it is
sanctioned by Divine Law. (RN, paragraph 11.) ...
6. That fathers should provide for their children and that private property
in land is necessary to enable them to do so. (RN, paragraphs 14-17.)
...
7. That the private ownership of land stimulates industry, increases
wealth, and attaches men to the soil and to their country. (RN, paragraph
51.) ...
8. That the right to possess private property in land is from nature,
not from man; that the state has no right to abolish it, and that to
take the value of landownership in taxation would be unjust and cruel
to the private owner. (RN, paragraph 51.) ... read
the whole letter
Fred E. Foldvary — The
Ultimate Tax Reform:
Public Revenue from Land Rent
We still need to judge whether it is fair for only landowners to pay the
taxes, rather than to spread the burden on all who get income or spend
money or have wealth.
Natural-law philosophers such as John Locke
have reasoned that all human beings have a natural ownership right to
their labor and the products of
that labor. The fundamental equality of humanity means it is fundamentally
wrong for some to take away the labor done by others.31 That notion
is almost universally recognized today with respect to slavery, and some
folks
are beginning to recognize that the current tax system—which taxes
our earnings and taxes how we invest or spend those earnings—also
violates man’s natural right to the fruits of his labor.
If taking the fruit of one’s labor is fundamentally unjust, how
can a community raise the monies needed to build essential infrastructure
and provide public services? Land value taxation takes into account not
only the value of the land due to nature, such as soil and climate, but
also the great increase in land values that result from population, commerce,
security and other civic services, and public works—elements
beyond the activity of the property owner. The windfall increase
in the rental
or land value of the land, contended Henry George and others, is
a surplus that can be tapped by the community.32
Those suggesting positive consequences of
shifting taxation to rent have been accused of exaggerating its beneficial
effects.33 Freedom from punitive
taxation is not a panacea, but the infliction of arbitrary costs
on enterprise and the skewing of market signals such as prices and profits
is indeed
a universal and major cause of economic woes. It is not an exaggeration
to propose that removing these would have many beneficial results,
just as one’s health improves considerably if one stops taking
poison. ... read the whole document
a synopsis of Robert V. Andelson and James M. Dawsey: From
Wasteland to Promised land:
Liberation Theology for a Post-Marxist World
Some defenders of the status quo
admit
that all land titles may be traced either to acts of force or fraud (or
to the more respectable-sounding "priority of occupation"). But, they
add, we cannot start over; society has for centuries given legal
sanction to private landed property. Innumerable contracts have been
executed on the basis of this sanction, and these include the good
faith purchase of land. For society to withdraw this sanction, they
claim, would be a breach of trust.
The
passage of time, however, cannot turn a wrong into a right. Kings and popes and governments
never had the moral right to vest in perpetual ownership what God
intended for the benefit of all. If the acquisition of a
benefit under the law were to establish such a vested right, no law
could ever be amended, since it would invariably work to someone's
disadvantage.
Obviously, change that further rends the fabric of society is
usually
self-defeating. And the vast majority of beneficiaries of unjust
structures -- the beleagured middle classes -- are not intentional
wrongdoers but passive recipients of unearned wealth from a flawed
system they did not create. The dismantling of these structures,
therefore, should, whenever possible, be done in ways that avoid
excessive hardship for them. But it must be done. Read the whole synopsis
|
To
share this page with a friend: right click, choose "send," and
add your comments.
|
|
Red
links have not been visited; .
Green
links are pages you've seen |
Essential Documents
pertinent to this theme:
|
|