Private
Property
This land is your land, this land is my land,
from California, to the New York
island,
from the redwood forests, to the Gulf Stream waters,
this land was made
for you and me. — Woody Guthrie
Edmund Vance Cooke: Uncivilized
An ancient ape, once on a time,
Disliked exceedingly to climb,
And so he picked him out a tree
And said, "Now this belongs to me.
I have a hunch that monks are mutts
And I can make them gather nuts
And bring the bulk of them to me,
By claiming title to this tree." ...
To gather nuts, he made his claim:
"All monkeys climbing on this tree
Must bring their gathered nuts to me,
Cracking the same on equal shares;
The meats are mine, the shells are theirs." .... Read
the whole poem
Henry George: The Crime
of Poverty (1885 speech)
I cannot go over all the points
I would like to try, but I wish
to call your attention to the utter absurdity of private property in
land! Why, consider it, the idea of a man's selling the
earth — the earth, our common mother. A man selling that which no
man produced — a man passing title from one generation to another.
Why, it is the most absurd thing in the world. Why, did you ever
think of it? What right has a dead man to land? For whom was this
earth created? It was created for the living, certainly, not for the
dead. Well, now we treat it as though it was created for the dead.
Where do our land titles come from? They come from men who for the
most part are past and gone. Here in this new country you get a
little nearer the original source; but go to the Eastern States and
go back over the Atlantic. There you may clearly see the power that
comes from landownership. ...
The utter absurdity of this thing
of private property in land! I
defy any one to show me any good from it, look where you please. Go
out in the new lands, where my attention was first called to it, or
go to the heart of the capital of the world — London.
Everywhere, when your eyes are once opened, you will see its
inequality and you will see its absurdity. You do not have to go
farther than Burlington [Iowa]. You have here a most beautiful site for
a
city, but the city itself as compared with what it might be is a
miserable, straggling town. A
gentleman showed me today a big hole
alongside one of your streets. The place has been filled up all
around it and this hole is left. It is neither pretty nor useful. Why
does that hole stay there? Well, it stays there because somebody
claims it as his private property. There is a man, this
gentleman
told me, who wished to grade another lot and wanted somewhere to put
the dirt he took off it, and he offered to buy this hole so that he
might fill it up. Now it would have been a good thing for Burlington
to have it filled up, a good thing for you all — your town would
look better, and you yourself would be in no danger of tumbling into
it some dark night. Why, my friend pointed out to me another similar
hole in which water had collected and told me that two children had
been drowned there. And he likewise told me that a drunken man some
years ago had fallen into such a hole and had brought suit against
the city which cost you taxpayers some $11,000. Clearly it is to the
interest of you all to have that particular hole I am talking of
filled up. The man who wanted to fill it up offered the hole owner
$300. But the hole owner refused the offer and declared that he would
hold out until he could get $1000; and in the meanwhile that
unsightly and dangerous hole must remain. This is but an illustration
of private property in land.
You may see the same thing all
over this country. See how
injuriously in the agricultural districts this thing of private
property in land affects the roads and the distances between the
people. A man does not take what land he wants, what he can use,
but he takes all he can get, and the consequence is that his next
neighbour has to go further along, people are separated from each
other further than they ought to be, to the increased difficulty of
production, to the loss of neighbourhood and companionship. They have
more roads to maintain than they can decently maintain; they must do
more work to get the same result, and life is in every way harder and
drearier.
When you come to the cities it is
just the other way. In the
country the people are too much scattered; in the great cities they
are too crowded. Go to a city like New York and there they are jammed
together like sardines in a box, living family upon family, one above
the other. It is an unnatural and unwholesome life. How can you have
anything like a home in a tenement room, or two or three rooms? How
can children be brought up healthily with no place to play? Two or
three weeks ago I read of a New York judge who fined two little boys
five dollars for playing hop-scotch on the street—where else
could they play? Private property in land had robbed them of all
place to play. Even a temperance man, who had investigated the
subject, said that in his opinion the gin palaces of London were a
positive good in this, that they enabled the people whose abodes were
dark and squalid rooms to see a little brightness and thus prevent
them from going wholly mad. ... read the whole speech
The Most Rev. Dr Thomas Nulty, Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath
(Ireland): Back
to the Land (1881)
How Best to Use the Common
Estate.
The great problem, then, that the nations, or, what comes to the
same thing, that the Governments of nations have to solve is — what
is the most profitable and remunerative investment they can make of
this common property in the interest and for the benefit of the
people to whom it belongs? In other words, how can they bring the
largest, and, as far as possible, the most skilled amount of
effective labour to bear on the proper cultivation and improvement of
the land? — how can they make it yield the largest amount of human
food, human comforts and human enjoyments — and how can its
aggregate produce be divided so as to give everyone the fairest and
largest share he is entitled to without passing over or excluding
anyone?
Security of Possession Necessary to Secure the Rights of the
Improver.
It is because the principle of Private Property fulfils all
these
conditions, satisfies all these requirements and secures all these
results, that it has been regarded by all nations as a necessary
social institution under all forms of government.
The most active, energetic, and,
at the same time, the most
powerful principle of human action that we know of, is self-interest,
and self-interest is the principle of Private Property. This
principle of self-interest is deeply embedded and engrained in our
nature; its activity is constant, uniform and irrepressible, and
whether we advert to it or not, it is the secret and inexhaustible
spring of nearly all our actions, efforts and endeavours. We labour
with untiring energy, earnestness and perseverance, when we know that
we are working for ourselves, for our own interests and benefits.
If, therefore, the land of a
country was surrendered up to the
self-interests of the people of that country; if it was given up to
the operations of the most powerful moral force known to man, which
is everywhere present and everywhere supremely active and energetic,
and which would throw its whole force and strength into the effort
needed for the proper cultivation and improvement of the soil, then
we might expect the largest possible returns of human food and human
enjoyments that the land could possibly yield.
Wherever,
therefore, the principle of Private Property in Land is
carried out to the full extent that its justice and the interests of
the community demand, the land of that country will be parcelled out
in larger or smaller lots among its people, on the plain principle of
justice, that the increased fertility and productiveness which they
shall have imparted to the soil shall be their own, and that they
shall have a strict right of property in the returns — no matter how
abundant — it shall yield to their capital and labour.
With this disposition adopted the
powerful principle of
self-interest will be brought to bear effectively and with all its
energy and force on the cultivation and improvement of the soil; and
as the cultivators or farmers will have a strict right of property in
the products which it shall yield to their labour and capital, so it
will be their highest interests, and they will make their best
efforts to make them as large and as abundant as possible. The
returns, therefore, from the land will be the highest it is capable
of yielding. To stimulate
the production and enlarged growth of that
invaluable property which is created in the development and
improvement of the soil, and to secure to its owner the certainty of
enjoying all its uses and benefits, he must have a right to the
continued and undisturbed possession of his land.
The labour and capital necessary
for the production of property of
this kind are immediate; the returns to be derived from it may be
spread over many years, perhaps over all future time. No man will
incur the expenditure if others, not himself, are to be benefited by
it. He might, no doubt, enjoy the full benefit of improvements
already made after a certain term of years; but to stimulate him to
make further and larger improvements in the soil, and, at the same
time, to secure him a certainty of enjoying the full fruits of those
he has already made, no term of years can produce on men's minds what
has been most felicitously called "the magical effect of perpetuity
of tenure."
Non-Improvers Can
Have No Rights in Land. ...
Security of
Possession and Full Ownership of Products for the Common Good. ...
A Just Right of
Property in Improvements, But Not in Land Itself. ...
What Right of
Exclusion Implies. ...
Individuals May
Rightfully Collect Payment for Improvements in Land. ...
The Whole People the True Owners of the Land.
When, therefore, a
privileged class arrogantly claims a right of
private property in the land of a country, that claim is simply
unintelligible, except in the broad principle that the land of a
country is not a free gift at all, but solely a family inheritance;
that it is not a free gift which God has bestowed on His creatures,
but an inheritance which he has left to His children; that they,
therefore, being God's eldest sons, inherit this property by right of
succession; that the rest of the world have no share or claim to it,
on the ground that origin is tainted with the stain of illegitimacy.
The world, however, will hardly submit to this shameful imputation of
its own degradation, especially when it is not sustained by even a
shadow of reason.
I infer,
therefore, that no individual or class of individuals can
hold a right of private property in the land of a country; that the
people of that country, in their public corporate capacity, are, and
always must be, the real owners of the land of their country --
holding an indisputable title to it, in the fact that they received
it as a free gift from its Creator, and as a necessary means for
preserving and enjoying the life He has bestowed upon them.
Henry George: The Condition of
Labor — An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII in response to Rerum Novarum (1891)
Your Holiness will see from the explanation I have given that the reform
we propose, like all true reforms, has both an ethical and an economic side.
By ignoring the ethical side, and pushing our proposal merely as a reform
of taxation, we could avoid the objections that arise from confounding ownership
with possession and attributing to private property in land that security
of use and improvement that can be had even better without it. All that we
seek practically is the legal abolition, as fast as possible, of taxes on
the products and processes of labor, and the consequent concentration of
taxation on land values irrespective of improvements. To put our proposals
in this way would be to urge them merely as a matter of wise public expediency.
There are indeed many single-tax men who do put our proposals in this way;
who seeing the beauty of our plan from a fiscal standpoint do not concern
themselves further. But to those who think as I do, the ethical is the more
important side. Not only do we not wish to evade the question of private
property in land, but to us it seems that the beneficent and far-reaching
revolution we aim at is too great a thing to be accomplished by “intelligent
self-interest,” and can be carried by nothing less than the religious
conscience. ...
To your proposition that “Our first and most fundamental principle
when we undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses must be the inviolability
of private property” we would joyfully agree if we could only understand
you to have in mind the moral element, and to mean rightful private property,
as when you speak of marriage as ordained by God’s authority we may
understand an implied exclusion of improper marriages. Unfortunately, however,
other expressions show that you mean private property in general and have
expressly in mind private property in land. This confusion of thought, this
non-distribution of terms, runs through your whole argument, leading you
to conclusions so unwarranted by your premises as to be utterly repugnant
to them, as when from the moral sanction of private property in the things
produced by labor you infer something entirely different and utterly opposed,
a similar right of property in the land created by God.
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. Private
property is that which may be held in ownership by an individual, or that
which may be held in ownership by an individual with the sanction of the
state. The mere lawyer, the mere servant of the state, may rest here, refusing
to distinguish between what the state holds equally lawful. Your Holiness,
however, is not a servant of the state, but a servant of God, a guardian
of morals. You know, as said by St. Thomas of Aquin, that —
Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance with right reason and
it is thus manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as
it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law. In such case it
is not law at all, but rather a species of violence.
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.)
1. That what is bought with rightful property is rightful property. (5.)
Clearly, purchase and sale cannot give, but can only transfer ownership.
Property that in itself has no moral sanction does not obtain moral sanction
by passing from seller to buyer.
If right reason does not make the slave the property of the slave-hunter
it does not make him the property of the slave-buyer. Yet your reasoning
as to private property in land would as well justify property in slaves.
To show this it is only needful to change in your argument the word
land to the word slave. It would then read:
It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor,
the very reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and to hold
it as his own private possession.
If one man hires out to another his strength or his industry, he does this
for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for food and living;
he thereby expressly proposes to acquire a full and legal right, not only
to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of that remuneration as he
pleases.
Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and invests his savings, for
greater security, in a slave, the slave in such a case is only his wages
in another
form; and consequently, a working-man’s slave thus purchased should
be as completely at his own disposal as the wages he receives for his
labor.
Nor in turning your argument for private property in land into an
argument for private property in men am I doing a new thing. In my own
country, in
my own time, this very argument, that purchase gave ownership, was the common
defense of slavery. It was made by statesmen, by jurists, by clergymen, by
bishops; it was accepted over the whole country by the great mass of the
people. By it was justified the separation of wives from husbands, of children
from parents, the compelling of labor, the appropriation of its fruits, the
buying and selling of Christians by Christians. In language almost identical
with yours it was asked, “Here is a poor man who has worked hard, lived
sparingly, and invested his savings in a few slaves. Would you rob him of
his earnings by liberating those slaves?” Or it was said: “Here
is a poor widow; all her husband has been able to leave her is a few negroes,
the earnings of his hard toil. Would you rob the widow and the orphan by
freeing these negroes?” And because of this perversion of reason, this
confounding of unjust property rights with just property rights, this acceptance
of man’s law as though it were God’s law, there came on our nation
a judgment of fire and blood.
The error of our people in thinking that what in itself was not
rightfully property could become rightful property by purchase and sale
is the same
error into which your Holiness falls. It is not merely formally the same;
it is essentially the same. Private property in land, no less than
private property in slaves, is a violation of the true rights of property. They are
different forms of the same robbery; twin devices by which the perverted
ingenuity of man has sought to enable the strong and the cunning to escape
God’s requirement of labor by forcing it on others.
What difference does it make whether I merely own the land on which another
man must live or own the man himself? Am I not in the one case as much his
master as in the other? Can I not compel him to work for me? Can I not take
to myself as much of the fruits of his labor; as fully dictate his actions?
Have I not over him the power of life and death?
For to deprive a man of land is as certainly to kill him as to deprive him
of blood by opening his veins, or of air by tightening a halter around his
neck.
The essence of slavery is in empowering one man to obtain the labor
of another without recompense. Private property in land does this as fully
as chattel
slavery. The slave-owner must leave to the slave enough of his earnings to
enable him to live. Are there not in so-called free countries great bodies
of working-men who get no more? How much more of the fruits of their toil
do the agricultural laborers of Italy and England get than did the slaves
of our Southern States? Did not private property in land permit the landowner
of Europe in ruder times to demand the jus primae noctis? Does not the same
last outrage exist today in diffused form in the immorality born of monstrous
wealth on the one hand and ghastly poverty on the other?
In what did the slavery of Russia consist but in giving to the master land
on which the serf was forced to live? When an Ivan or a Catherine
enriched their favorites with the labor of others they did not give men,
they gave
land. And when the appropriation of land has gone so far that no free land
remains to which the landless man may turn, then without further violence
the more insidious form of labor robbery involved in private property
in land takes the place of chattel slavery, because more economical and convenient. For under it the slave does not have to be caught or held, or to be fed when
not needed. He comes of himself, begging the privilege of serving, and when
no longer wanted can be discharged. The lash is unnecessary; hunger is as
efficacious. This is why the Norman conquerors of England and the English
conquerors of Ireland did not divide up the people, but divided the land.
This is why European slave-ships took their cargoes to the New World, not
to Europe.
Slavery is not yet abolished. Though in all Christian countries its ruder
form has now gone, it still exists in the heart of our civilization in more
insidious form, and is increasing. There is work to be done for the glory
of God and the liberty of man by other soldiers of the cross than those warrior
monks whom, with the blessing of your Holiness, Cardinal Lavigerie is sending
into the Sahara. Yet, your Encyclical employs in defense of one form of slavery
the same fallacies that the apologists for chattel slavery used in defense
of the other!
The Arabs are not wanting in acumen. Your Encyclical reaches far. What shall
your warrior monks say, if when at the muzzle of their rifles they demand
of some Arab slave-merchant his miserable caravan, he shall declare that
he bought them with his savings, and producing a copy of your Encyclical,
shall prove by your reasoning that his slaves are consequently “only
his wages in another form,” and ask if they who bear your blessing
and own your authority propose to “deprive him of the liberty of disposing
of his wages and thus of all hope and possibility of increasing his stock
and bettering his condition in life”?
3. That private property in land deprives no one of the use of land. (8.)
Your own statement that land is the inexhaustible storehouse that God owes
to man must have aroused in your Holiness’s mind an uneasy questioning
of its appropriation as private property, for, as though to reassure yourself,
you proceed to argue that its ownership by some will not injure others. You
say in substance, that even though divided among private owners the earth
does not cease to minister to the needs of all, since those who do not possess
the soil can by selling their labor obtain in payment the produce of the
land.
Suppose that to your Holiness as a judge of morals one should put this case
of conscience:
I am one of several children to whom our father left a field abundant for
our support. As he assigned no part of it to any one of us in particular,
leaving the limits of our separate possession to be fixed by ourselves, I
being the eldest took the whole field in exclusive ownership. But in doing
so I have not deprived my brothers of their support from it, for I have let
them work for me on it, paying them from the produce as much wages as I would
have had to pay strangers. Is there any reason why my conscience should not
be clear?
What would be your answer? Would you not tell him that he was in mortal
sin, and that his excuse added to his guilt? Would you not call on him to
make restitution and to do penance?
Or, suppose that as a temporal prince your Holiness were ruler of a rainless
land, such as Egypt, where there were no springs or brooks, their want being
supplied by a bountiful river like the Nile. Supposing that having sent a
number of your subjects to make fruitful this land, bidding them do justly
and prosper, you were told that some of them had set up a claim of ownership
in the river, refusing the others a drop of water, except as they bought
it of them; and that thus they had become rich without work, while the others,
though working hard, were so impoverished by paying for water as to be hardly
able to exist?
Would not your indignation wax hot when this was told?
Suppose that then the river-owners should send to you and thus excuse their
action:
The river, though divided among private owners, ceases not thereby
to minister to the needs of all, for there is no one who drinks who does
not
drink of
the water of the river. Those who do not possess the water of the river
contribute their labor to get it; so that it may be truly said that all
water is supplied
either from one’s own river, or from some laborious industry which
is paid for either in the water, or in that which is exchanged for the
water.
Would the indignation of your Holiness be abated? Would it not wax fiercer
yet for the insult to your intelligence of this excuse?
I do not need more formally to show your Holiness that between utterly depriving
a man of God’s gifts and depriving him of God’s gifts unless
he will buy them, is merely the difference between the robber who leaves
his victim to die and the robber who puts him to ransom. But I would like
to point out how your statement that “the earth, though divided among
private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all” overlooks
the largest facts.
From your palace of the Vatican the eye may rest on the expanse of the Campagna,
where the pious toil of religious congregations and the efforts of the state
are only now beginning to make it possible for men to live. Once that expanse
was tilled by thriving husbandmen and dotted with smiling hamlets. What for
centuries has condemned it to desertion? History tells us. It was private
property in land; the growth of the great estates of which Pliny saw that
ancient Italy was perishing; the cause that, by bringing failure to the crop
of men, let in the Goths and Vandals, gave Roman Britain to the worship of
Odin and Thor, and in what were once the rich and populous provinces of the
East shivered the thinned ranks and palsied arms of the legions on the simitars
of Mohammedan hordes, and in the sepulcher of our Lord and in the Church
of St. Sophia trampled the cross to rear the crescent!
If you will go to Scotland, you may see great tracts that under the Gaelic
tenure, which recognized the right of each to a foothold in the soil, bred
sturdy men, but that now, under the recognition of private property in land,
are given up to wild animals. If you go to Ireland, your Bishops will show
you, on lands where now only beasts graze, the traces of hamlets that, when
they were young priests, were filled with honest, kindly, religious people.*
* Let any one who wishes visit this diocese and see with
his own eyes the vast and boundless extent of the fairest land in Europe
that has been
ruthlessly
depopulated since the commencement of the present century, and which
is now abandoned to a loneliness and solitude more depressing than that
of the prairie
or the wilderness. Thus has this land system actually exercised the power
of life and death on a vast scale, for which there is no parallel even
in the dark records of slavery. — Bishop
Nulty’s Letter to
the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Meath.
If you will come to the United States, you will find in a land wide enough
and rich enough to support in comfort the whole population of Europe, the
growth of a sentiment that looks with evil eye on immigration, because the
artificial scarcity that results from private property in land makes it seem
as if there is not room enough and work enough for those already here.
Or go to the Antipodes, and in Australia, as in England, you may see that
private property in land is operating to leave the land barren and to crowd
the bulk of the population into great cities. Go wherever you please where
the forces loosed by modern invention are beginning to be felt and you may
see that private property in land is the curse, denounced by the prophet,
that prompts men to lay field to field till they “alone dwell in the
midst of the earth.
To the mere materialist this is sin and shame. Shall we to whom this world
is God’s world — we who hold that man is called to this life
only as a prelude to a higher life — shall we defend it?
4. That Industry expended on land gives ownership in the land itself. (9-10.)
Your Holiness next contends that industry expended on land gives a right
to ownership of the land, and that the improvement of land creates benefits
indistinguishable and inseparable from the land itself.
This contention, if valid, could only justify the ownership of land by those
who expend industry on it. It would not justify private property in land
as it exists. On the contrary, it would justify a gigantic no-rent declaration
that would take land from those who now legally own it, the landlords, and
turn it over to the tenants and laborers. And if it also be that improvements
cannot be distinguished and separated from the land itself, how could the
landlords claim consideration even for improvements they had made?
But your Holiness cannot mean what your words imply. What you really mean,
I take it, is that the original justification and title of landownership
is in the expenditure of labor on it. But neither can this justify private
property in land as it exists. For is it not all but universally true that
existing land titles do not come from use, but from force or fraud?
Take Italy! Is it not true that the greater part of the land of Italy is
held by those who so far from ever having expended industry on it have been
mere appropriators of the industry of those who have? Is this not also true
of Great Britain and of other countries? Even in the United States, where
the forces of concentration have not yet had time fully to operate and there
has been some attempt to give land to users, it is probably true today that
the greater part of the land is held by those who neither use it nor propose
to use it themselves, but merely hold it to compel others to pay them for
permission to use it.
And if industry give ownership to land what are the limits of this ownership?
If a man may acquire the ownership of several square miles of land by grazing
sheep on it, does this give to him and his heirs the ownership of the same
land when it is found to contain rich mines, or when by the growth of population
and the progress of society it is needed for farming, for gardening, for
the close occupation of a great city? Is it on the rights given by the industry
of those who first used it for grazing cows or growing potatoes that you
would found the title to the land now covered by the city of New York and
having a value of thousands of millions of dollars?
But your contention is not valid. Industry expended on land gives ownership
in the fruits of that industry, but not in the land itself, just as industry
expended on the ocean would give a right of ownership to the fish taken by
it, but not a right of ownership in the ocean. Nor yet is it true that private
ownership of land is necessary to secure the fruits of labor on land; nor
does the improvement of land create benefits indistinguishable and inseparable
from the land itself. That secure possession is necessary to the use and
improvement of land I have already explained, but that ownership is not necessary
is shown by the fact that in all civilized countries land owned by one person
is cultivated and improved by other persons. Most of the cultivated land
in the British Islands, as in Italy and other countries, is cultivated not
by owners but by tenants. And so the costliest buildings are erected by those
who are not owners of the land, but who have from the owner a mere right
of possession for a time on condition of certain payments. Nearly the whole
of London has been built in this way, and in New York, Chicago, Denver, San
Francisco, Sydney and Melbourne, as well as in continental cities, the owners
of many of the largest edifices will be found to be different persons from
the owners of the ground. So far from the value of improvements being inseparable
from the value of land, it is in individual transactions constantly separated.
For instance, one-half of the land on which the immense Grand Pacific Hotel
in Chicago stands was recently separately sold, and in Ceylon it is a not
infrequent occurrence for one person to own a fruit-tree and another to own
the ground in which it is implanted.
There is, indeed, no improvement of land, whether it be clearing, plowing,
manuring, cultivating, the digging of cellars, the opening of wells or the
building of houses, that so long as its usefulness continues does not have
a value clearly distinguishable from the value of the land. For land having
such improvements will always sell or rent for more than similar land without
them.
If, therefore, the state levy a tax equal to what the land irrespective
of improvement would bring, it will take the benefits of mere ownership,
but will leave the full benefits of use and improvement, which the prevailing
system does not do. And since the holder, who would still in form continue
to be the owner, could at any time give or sell both possession and improvements,
subject to future assessment by the state on the value of the land alone,
he will be perfectly free to retain or dispose of the full amount of property
that the exertion of his labor or the investment of his capital has attached
to or stored up in the land.
Thus, what we propose would secure, as it is impossible in any other way
to secure, what you properly say is just and right — ”that the
results of labor should belong to him who has labored.” But
private property in land — to allow the holder without adequate payment to
the state to take for himself the benefit of the value that attaches to land
with social growth and improvement — does take the results of labor
from him who has labored, does turn over the fruits of one man’s labor
to be enjoyed by another. For labor, as the active factor, is the producer
of all wealth. Mere ownership produces nothing. A man might own a world,
but so sure is the decree that “by the sweat of thy brow shalt thou
eat bread,” that without labor he could not get a meal or provide himself
a garment. Hence, when the owners of land, by virtue of their ownership and
without laboring themselves, get the products of labor in abundance, these
things must come from the labor of others, must be the fruits of others’ sweat,
taken from those who have a right to them and enjoyed by those who have no
right to them.
The only utility of private ownership of land as distinguished from
possession is the evil utility of giving to the owner products of labor
he does not
earn. For until land will yield to its owner some return beyond that of the
labor and capital he expends on it — that is to say, until by sale
or rental he can without expenditure of labor obtain from it products of
labor, ownership amounts to no more than security of possession, and has
no value. Its importance and value begin only when, either in the present
or prospectively, it will yield a revenue — that is to say, will enable
the owner as owner to obtain products of labor without exertion on his part,
and thus to enjoy the results of others’ labor.
What largely keeps men from realizing the robbery involved in private property
in land is that in the most striking cases the robbery is not of individuals,
but of the community. For, as I have before explained, it is impossible for
rent in the economic sense — that value which attaches to land by reason
of social growth and improvement — to go to the user. It can go only
to the owner or to the community. Thus those who pay enormous rents for the
use of land in such centers as London or New York are not individually injured.
Individually they get a return for what they pay, and must feel that they
have no better right to the use of such peculiarly advantageous localities
without paying for it than have thousands of others. And so, not thinking
or not caring for the interests of the community, they make no objection
to the system.
It recently came to light in New York that a man having no title whatever
had been for years collecting rents on a piece of land that the growth of
the city had made very valuable. Those who paid these rents had never stopped
to ask whether he had any right to them. They felt that they had no right
to land that so many others would like to have, without paying for it, and
did not think of, or did not care for, the rights of all.
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. (11.)
Even were it true that the common opinion of mankind has sanctioned private
property in land, this would no more prove its justice than the once universal
practice of the known world would have proved the justice of slavery.
But it is not true. Examination will show that wherever we can trace them
the first perceptions of mankind have always recognized the equality of right
to land, and that when individual possession became necessary to secure the
right of ownership in things produced by labor some method of securing equality,
sufficient in the existing state of social development, was adopted. Thus,
among some peoples, land used for cultivation was periodically divided, land
used for pasturage and wood being held in common. Among others, every family
was permitted to hold what land it needed for a dwelling and for cultivation,
but the moment that such use and cultivation stopped any one else could step
in and take it on like tenure. Of the same nature were the land laws of the
Mosaic code. The land, first fairly divided among the people, was made inalienable
by the provision of the jubilee, under which, if sold, it reverted every
fiftieth year to the children of its original possessors.
Private property in land as we know it, the attaching to land of
the same right of ownership that justly attaches to the products of labor,
has never
grown up anywhere save by usurpation or force. Like slavery, it is the result
of war. It comes to us of the modern world from your ancestors, the Romans,
whose civilization it corrupted and whose empire it destroyed.
It made with the freer spirit of the northern peoples the combination of
the feudal system, in which, though subordination was substituted for equality,
there was still a rough recognition of the principle of common rights in
land. A fief was a trust, and to enjoyment was annexed some obligation. The
sovereign, the representative of the whole people, was the only owner of
land. Of him, immediately or mediately, held tenants, whose possession involved
duties or payments, which, though rudely and imperfectly, embodied the idea
that we would carry out in the single tax, of taking land values for public
uses. The crown lands maintained the sovereign and the civil list; the church
lands defrayed the cost of public worship and instruction, of the relief
of the sick, the destitute and the wayworn; while the military tenures provided
for public defense and bore the costs of war. A fourth and very large portion
of the land remained in common, the people of the neighborhood being free
to pasture it, cut wood on it, or put it to other common uses.
In this partial yet substantial recognition of common rights to
land is
to be found the reason why, in a time when the industrial arts were rude,
wars frequent, and the great discoveries and inventions of our time unthought
of, the condition of the laborer was devoid of that grinding poverty which
despite our marvelous advances now exists. Speaking of England, the highest
authority on such subjects, the late Professor Therold Rogers, declares that
in the thirteenth century there was no class so poor, so helpless,
so pressed and degraded as are millions of Englishmen in our boasted nineteenth
century;
and that, save in times of actual famine, there was no laborer so poor as
to fear that his wife and children might come to want even were he taken
from them. Dark and rude in many respects as they were, these were the times
when the cathedrals and churches and religious houses whose ruins yet excite
our admiration were built; the times when England had no national debt, no
poor law, no standing army, no hereditary paupers, no thousands and thousands
of human beings rising in the morning without knowing where they might lay
their heads at night.
With the decay of the feudal system, the system of private property in land
that had destroyed Rome was extended. As to England, it may briefly be said
that the crown lands were for the most part given away to favorites; that
the church lands were parceled among his courtiers by Henry VIII., and in
Scotland grasped by the nobles; that the military dues were finally remitted
in the seventeenth century, and taxation on consumption substituted; and
that by a process beginning with the Tudors and extending to our own time
all but a mere fraction of the commons were inclosed by the greater landowners;
while the same private ownership of land was extended over Ireland and the
Scottish Highlands, partly by the sword and partly by bribery of the chiefs. Even the military dues, had they been commuted, not remitted, would today
have more than sufficed to pay all public expenses without one penny of other
taxation.
Of the New World, whose institutions but continue those of Europe, it is
only necessary to say that to the parceling out of land in great tracts is
due the backwardness and turbulence of Spanish America; that to the large
plantations of the Southern States of the Union was due the persistence of
slavery there, and that the more northern settlements showed the earlier
English feeling, land being fairly well divided and the attempts to establish
manorial estates coming to little or nothing. In this lies the secret of
the more vigorous growth of the Northern States. But the idea that land was
to be treated as private property had been thoroughly established in English
thought before the colonial period ended, and it has been so treated by the
United States and by the several States. And though land was at first sold
cheaply, and then given to actual settlers, it was also sold in large quantities
to speculators, given away in great tracts for railroads and other purposes,
until now the public domain of the United States, which a generation ago
seemed illimitable, has practically gone. And this, as the experience of
other countries shows, is the natural result in a growing community of making
land private property. When the possession of land means the gain of unearned
wealth, the strong and unscrupulous will secure it. But when, as we propose,
economic rent, the “unearned increment of wealth,” is taken by
the state for the use of the community, then land will pass into the hands
of users and remain there, since no matter how great its value, its possession
will be profitable only to users.
As to private property in land having conduced to the peace and tranquillity
of human life, it is not necessary more than to allude to the notorious fact
that the struggle for land has been the prolific source of wars and of lawsuits,
while it is the poverty engendered by private property in land that makes
the prison and the workhouse the unfailing attributes of what we call Christian
civilization.
Your Holiness intimates that the Divine Law gives its sanction to the private
ownership of land, quoting from Deuteronomy, “Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor’s wife, nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant,
nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything which is his.”
If, as your Holiness conveys, this inclusion of the words, “nor his
field,” is to be taken as sanctioning private property in land as it
exists today, then, but with far greater force, must the words, “his
man-servant, nor his maid-servant,” be taken to sanction chattel slavery;
for it is evident from other provisions of the same code that these terms
referred both to bondsmen for a term of years and to perpetual slaves. But
the word “field” involves the idea of use and improvement, to
which the right of possession and ownership does attach without recognition
of property in the land itself. And that this reference to the “field” is
not a sanction of private property in land as it exists today is proved by
the fact that the Mosaic code expressly denied such unqualified ownership
in land, and with the declaration, “the land also shall not be sold
forever, because it is mine, and you are strangers and sojourners with me,” provided
for its reversion every fiftieth year; thus, in a way adapted to the primitive
industrial conditions of the time, securing to all of the chosen people a
foothold in the soil.
Nowhere in fact throughout the Scriptures can the slightest justification
be found for the attaching to land of the same right of property that justly
attaches to the things produced by labor. Everywhere is it treated as the
free bounty of God, “the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
6. That fathers should provide for their children and that private
property in land is necessary to enable them to do so. (14-17.)
With all that your Holiness has to say of the sacredness of the family relation
we are in full accord. But how the obligation of the father to the
child can justify private property in land we cannot see. You reason that private
property in land is necessary to the discharge of the duty of the father,
and is therefore requisite and just, because —
It is a most sacred law of nature that a father must provide food and all
necessaries for those whom he has begotten; and, similarly, nature dictates
that a man’s children, who carry on, as it were, and continue his own
personality, should be provided by him with all that is needful to enable
them honorably to keep themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties
of this mortal life. Now, in no other way can a father effect this except
by the ownership of profitable property, which he can transmit to his children
by inheritance. (14.)
Thanks to Him who has bound the generations of men together by a provision
that brings the tenderest love to greet our entrance into the world and soothes
our exit with filial piety, it is both the duty and the joy of the father
to care for the child till its powers mature, and afterwards in the natural
order it becomes the duty and privilege of the child to be the stay of the
parent. This is the natural reason for that relation of marriage, the groundwork
of the sweetest, tenderest and purest of human joys, which the Catholic Church
has guarded with such unremitting vigilance.
We do, for a few years, need the providence of our fathers after the flesh.
But how small, how transient, how narrow is this need, as compared with our
constant need for the providence of Him in whom we live, move and have our
being — Our Father who art in Heaven! It is to him, “the giver
of every good and perfect gift,” and not to our fathers after the flesh,
that Christ taught us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.” And
how true it is that it is through him that the generations of men exist!
Let the mean temperature of the earth rise or fall a few degrees, an amount
as nothing compared with differences produced in our laboratories, and mankind
would disappear as ice disappears under a tropical sun, would fall as the
leaves fall at the touch of frost. Or, let for two or three seasons the earth
refuse her increase, and how many of our millions would remain alive?
The duty of fathers to transmit to their children profitable property that
will enable them to keep themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties
of this mortal life! What is not possible cannot be a duty. And how
is it possible for fathers to do that? Your Holiness has not considered how
mankind
really lives from hand to mouth, getting each day its daily bread; how little
one generation does or can leave another. It is doubtful if the wealth of
the civilized world all told amounts to anything like as much as one year’s
labor, while it is certain that if labor were to stop and men had to rely
on existing accumulation, it would be only a few days ere in the richest
countries pestilence and famine would stalk.
The profitable property your Holiness refers to, is private
property in land. Now profitable land, as all economists will agree, is land superior
to the
land that the ordinary man can get. It is land that will yield an income
to the owner as owner, and therefore that will permit the owner to appropriate
the products of labor without doing labor, its profitableness to the individual
involving the robbery of other individuals. It is therefore possible only
for some fathers to leave their children profitable land. What therefore
your Holiness practically declares is, that it is the duty of all fathers
to struggle to leave their children what only the few peculiarly strong,
lucky or unscrupulous can leave; and that, a something that involves the
robbery of others — their deprivation of the material gifts of God.
This anti-Christian doctrine has been long in practice throughout the Christian
world. What are its results?
Are they not the very evils set forth in your Encyclical? Are they not,
so far from enabling men to keep themselves from want and misery in the uncertainties
of this mortal life, to condemn the great masses of men to want and misery
that the natural conditions of our mortal life do not entail; to want and
misery deeper and more wide-spread than exist among heathen savages? Under
the régime of private property in land and in the richest countries
not five per cent of fathers are able at their death to leave anything substantial
to their children, and probably a large majority do not leave enough to bury
them! Some few children are left by their fathers richer than it is good
for them to be, but the vast majority not only are left nothing by their
fathers, but by the system that makes land private property are deprived
of the bounty of their Heavenly Father; are compelled to sue others for permission
to live and to work, and to toil all their lives for a pittance that often
does not enable them to escape starvation and pauperism.
What your Holiness is actually, though of course inadvertently,
urging, is that earthly fathers should assume the functions of the Heavenly
Father. It is not the business of one generation to provide the succeeding generation “with
all that is needful to enable them honorably to keep themselves from want
and misery.” That is God’s business. We no more create our children
than we create our fathers. It is God who is the Creator of each succeeding
generation as fully as of the one that preceded it. And, to recall your own
words (7), “Nature [God], therefore, owes to man a storehouse that
shall never fail, the daily supply of his daily wants. And this he finds
only in the inexhaustible fertility of the earth.” What you are now
assuming is, that it is the duty of men to provide for the wants of their
children by appropriating this storehouse and depriving other men’s
children of the unfailing supply that God has provided for all.
The duty of the father to the child — the duty possible to all fathers!
Is it not so to conduct himself, so to nurture and teach it, that it shall
come to manhood with a sound body, well-developed mind, habits of virtue,
piety and industry, and in a state of society that shall give it and all
others free access to the bounty of God, the providence of the All-Father?
In doing this the father would be doing more to secure his children from
want and misery than is possible now to the richest of fathers — as
much more as the providence of God surpasses that of man. For the justice
of God laughs at the efforts of men to circumvent it, and the subtle law
that binds humanity together poisons the rich in the sufferings of the poor.
Even the few who are able in the general struggle to leave their children
wealth that they fondly think will keep them from want and misery in the
uncertainties of this mortal life — do they succeed? Does experience
show that it is a benefit to a child to place him above his fellows and enable
him to think God’s law of labor is not for him? Is not such wealth
oftener a curse than a blessing, and does not its expectation often destroy
filial love and bring dissensions and heartburnings into families? And how
far and how long are even the richest and strongest able to exempt their
children from the common lot? Nothing is more certain than that the blood
of the masters of the world flows today in lazzaroni and that the descendants
of kings and princes tenant slums and workhouses.
But in the state of society we strive for, where the monopoly and waste
of God’s bounty would be done away with and the fruits of labor would
go to the laborer, it would be within the ability of all to make more than
a comfortable living with reasonable labor. And for those who might be crippled
or incapacitated, or deprived of their natural protectors and breadwinners,
the most ample provision could be made out of that great and increasing fund
with which God in his law of rent has provided society — not as a matter
of niggardly and degrading alms, but as a matter of right, as the assurance
which in a Christian state society owes to all its members.
Thus it is that the duty of the father, the obligation to the child, instead
of giving any support to private property in land, utterly condemns it, urging
us by the most powerful considerations to abolish it in the simple and efficacious
way of the single tax.
This duty of the father, this obligation to children, is not confined to
those who have actually children of their own, but rests on all of us who
have come to the powers and responsibilities of manhood.
For did not Christ set a little child in the midst of the disciples, saying
to them that the angels of such little ones always behold the face of his
Father; saying to them that it were better for a man to hang a millstone
about his neck and plunge into the uttermost depths of the sea than to injure
such a little one?
And what today is the result of private property in land in the richest
of so-called Christian countries? Is it not that young people fear to marry;
that married people fear to have children; that children are driven out of
life from sheer want of proper nourishment and care, or compelled to toil
when they ought to be at school or at play; that great numbers of those who
attain maturity enter it with under-nourished bodies, overstrained nerves,
undeveloped minds — under conditions that foredoom them, not merely
to suffering, but to crime; that fit them in advance for the prison and the
brothel?
If your Holiness will consider these things we are confident that instead
of defending private property in land you will condemn it with anathema!
7. That the private ownership of land stimulates industry, increases
wealth, and attaches men to the soil and to their country. (51.)
The idea, as expressed by Arthur Young, that “the magic of property
turns barren sands to gold” springs from the confusion of ownership
with possession, of which I have before spoken, that attributes to private
property in land what is due to security of the products of labor. It is
needless for me again to point out that the change we propose, the taxation
for public uses of land values, or economic rent, and the abolition of other
taxes, would give to the user of land far greater security for the fruits
of his labor than the present system and far greater permanence of possession.
Nor is it necessary further to show how it would give homes to those who
are now homeless and bind men to their country. For under it every
one who wanted a piece of land for a home or for productive use could get
it without
purchase price and hold it even without tax, since the tax we propose would
not fall on all land, nor even on all land in use, but only on land better
than the poorest land in use, and is in reality not a tax at all, but merely
a return to the state for the use of a valuable privilege. And even those
who from circumstances or occupation did not wish to make permanent use of
land would still have an equal interest with all others in the land of their
country and in the general prosperity.
But I should like your Holiness to consider how utterly unnatural is the
condition of the masses in the richest and most progressive of Christian
countries; how large bodies of them live in habitations in which a rich man
would not ask his dog to dwell; how the great majority have no homes from
which they are not liable on the slightest misfortune to be evicted; how
numbers have no homes at all, but must seek what shelter chance or charity
offers. I should like to ask your Holiness to consider how the great majority
of men in such countries have no interest whatever in what they are taught
to call their native land, for which they are told that on occasions it is
their duty to fight or to die. What right, for instance, have the majority
of your countrymen in the land of their birth? Can they live in Italy outside
of a prison or a poorhouse except as they buy the privilege from some of
the exclusive owners of Italy? Cannot an Englishman, an American, an Arab
or a Japanese do as much? May not what was said centuries ago by Tiberius
Gracchus be said today: “Men of Rome! you are called the lords of the
world, yet have no right to a square foot of its soil! The wild beasts have
their dens, but the soldiers of Italy have only water and air!”
What is true of Italy is true of the civilized world — is becoming
increasingly true. It is the inevitable effect as civilization progresses
of private property in land.
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. (51.)
This, like much else that your Holiness says, is masked in the use of the
indefinite terms “private property” and “private owner” — a
want of precision in the use of words that has doubtless aided in the confusion
of your own thought. But the context leaves no doubt that by private property
you mean private property in land, and by private owner, the private owner
of land.
The contention, thus made, that private property in land is from
nature, not from man, has no other basis than the confounding of ownership
with possession
and the ascription to property in land of what belongs to its contradictory,
property in the proceeds of labor. You do not attempt to show for it any
other basis, nor has any one else ever attempted to do so. That private property
in the products of labor is from nature is clear, for nature gives such things
to labor and to labor alone. Of every article of this kind, we know that
it came into being as nature’s response to the exertion of an individual
man or of individual men — given by nature directly and exclusively
to him or to them. Thus there inheres in such things a right of private property,
which originates from and goes back to the source of ownership, the maker
of the thing. This right is anterior to the state and superior to its enactments,
so that, as we hold, it is a violation of natural right and an injustice
to the private owner for the state to tax the processes and products of labor.
They do not belong to Caesar. They are things that God, of whom nature is
but an expression, gives to those who apply for them in the way he has appointed — by
labor.
But who will dare trace the individual ownership of land to any
grant from the Maker of land? What does nature give to such ownership? how does she
in any way recognize it? Will any one show from difference of form or feature,
of stature or complexion, from dissection of their bodies or analysis of
their powers and needs, that one man was intended by nature to own land and
another to live on it as his tenant? That which derives its existence from
man and passes away like him, which is indeed but the evanescent expression
of his labor, man may hold and transfer as the exclusive property of the
individual; but how can such individual ownership attach to land, which existed
before man was, and which continues to exist while the generations of men
come and go — the unfailing storehouse that the Creator gives to man
for “the daily supply of his daily wants”?
Clearly, the private ownership of land is from the state, not from
nature. Thus, not merely can no objection be made on the score of morals when it
is proposed that the state shall abolish it altogether, but insomuch as it
is a violation of natural right, its existence involving a gross injustice
on the part of the state, an “impious violation of the benevolent intention
of the Creator,” it is a moral duty that the state so abolish it.
So far from there being anything unjust in taking the full value
of landownership for the use of the community, the real injustice is in
leaving it in private
hands — an injustice that amounts to robbery and murder.
And when your Holiness shall see this I have no fear that you will listen
for one moment to the impudent plea that before the community can take what
God intended it to take — before men who have been disinherited of
their natural rights can be restored to them, the present owners of land
shall first be compensated.
For not only will you see that the single tax will directly and largely
benefit small landowners, whose interests as laborers and capitalists are
much greater than their interests as landowners, and that though the great
landowners — or rather the propertied class in general among whom the
profits of landownership are really divided through mortgages, rent-charges,
etc. — would relatively lose, they too would be absolute gainers in
the increased prosperity and improved morals; but more quickly, more strongly,
more peremptorily than from any calculation of gains or losses would your
duty as a man, your faith as a Christian, forbid you to listen for one moment
to any such paltering with right and wrong.
Where the state takes some land for public uses it is only just that those
whose land is taken should be compensated, otherwise some landowners would
be treated more harshly than others. But where, by a measure affecting all
alike, rent is appropriated for the benefit of all, there can be no claim
to compensation. Compensation in such case would be a continuance of the
same in another form — the giving to landowners in the shape of interest
of what they before got as rent. Your Holiness knows that justice and injustice
are not thus to be juggled with, and when you fully realize that land is
really the storehouse that God owes to all his children, you will no more
listen to any demand for compensation for restoring it to them than Moses
would have listened to a demand that Pharaoh should be compensated before
letting the children of Israel go.
Compensated for what? For giving up what has been unjustly taken? The demand
of landowners 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 values have taken the fruits of labor to retain what they have thus
got. We merely propose that for the future such robbery of labor shall cease — that
for the future, not for the past, landholders shall pay to the community
the rent that to the community is justly due. ...
... How true this is we may see in the facts of today. In our own
time invention and discovery have enormously increased the productive power
of labor, and
at the same time greatly reduced the cost of many things necessary to the
support of the laborer. Have these improvements anywhere raised the earnings
of the mere laborer? Have not their benefits mainly gone to the owners of
land — enormously increased land values?
I say mainly, for some part of the benefit has gone to the cost of monstrous
standing armies and warlike preparations; to the payment of interest on great
public debts; and, largely disguised as interest on fictitious capital, to
the owners of monopolies other than that of land. But improvements that would
do away with these wastes would not benefit labor; they would simply increase
the profits of landowners. Were standing armies and all their incidents abolished,
were all monopolies other than that of land done away with, were governments
to become models of economy, were the profits of speculators, of middlemen,
of all sorts of exchangers saved, were every one to become so strictly honest
that no policemen, no courts, no prisons, no precautions against dishonesty
would be needed — the result would not differ from that which has followed
the increase of productive power.
Nay, would not these very blessings bring starvation to many of those who
now manage to live? Is it not true that if there were proposed today, what
all Christian men ought to pray for, the complete disbandment of all the
armies of Europe, the greatest fears would be aroused for the consequences
of throwing on the labor-market so many unemployed laborers?
The explanation of this and of similar paradoxes that in our time perplex
on every side may be easily seen. The effect of all inventions and improvements
that increase productive power, that save waste and economize effort, is
to lessen the labor required for a given result, and thus to save labor,
so that we speak of them as labor-saving inventions or improvements. Now,
in a natural state of society where the rights of all to the use of the earth
are acknowledged, labor-saving improvements might go to the very utmost that
can be imagined without lessening the demand for men, since in such natural
conditions the demand for men lies in their own enjoyment of life and the
strong instincts that the Creator has implanted in the human breast. But
in that unnatural state of society where the masses of men are disinherited
of all but the power to labor when opportunity to labor is given them by
others, there the demand for them becomes simply the demand for their services
by those who hold this opportunity, and man himself becomes a commodity. Hence, although the natural effect of labor-saving improvement is to increase
wages, yet in the unnatural condition which private ownership of the land
begets, the effect, even of such moral improvements as the disbandment of
armies and the saving of the labor that vice entails, is, by lessening the
commercial demand, to lower wages and reduce mere laborers to starvation
or pauperism. If labor-saving inventions and improvements could be
carried to the very abolition of the necessity for labor, what would be the
result?
Would it not be that landowners could then get all the wealth that the land
was capable of producing, and would have no need at all for laborers, who
must then either starve or live as pensioners on the bounty of the landowners?
Thus, so long as private property in land continues — so long
as some men are treated as owners of the earth and other men can live on
it only
by their sufferance — human wisdom can devise no means by which the
evils of our present condition may be avoided. ... read the whole letter
Robert V. Andelson Henry
George and the Reconstruction of Capitalism
Nevertheless, there is a
Middle Way. There is a body of
socio-economic truth which incorporates the best insights of both
Capitalism and Socialism. Yet they are not insights that are
artificially woven together to form a deliberate compromise. Instead,
they arise naturally, with a kind of inner logic, from the profound
ethical distinction which is the system's core. They arise
remorselessly from an understanding of the meaning of the
commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." This Middle Way is the
philosophy associated with the name of Henry George.
I like to picture economic
theory as a vast jigsaw puzzle
distributed across two tables, one called Capitalism and the other,
Socialism. But mingled with the genuine pieces of the puzzle are
many false pieces, also distributed across both tables. Most of us
are either perceptively limited to one table, or else we are unable
to distinguish the genuine pieces from the false. But Henry George
knew how to find the right pieces, and, therefore, he was able to put
the puzzle together -- at least in its general outlines. I don't
claim that he was infallible, or that there isn't further work to be
done. Yet if I find a little piece of puzzle missing here or there,
it doesn't shake my confidence in the harmony of the overall pattern
he discerned. It doesn't make me want to sweep the puzzle onto the
floor and start all over again from scratch. ...
Let us return now to our
illustration of the
economic jigsaw puzzle, and take a look at the pieces which he
selected from the two tables of Capitalism and Socialism. ...
We will begin with the Capitalist
table. George considered himself
a purifier of Capitalism, not its enemy. He built upon the
foundations laid by the classical economists. The skeleton of his
system is essentially Capitalist. In fact, Karl Marx referred to
George's teaching as "Capitalism's last ditch." George believed in
competition, in the free market, in the unrestricted operation of the
laws of supply and demand. He distrusted government and despised
bureaucracy. He was no egalitarian leveler; the only equality he
sought was equal freedom of opportunity. Actually, what he intended
was to make free enterprise truly free, by ridding it of the
monopolistic hobbles which prevent its effective operation.
In his book, The Condition
of Labor, George said:
"We differ from the Socialists in our diagnosis of the evil, and we
differ from them in remedies.
- We have no fear of capital, regarding
it as the natural handmaiden of labor;
- we look on interest in itself
as natural and just;
- we would set no limit to accumulation, nor
impose on the rich any burden that is not equally placed on the poor;
- we see no evil in competition, but deem unrestricted
competition to
be as necessary to the health of the industrial and social organism
as the free circulation of the blood is to the bodily organism -- to
be the agency whereby the fullest cooperation is to be secured."
Why did George take so many
pieces from the Capitalist table?
Because, I think, they are all corollaries of one big piece, namely,
the moral justification for private property. You see, George,
who was a devout though non-sectarian Christian, had a stout belief
in the God-given dignity of the individual. This dignity, he held,
demands that we recognize that the individual possesses an absolute
and inalienable right to himself, which is forfeited only when he
refuses to accord the same right to others. The right to one's self
implies the right to one's labor, which is an extension of one's
self, and therefore to the product of one's labor -- to use it, to
enjoy it, to give it away, to destroy it, to bequeath it, or even (if
one so desires) to bury it in the ground. ...
In fitting together the economic
jigsaw puzzle, George took only
two pieces from the Socialist table. But what large and what
strategic pieces they were!
- The first of these was his insistence that all persons
come into
the world with an equal right of access to the goods of nature.
- The second was his contention that the community has a
right to
take that which the community produces.
Actually, these pieces had landed
on the Socialist table only by
default. They had originally been part of the theory of Capitalism,
as outlined by John Locke, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith. But
Capitalism in practice ignored them, and so became a distorted
caricature. George's notion was to rescue these lost elements, and
restore balance and proportion to the Capitalist table.
Now, if private property derives
its moral justification from the
right of a human being to the fruits of his or her own efforts,
clearly the land and the other goods of nature do not belong in the
category of private property because no human efforts created them.
And the value that attaches to them is not the result of
anything
their title-holder does to them; it is the result of the presence and
activity of the community around them. Someone can build a skyscraper
in the desert and the ground upon which it stands will not be worth a
penny more because of it, yet a city lot with nothing on it may be
worth a fortune simply because of the number of people who pass by it
daily.
Why, asked Henry George in
effect, should private individuals
be allowed to fatten upon the unearned increment of land -- upon the
rise in value which the community creates because of population
increase and the growth of public services? Why should certain
people be allowed to levy tribute upon others who desire access to
their common heritage? But, you might object, the present owner may
have paid hard-earned money for his land. Has he not, therefore, a
vested right? To this, George would have answered: If one unwittingly
buys stolen goods, the rectitude of one's intentions establishes no
right against the legitimate owner of those goods.
Henry George was not the first
thinker to comprehend the difference between land and other kinds of
property.
- John Locke said that "God gave the world in common to all
mankind.... When the 'sacredness' of property is talked of, it should
be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same
degree to landed property."
- William Blackstone wrote: "The earth, and all things
therein, are the general property of all man-kind, from the immediate
gift of the Creator."
- Thomas Paine stated that "men did not make the earth... It
is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that
is individual property."
- According to Thomas Jefferson, "The earth is given as a
common stock for men to labor and live on."
- John Stuart Mill wrote: "The increase in the value of
land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community,
should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold
title."
- Abraham Lincoln said: "The land, the earth God gave to man
for his home, sustenance, and support, should never be the possession
of any man, corporation, society, or unfriendly government, any more
than the air or water, if as much."
- In the words of Herbert Spencer, "equity does not permit
property in land ... The world is God's bequest to mankind. All men are
joint heirs to it."
But it was Henry George who
emphasized this distinction and placed it at the very center of his
system. At
present we have the ironic spectacle of the community penalizing the
individual for his industry and initiative, and taking away from him a
share of that which he produces, while at the same time lavishing upon
the nonproducer undeserved windfalls which it -- the community --
produces. Henry George built his whole program around the
principle: Let the individual keep all of that which he or she
produces, and let the community keep all of that which it
produces. Read the whole article
Henry George: Thy Kingdom Come
(1889 speech)
Mr Abner Thomas, of New York, a
strict orthodox Presbyterian
— and the son of Rev Dr Thomas, author of a commentary on the
bible — wrote a little while ago an allegory. Dozing off in his
chair, he dreamt that he was ferried over the River of Death, and,
taking the straight and narrow way, came at last within sight of the
Golden City. A fine-looking old gentleman angel opened the wicket,
inquired his name, and let him in; warning him, at the same time,
that it would be better if he chose his company in heaven, and did
not associate with disreputable angels.
“What!” said the newcomer, in
astonishment: “Is
not this heaven?”
“Yes,” said the warden: “But
there are a lot of
tramp angels here now."
“How can that be?” asked Mr
Thomas. “I thought
everybody had plenty in heaven.”
“It used to be that way some time
ago,” said the
warden: “And if you wanted to get your harp polished or your
wings combed, you had to do it yourself. But matters have changed
since we adopted the same kind of property regulations in heaven as
you have in civilised countries on earth, and we find it a great
improvement, at least for the better class.”
Then the warden told the newcomer
that he had better decide
where he was going to board.
“I don’t want
to board anywhere,” said Thomas:
“I would much rather go over to that beautiful green knoll and
lie down.”
“I would not
advise you to do so,” said the warden:
“The angel who owns that knoll does not like to encourage
trespassing. Some centuries ago, as I told you, we introduced the
system of private property into the soil of heaven. So we divided the
land up. It is all private property now.”
“I hope I was
considered in that division?” said
Thomas.
“No,” said the warden: “You were not; but if you
go to work, and are saving, you can easily earn enough in a couple of
centuries to buy yourself a nice piece. You get a pair of wings
free
as you come in, and you will have no difficulty in hypothecating them
for a few days board until you find work. But I should advise you to
be quick about it, as our population is constantly increasing, and
there is a great surplus of labour. Tramp angels are, in fact,
becoming quite a nuisance.”
“What shall I go to work at?”
asked Thomas.
“Our principal industries are the
making of harps and
crowns and the growing of flowers,” responded the warden:
“But there any many opportunities for employment in personal
service.”
“I love
flowers,” said Thomas. “I will go to work
growing them, There is a beautiful piece of land over there that
nobody seems to be using. I will go to work on that.”
“You can’t do
that,” said the warden. “That
property belongs to one of our most far-sighted angels who has got
very rich by the advance of land values, and who is holding that
piece for a rise. You will have to buy it or rent it before you can
work on it, and you can’t do that yet.”
The story goes on to describe how
the roads of heaven, the
streets of the New Jerusalem, were filled with disconsolate tramp
angels, who had pawned their wings, and were outcasts in Heaven
itself.
You laugh, and it is ridiculous.
But there is a moral in it that
is worth serious thought. Is it not ridiculous to imagine the
application to God’s heaven of the same rules of division that
we apply to God’s earth, even while we pray that His will may be
done on earth as it is done in Heaven? ... Read the
whole speech
Joseph Fels: True Christianity and
My Own Religious Beliefs
Therefore, I believe that the
fundamental evil, the great God-denying
crime of society, is the iniquitous system under which men are
permitted to put into their pocket, confiscate, in fact, the
community-made values of land, while organized society confiscates for
public purposes a part of the wealth created by individuals. Do you
agree to that?
Using a concrete illustration: I own in the city of Philadelphia
11-1/2
acres of land, for which I paid 32,500 dollars a few years ago. On
account of increase of population and industry in Philadelphia, that
land is now worth about 125,000 dollars. I have expended no labor or
money upon it. So I have done nothing to cause that increase of 92,500
dollars in a few years. My fellow-citizens in Philadelphia created it,
and I believe it therefore belongs to them, not to me. I believe that
the man-made law which gives to me and other landlords values we have
not created is a violation of the divine law. I believe that Justice
demands that these community-made values be taken by the community for
common purposes instead of taxing enterprise and industry. Do you
agree? ... read the whole letter
Dan Sullivan: Are you a
Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?
We call ourselves the "party of
principle," and we base property
rights on the principle that everyone is entitled to the fruits of
his labor. Land, however, is not the fruit of anyone's labor, and our
system of land tenure is based not on labor, but on decrees of
privilege issued from the state, called titles. In fact, the term
"real estate" is Middle English (originally French) for "royal
state." The "title" to land is the essence of the title of nobility,
and the root of noble privilege.
The royal free lunch
When the state granted land titles
to a fraction of the
population, it gave that fraction devices with which to levy, and
pocket, tolls on the fruits of the labor of others. Those without
land privileges must either buy or rent those privileges from the
people who received the grants or from their assignees. Thus the
state titles enable large landowners to collect a transfer payment,
or "free lunch" from the actual land users.
The widow is gathering
nettles for her children's
dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf,
hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it
rent. --Carlyle
Tortured
rationalizations
According to royal libertarians,
land becomes private property
when one mixes one's labor with it. And mixing what is yours with
what is not yours in order to own the whole thing is considered great
sport. But the notion is filled with problems. How much labor does it
take to claim land, and how much land can one claim for that labor?
And for how long can one make that claim?
According to classical liberals,
land belonged to the user for as
long as the land was being used, and no longer. But according to
royal libertarians, land belongs to the first user, forever. So, do
the oceans belong to the heirs of the first person to take a fish out
or put a boat in? Does someone who plows the same field each year own
only one field, while someone who plows a different field each year
owns dozens of fields? Should the builder of the first
transcontinental railroad own the continent? Shouldn't we at least
have to pay a toll to cross the tracks? Are there no common rights to
the earth at all? To royal libertarians there are not, but classical
liberals recognized that unlimited ownership of land never flowed
from use, but from the state:
A right of property in
movable things is admitted before
the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till
after that establishment.... He who plants a field keeps possession of
it till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a
right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws
provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner
protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of
the nation. --Thomas Jefferson
"But we're used to
it"
A favorite excuse of royal
libertarians is that the land has been
divided up for so long that tracing the rightful owners would be
pointless. But there can be no rightful owners if we all have an
inalienable right of access to the earth. It is not some ancient
injustice we seek to rectify, but an ongoing injustice. The piece of
paper granting title might be ancient, but the tribute levied on the
landless goes on and on.
One might as well have
accepted monarchy under the excuse that
whatever conquest led to monarchy occurred centuries ago, and that
tracing the rightful monarchs would be pointless. Indeed, landed
aristocracy is the last remnant of monarchy.... Read
the whole piece
Winston Churchill: The
People's Land
... The best way to make
private property secure and respected is to bring
the processes by which it is gained into harmony with the general
interests of the public. When and where Property is associated with the
idea of reward for services rendered, with the idea of reward for high
gifts and special aptitudes displayed or for faithful labour done, then
property will be honoured. When it is associated with processes which
are beneficial, or which at the worst are not actually injurious to the
commonwealth, then property will be unmolested; but when it is
associated with ideas of wrong and of unfairness, with processes of
restriction and monopoly, and other forms of injury to the community,
then I think that you will find that property will be assailed and will
be endangered. ... Read the whole piece
Hanno Beck: What The Polluter
Pays Principle Implies
"But the funny thing is, you don't really believe it
yourself," says Vernon. "You aren't being consistent. You say goods and
services that we produce belong to the producers and no one else. But
you support the income tax and the sales tax. Those taxes take away
from the producer, without his or her consent, part of what he or she
produced. So it doesn't seem that you really believe your own claims.
Why should people support the Polluter Pays Principle that says they
are stuck with negative products they produce, when at the same time
you wouldn't allow them to keep the positive products they produce?
Sounds like an uneven deal."
Sara is shocked. But she has to admit Vernon
has a
point. "Hmm, I guess this might be part of why the Polluter Pays
Principle doesn't excite as much support as it should. If we lived in a
world where people get to keep the full value of whatever their labor
and their investment yields, then pollution would stand out in sharp
contrast, as a crime against innocent people and their property. The
Polluter Pays Principle would be totally obvious then."
"And instead," says Vernon, "we're surrounded
by
cases of theft by income tax, by sales tax, and so on. Well then, no
wonder people aren't shocked when the Polluter Pays Principle isn't
applied. And no wonder some people don't even see the wisdom of it. "
The bottom line question is this -- can a
person
support the Polluter Pays Principle and support involuntary taxation
both, or is that inconsistent? Your opinion, please! ... read
the whole article
Walt Rybeck: The
Uncertain Future of the Metropolis
If
the institution of private property
has a sound foundation, and I believe it does, then it rests on the
principle that people have a right to reap what they sow, to retain for
themselves what they themselves produce or earn. Land values, produced
by all of society, and by nature, do not conform to this prescription.
In the case of Washington,
B.C., most
landowners are petty holders. The biggest portion of their
property value is in their homes or small shops, only 15 or 20% in
land. Only five percent of the city's properties, land and buildings
together, are valued over $100,000. Because the high peaks of land
values are concentrated mainly in the central business district, those
who walk away with the lion's share of the community's land values are
a mere handful of owners.
Decade after decade, billions
of
dollars in urban land values are being siphoned off by a narrowing
class that has no ethical or economic claim to them. To be outraged
when a few ghetto dwellers, in an occasional frenzy of despair, engage
in looting on a relatively miniscule scale, but to remain indifferent
to this massive, wholesale looting, is worse than hypocritical. It
is
to ignore a catastrophic social maladjustment, more severe, I believe,
than anything the U.S. has experienced since slavery.
Henry Reuss, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking,
Finances and
Urban Affairs, recently pointed out, that over the past thirty years,
the Consumer Price Index rose 300%, the price of the average new home
went up 500%, and the price of the land under that average new house
went up 1,275%. "Ways must be
found" he said, "to curb the tendency to invest more and more in land,
a passive activity that adds not a single acre to the nation's wealth.
Instead we must encourage investments in job-creating plant and
equipment."...
Read
the whole article
Walter Rybeck and Ronald Pasquariello: Combating
Modern-day Feudalism: Land as God’s Gift
Private vs. common
property. We
utterly misunderstand the land issue unless we acknowledge the
distinction between the value of the land itself and the value of labor
on the land. The institution of private property has a sound foundation
-- the proposition that people have a right to the fruits of their
labor; that is, to the output of their mental and physical efforts. We
are not questioning the legitimacy of earnings that landholders or
others derive from buildings or production on the land. People who
build homes, factories or offices, or who produce various types of
goods and services, have a solid ethical claim to what they have
created. However, the land itself, as our biblical forbears realized,
does not meet this criterion. "The earth
is the Lord’s and the fullness
thereof" (Ps. 24:1).
God’s gift
of the land does not confer absolute
ownership. We are free to use it, enjoy it and benefit from it, but God
retains ownership. We serve as God’s caretakers, or tenants, on the
land. Jefferson recognized this gift, saying that land belonged in
usufruct -- in trust -- to the
living. Sir William Blackstone, the
preeminent authority on English law, wrote in his Commentaries: "The
earth and all things therein are the general property of all mankind,
from the gift of the creator."
This idea
of the land belonging to all humanity, to
the community as a whole, is not entirely inoperative today. National
parks, school grounds, public building sites, many wilderness areas,
lakes and ocean fronts are recognized as the common property of all....
Read
the whole article
Henry George: The
Land Question (1881)
The Civilization that is Possible.
IN the effects upon the distribution of wealth, of making land private
property, we may thus see an explanation of that paradox presented by modern
progress. The perplexing phenomena of deepening want with increasing wealth,
of labor rendered more dependent and helpless by the very introduction of labor-saving
machinery, are the inevitable result of natural laws as fixed and certain as
the law of gravitation. Private property in land is the primary cause
of the monstrous inequalities which are developing in modern society. It is this,
and not any miscalculation of Nature in bringing into the world more mouths
than she can feed, that gives rise to that tendency of wages to a minimum – that "iron
law of wages," as the Germans call it -- that, in spite of all advances in
productive power, compels the laboring-classes to the least return on which
they will consent to live. It is this that produces all those phenomena that
are so often attributed to the conflict of labor and capital. It is this that
condemns Irish peasants to rags and hunger, that produces the pauperism of
England and the tramps of America. It is this that makes the almshouse and
the penitentiary the marks of what we call high civilization; that in the midst
of schools and churches degrades and brutalizes men, crushes the sweetness
out of womanhood and the joy out of childhood. It is this that makes lives
that might be a blessing a pain and a curse, and every year drives more and
more to seek unbidden refuge in the gates of death. For, a permanent tendency
to inequality once set up, all the forces of progress tend to greater and greater
inequality. ... read the whole article
Judge Samuel Seabury: An Address delivered
upon the 100th anniversary of the birth of Henry George
WE are met to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Henry George.
We meet, therefore, in a spirit of joy and thanksgiving for the great life
which he devoted to the service of humanity. To very few of the children of
men is it given to act the part of a great teacher who makes an outstanding
contribution toward revealing the basic principles to which human society must
adhere if it is to walk in the way which leads to freedom. This Henry George
did, and in so doing he expressed himself with a clarity of thought and diction
which has rarely been surpassed.
...As we look at the complications of our social and economic system, no
fair-minded student can avoid the conclusion that many of the principles
which Henry George
expressed are applicable to it. The philosophy of Henry George is so far-reaching
in its implications that hardly any accurate conception of it can be gathered
from such brief remarks as are appropriate to an occasion like that which
brings us together today. It is, therefore, possible to refer to only three
fundamental
principles which Henry George enunciated, and which are as vital and important
in our world of today as they were at the time that he affirmed them. Indeed,
if we try to envision, in view of our present location this afternoon, "The
World of Tomorrow," I have no hesitation in saying that if the world
of tomorrow is to be a civilized world, and not a world which has relapsed
into
barbarism, it can be so only by applying the principles of freedom which
Henry George taught. The principles to which I refer are:
First, that men have equal rights in natural resources, and that these rights
may find recognition in a system which gives effect to the distinction between
what is justly private property because it has relation to individual initiative
and is the creation of labor and capital, and what is public property because
it is either a part of the natural resources of the country, whose value is
created by the presence of the community, or is founded upon some governmental
privilege or franchise.
Henry George believed in an order of society in which monopoly should be abolished
as a means of private profit. The substitution of state monopoly for private
monopoly will not better the situation. It ignores the fact that even where
a utility is a natural monopoly which must be operated in the public interests,
it should be operated as a result of cooperation between the representatives
of labor, capital. and consumers, and not by the politicians who control the
political state.
We should never lose sight of the fact that all monopolies are created and
perpetuated by state laws. If the states wish seriously to abolish monopoly,
they can do so by withdrawing their privileges; but they cannot grant the privileges
which make monopoly inevitable and avoid the consequences by invoking anti-trust
laws against them.
It is strange that the state, which has assumed all sorts of functions which
it cannot with advantage perform, still persists in neglecting a vital
function which it should and can perform — the function of collecting
public revenues, as far as possible, from those who reap the benefits of
natural resources.
In view of public and social needs, it is remarkable that no effort has
been made by governments to reduce the tax burdens on labor and capital,
which are
engaged in increasing production, by transferring them to those who restrict
production by making monopoly privileges special to themselves.
These monopolistic privileges are of course disguised under many different
forms, but the task of ascertaining what they are, and their true value, is
a task within the competency of government if it really desires to accomplish
it. ... read the whole speech
Peter Barnes: Capitalism
3.0 — Chapter 2: A Short History of Capitalism (pages 15-32)
In the beginning, the commons was everywhere. Humans and other animals roamed
around it, hunting and gathering. Like other species, we had territories,
but these were tribal, not individual.
About ten thousand years ago, human agriculture and permanent settlements
arose, and with them came private property. Rulers granted ownership of land
to heads of families (usually males). Often, military conquerors distributed
land to their lieutenants. Titles could then be passed to heirs — typically,
oldest sons got everything.
In Europe, Roman law codified many of these practices. Despite the growth
in private property, much land in Europe remained part of the commons. In
Roman times, bodies of water, shorelines, wildlife, and air were explicitly
classified as res communes, resources available to all. During the Middle
Ages, kings and feudal lords often claimed title to rivers, forests, and
wild animals, only to have such claims periodically rebuked. The Magna Carta,
which King John of England was forced to sign in 1215, established forests
and fisheries as res communes. Given that forests were sources of game, firewood,
building materials, medicinal herbs, and grazing for livestock, this was
no small shift.
In the seventeenth century, John Locke sought to balance the commons and
private property. Like others of his era, he saw that private property doesn’t
exist in a vacuum; it exists in relationship to a commons, vis-à-vis
which there are takings and leavings. The rationale for private property
is that it boosts economic production, but the commons has a rationale, too:
it provides sustenance for all. Both sides must be respected.
Locke believed that God gave the earth to “mankind in common,” but
that private property is justified because it spurs humans to work. Whenever
a person mixes his labor with nature, he “joins to it something that
is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” But here Locke added
an important proviso: “For this labor being the unquestionable property
of the laborer,” he wrote, “no man but he can have a right to
what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good,
left in common for others.” In other words, a person can acquire property,
but there’s a limit to how much he or she can rightfully appropriate.
That limit is set by two considerations: first, it should be no more than
he can join his labor to, and second, it has to leave “enough and as
good” in common for others. This was consistent with English common
law at the time, which held, for example, that a riparian landowner could
withdraw water for his own use, but couldn’t diminish the supply available
to others. ... read
the whole chapter
|
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:
|
|