Thou
Shalt Not Steal
You may not have thought about the injunction "thou shalt not steal!" as relating
to how society functions and how our laws and taxes are arranged, but Henry
George and those who are persuaded by his ideas see the extent to which our
poverty and many of our other social and economic ills are related to a system
of perverse incentives and wrong taxes which allow some to privatize that which
is rightly the property of all of us. And on the flip side, Georgists seek
to reduce and even eliminiate our reliance on taxes which take from the individual
that which is rightly his: the fruits of his labor.
Henry George: The
Land Question (1881)
Is it not but yesterday that in the freest and greatest republic
on earth, among the people who boast that they lead the very van of
civilization, this doctrine of vested rights was deemed a sufficient
justification for all the cruel wrongs of human slavery? Is it not
but yesterday when whoever dared to say that the rights of property
did not justly attach to human beings; when whoever dared to deny
that human beings could be rightfully bought and sold like
cattle–the husband torn from the wife and the child from the
mother; when whoever denied the right of whoever had paid his money
for him to work or whip his own nigger was looked upon as a wicked
assailant of the rights of property? Is it not but yesterday when in
the South whoever whispered such a thought took his life in his
hands; when in the North the abolitionist was held by the churches as
worse than an infidel, was denounced by the politicians and
rotten-egged by the mob? I was born in a Northern State, I have never
lived in the South, I am not yet gray; but I well remember, as every
American of middle age must remember, how over and over again I have
heard all questionings of slavery silenced by the declaration that
the negroes were the property of their masters, and that to take away
a man's slave without payment was as much a crime as to take away his
horse without payment. And whoever
does not remember that far back,
let him look over American literature previous to the war, and say
whether, if the business of piracy had been a flourishing business,
it would have lacked defenders? Let him say whether any proposal to
stop the business of piracy without compensating the pirates would
not have been denounced at first as a proposal to set aside vested
rights? ... read the whole article
Henry George: The Wages of
Labor
God cannot impose on His
creatures laws that clash! If it be
His command to men that they should not steal – that they
should
respect the right of property which each one has in the fruits of his
labor; and if He be also the Father of all men, Who has intended all
to have equal opportunities for sharing in His common bounty; then, in
any possible stage of human civilisation, however elaborate, there must
be some way in which the exclusive right to the products of industry
may be reconciled with the equal right to land. ... read
the whole article
Henry George: The Condition of
Labor — An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII in response to Rerum Novarum (1891)
You assume that there are in the natural order two classes, the rich and
the poor, and that laborers naturally belong to the poor.
It is true as you say that there are differences in capacity, in diligence,
in health and in strength, that may produce differences in fortune. These,
however, are not the differences that divide men into rich and poor. The
natural differences in powers and aptitudes are certainly not greater than
are natural differences in stature. But while it is only by selecting giants
and dwarfs that we can find men twice as tall as others, yet in the difference
between rich and poor that exists today we find some men richer than other
men by the thousandfold and the millionfold.
Nowhere do these differences between wealth and poverty coincide with differences
in individual powers and aptitudes. The real difference between rich and
poor is the difference between those who hold the tollgates and those who
pay toll; between tribute-receivers and tribute-yielders. ...
Men who are sure of getting food when they shall need it eat only what appetite
dictates. But with the sparse tribes who exist on the verge of the habitable
globe life is either a famine or a feast. Enduring hunger for days, the fear
of it prompts them to gorge like anacondas when successful in their quest
of game. And so, what gives wealth its curse is what drives men to seek it,
what makes it so envied and admired — the fear of want. As the unduly
rich are the corollary of the unduly poor, so is the soul-destroying quality
of riches but the reflex of the want that embrutes and degrades. The real
evil lies in the injustice from which unnatural possession and unnatural
deprivation both spring.
But this injustice can hardly be charged on individuals or classes. The
existence of private property in land is a great social wrong from which
society at large suffers, and of which the very rich and the very poor are
alike victims, though at the opposite extremes. Seeing this, it seems to
us like a violation of Christian charity to speak of the rich as though they
individually were responsible for the sufferings of the poor. Yet, while
you do this, you insist that the cause of monstrous wealth and degrading
poverty shall not be touched. Here is a man with a disfiguring and dangerous
excrescence. One physician would kindly, gently, but firmly remove it. Another
insists that it shall not be removed, but at the same time holds up the poor
victim to hatred and ridicule. Which is right?
In seeking to restore all men to their equal and natural rights we do not
seek the benefit of any class, but of all. For we both know by faith and
see by fact that injustice can profit no one and that justice must benefit
all.
Nor do we seek any “futile and ridiculous equality.” We recognize,
with you, that there must always be differences and inequalities. In so far
as these are in conformity with the moral law, in so far as they do not violate
the command, “Thou shalt not steal,” we are content. We do not
seek to better God’s work; we seek only to do his will. The equality
we would bring about is not the equality of fortune, but the equality of
natural opportunity; the equality that reason and religion alike proclaim — the
equality in usufruct of all his children to the bounty of Our Father who
art in Heaven. ... read the whole letter
Henry George: Thou Shalt Not Steal (1887
speech)
Natural religion and revealed
religion alike tell us that God is no respecter of persons; that He did
not make this planet for a few individuals; that He did not give it to
one generation in preference to other generations, but that He made it
for the use during their lives of all the people that His providence
brings into the world. If this be true, the child that is born tonight
in the humblest tenement in the most squalid quarter of New York, comes
into life seized with as good a title to the land of this city as any
Astor or Rhinelander.
How do we know that the
Almighty is against poverty? That it is not in accordance with His
decree that poverty exists? We know it because we know this, that the
Almighty has declared: "Thou shalt not steal." And we know for a truth
that the poverty that exists today in the midst of abounding wealth is
the result of a system that legalizes theft.
The women who by the thousands are bending over their needles or
sewing machines, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen hours a day; these widows
straining and striving to bring up the little ones deprived of their
natural breadwinner; the children that are growing up in squalor and
wretchedness, underclothed, underfed, undereducated, even in this city,
without any place to play — growing up under conditions in which only a
miracle can keep them pure — under conditions which condemn them in
advance to the penitentiary or the brothel — they suffer, they die,
because we permit them to be robbed, robbed of their birthright, robbed
by a system which disinherits the vast majority of the children that
come into the world.
There is enough and to spare for them. Had they the equal rights
in the estate which their Creator has given them, there would be no
young girls forced to unwomanly toil to eke out a mere existence; no
widows finding it such a bitter, bitter struggle to put bread into the
mouths of their little children; no such misery and squalor as we may
see here in the greatest of American cities; misery and squalor that
are deepest in the largest and richest centers of our civilization
today.
These things are the results of
legalized theft, the fruit of a denial of that commandment that says: "Thou
shalt not steal." How is this great commandment
interpreted today, even by men who preach the Gospel? "Thou shalt not
steal." Well, according to some of them, it means: "Thou shalt not get
into the penitentiary." Not much more than that with some. You may
steal, provided you steal enough, and you do not get caught. Do not
steal a few dollars — that may be dangerous, but if you steal millions
and get away with it, you become one of our first citizens.
"Thou shalt not steal"; that is the law of God. What does it
mean? Well, it does not merely mean that you shall not pick pockets! It
does not merely mean that you shall not commit burglary or highway
robbery! There are other forms of stealing which it prohibits as well. It certainly means (if it has any meaning)
that we shall not take that to which we are not entitled, to the
detriment of others.
Now, here is a desert. Here is a caravan going along over
the desert. Here is a gang of robbers. They say: "Look! There is a rich
caravan; let us go and rob it, kill the men if necessary, take their
goods from them, their camels and horses, and walk off." But one of the
robbers says: "Oh, no; that is dangerous; besides, that would be
stealing! Let us, instead of doing that, go ahead to where there is a
spring, the only spring at which this caravan can get water in this
desert. Let us put a wall around it and call it ours, and when
they come up we won’t let them have any water until they have given us
all the goods they have." That would be more gentlemanly, more polite,
and more respectable; but would it not be theft all the same? And is it
not theft of the same kind when people go ahead in advance of
population and get land they have no use whatever for, and then, as
people come into the world and population increases, will not let this
increasing population use the land until they pay an exorbitant price?...
People do not have a natural right to demand employment of
another, but they have a natural right, an inalienable right, a right
given by their Creator, to demand opportunity to employ themselves. And
whenever that right is acknowledged, whenever the people who want to go
to work can find natural opportunities to work upon, then there will be
as much competition among employers who are anxious to get people to
work for them, as there will be among people who are anxious to get
work.
Wages will rise in every vocation to the true rate of wages —
the full, honest earnings of labor. That done, with this ever
increasing social fund to draw upon, poverty will be abolished, and in
a little while will come to be looked upon — as we are now beginning to
look upon slavery — as the relic of a darker and more ignorant age.
I remember — this man here remembers (turning to Mr. Redpath,
who was on the platform) even better than I, for he was one of the men
who brought the atrocities of human slavery home to the heart and
conscience of the north — I well
remember, as he well knows, and all the older men and women in this
audience will remember, how property in human flesh and blood was
defended just as private property in land is now defended; how the same
charges were hurled upon the men and women who protested against human
slavery as are now made against the men and women who are intending to
abolish industrial slavery.
We remember how some
dignitaries and rich members of the churches branded as a disturber,
almost as a reviler of religion, any priest or any minister who dared
to get up and assert God’s truth — that there never was and there
never could be rightful property in human flesh and blood.
So, it is now said that people who protest against this system,
which is simply another form of slavery, are people who propose
robbery. Thus the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," they have made
"Thou shalt not object to stealing." When we propose to resume our own
again, when we propose to secure its natural right to every child that
comes into being, such people talk of us as advocating confiscation — charge
us with being deniers of the rights of property. The real truth is that we
wish to assert the just rights of property, that we wish to
prevent theft.
Chattel slavery was incarnate
theft of the worst kind. That system which made property of
human beings, which allowed one person to sell another, which allowed
one person to take away the proceeds of another’s toil, which permitted
the tearing of the child from the mother, and which permitted the
so-called owner to hunt with bloodhounds the person who escaped from
the owner’s tyranny — that form of slavery is abolished. To that
extent, the command, "Thou shalt not steal," has been vindicated; but
there is another form of slavery. ... read
the whole article
|
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:
|
|