05
Jul
2014
The Founding Fathers and Moral Courage
My latest LibertyChat article. The stirring conclusion:
So as I reflect this Fourth of July on the men we are taught to revere as our “Founding Fathers,” I celebrate not the willingness to kill for liberty, but instead the willingness to do what is right, regardless of the effects on popularity or even personal safety. On this score, few people in human history have performed better than the radical Thomas Paine.
They owned slaves.
http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm
What kind of person would allow somebody to *own* them?
getting goosebumps…and im not even a goose.
“Agrarian Justice is the title of a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and published in 1797, which advocated the use of an estate tax and a tax on land values to fund a universal old-age and disability pension, as well as a fixed sum to be paid to all citizens on reaching maturity.
It was written in the winter of 1795–96, but remained unpublished for a year, Paine being undecided whether or not it would be best to wait until the end of the ongoing war with France before publishing. However, having read a sermon by Richard Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, which discussed the “Wisdom … of God, in having made both Rich and Poor”, he felt the need to publish, under the argument that “rich” and “poor” were arbitrary divisions, not divinely created ones.
In response to the private sale of royal (or common) lands, Paine proposed a detailed plan to tax property owners to pay for the needs of the poor, which could be considered as the precursor of the modern idea of citizen’s income or basic income. The money would be raised by taxing all direct inheritances at 10%, and “indirect” inheritances – those not going to close relations – at a somewhat higher rate; this would, he estimated, raise around £5,700,000 per year in England.
Around two-thirds of the fund would be spent on pension payments of £10 per year to every person over the age of fifty, which Paine had taken as his average adult life expectancy, with most of the remainder allocated to making fixed payments of £15 to every man and woman on reaching the age of twenty-one, legal majority. The small remainder would then be able to be used for paying pensions to “the lame and blind”. For context, the average weekly wage of an agricultural labourer was around 9 shillings, which would mean an annual income of about £23 for an able-bodied man working throughout the year.
Additionally, “a one-time stipend of 15 pounds sterling would be paid to each citizen upon attaining age 21, to give them a start in life.”
The work is based on the contention that in the state of nature, “the earth, in its natural uncultivated state… was the common property of the human race”; the concept of private ownership arose as a necessary result of the development of agriculture, since it was impossible to distinguish the possession of improvements to the land from the possession of the land itself. Thus Paine views private property as necessary, but that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their “payment” to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice
The essay is here, Thomas Paine wrote it in support of the French Revolution:
http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm
At any rate his proposal was 10% inheritance tax, with the proceeds being spread evenly (not means tested):
He was right about the “army of principles” that conquered all before it. What is the inheritance tax in the USA today? About triple the amount recommended by Thomas Paine. After fifty years of The War on Poverty we can declare that poverty must surely be vanquished by now.
I mean if a modern US politician proposed reducing inheritance tax back to 10% and spreading the proceeds evenly amongst the population without many layers of government pocket stuffers to adequately decide who is deserving; just imagine the howls of outrage at such a proposal.
And the French Revolution, what did they get out of that? They got Napoleon, and the Napoleonic Wars where France invaded Germany (presumably to teach the Germans about freedom and natural justice) and then they got World War I and World War II where the Germans invaded France (presumably to teach the French about poetic justice). Now they have been invaded peacefully by the European Union, I hope they enjoy their freedom, they earned it.
do you disagree with the principle, or just with the details?
“There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue.”
“Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.
Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.”
Thomas Paine
http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm
All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.
Thomas Paine fails to understand that at the moment of trade, the payment has been made in full.
Therefore nothing further is owed to anyone.
I think you fail to understand Paine’s point.
Freedom is the principal, of course I agree with that, everything else is merely details. These details do matter in terms of success or failure of what you are trying to achieve.
However you pointed to a specific proposal of 10% inheritance tax (functionally equivalent to an asset tax) and equal distribution of to proceeds. I think such a proposal would be much better than what we have right now, which is vastly more expensive and has demonstratrably failed the initial purpose. Maybe Paine’s proposal would work if we tried it. I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon.
Do you agree with the principle elaborated by Paine that:
“the earth, in its natural uncultivated state… was the common property of the human race… the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by those with property, who have originally taken it from the general public. This in some sense is their “payment” to non-property holders for the right to hold private property.”
or, in other words:
“he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.”
?
If you want to discuss details, the practical fact of paying protection money in return for safety from violence is very old and has regularly been equated with the most basic element of civilization.
It is a practical concern. In order to cultivate land, one must be able to defend that land. Disorganized violence generally is beaten by better organized violence, therefore by simple elimination, eventually the majority of violence is perpetrated in a well organized manner.
Paine was addressing his essay to French revolutionaries, so he was clearly not in the business of advocating pacifism, but although he didn’t make a feature of that link between civilization, organized violence, and protection money. The link is there if you look:
Of course, a man has no need of society in order to pick up a shiny lump of metal and call it his own. A man only needs society in order to protect himself from robbery of that property. He needs protection from other people.
In essence what Paine was saying is that property owners will need to hand over some of their property in order to protect themselves from having it all confiscated by force. He takes this as a given, not a great discovery of his own, but merely an established fact that he mentions as a reminder. On this I agree with him. Not that robbery is morally defensible, but that the payment of protection money is practically unavoidable.
There are some points I strongly disagree with him on:
This is just plain wrong.
Robinson Crusoe can work a bit extra to build himself a hut. Without the requirement of defending the hut, he may appreciate the benefits, so he is better off with the hut than without. He is richer because he worked for it.
Hmmm, I really messed up the quoting.
Some sort of preview would be nice.
Hmmm, I really messed up the quoting.
Some sort of preview would be nice.
Don’t blame others for your mistakes Tel.
One of the many errors in your comment
“[he is] accusing the employee of rank stupidity and inability to even provision for his own needs.”
No, he is not doing that. He is saying that apologists for injustice will argue that there is no point in paying workers more as they will just squander it:
“it will also be said, as an apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much better for it in the interim”.
Basic reading comprehension fail on your part.
Why am I not surprised?
Philippe,
It must feel awesome to win such petty points in the debate, even when you are dead wrong. He’s using passive voice here. That doesn’t mean he disagrees with what he is saying. In fact, the whole passage would make no sense if he didn’t agree with it.
The Founders weren’t completely free market, I’ll give you that one.
The information in these videos corrects their mistake:
The Birth of the Austrian School | Joseph T. Salerno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZRZKX5zAD4
The Great Depression, World War II, and American Prosperity – Part 1 [Lecture 5] by Thomas Woods
[www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW5yvuyhVyI
Thomas Jefferson was another agrarian.
It helps to note that the Founders’ agrarianism was in pursuit of the maximization of individual liberty. It was thought that an individual’s rights were being violated if he didn’t have equal access to land so he could grow his own food.
For them, this was not collectivism.
“It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.”
Thomas Jefferson
(Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 13 Aug. 1813)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/v1ch16s25.html
The preceding part:
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, …
Notice the references to inheritances.
When he says “natural right”, here, he’s talking about being born with ownership of property, not about homesteading.
Consider that he says:
…but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it.
Jefferson is saying that the owner is the one who must do the relinquishing.
guest,
“When he says “natural right”, here, he’s talking about being born with ownership of property, not about homesteading.”
No, he says:
“It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land”
And then he explains his point very clearly by saying:
“By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it,
but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it.
He then clarifies further by saying:
“Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.”
You wrote:
“Jefferson is saying that the owner is the one who must do the relinquishing”
No, Jefferson is saying that:
“Stable ownership is the gift of social law“
Austrians do have a concept of a “commons”.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that the Framers were not ibertarians, and wouldn’t have agreed with much libertarian theory. I don’t know that that matters very much — they were geniuses for sure, but it was, like 250 years ago.
Benjamin Franklin:
“All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
Benjamin Franklin, 25 December 1783
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html
Benjamin Franklin:
“the accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society, must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws. Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch12s25.html
Actually, most real-estate property was gained by conquest, including all of the USA (other than the small amount of remaining Indian land) and all of Australia (again ignoring some reservations)., and Europe many times over, and the Middle East, many, many times over.
“He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
Is the 1783 equivalent of “well, move to Somalia if you don’t want to paint you house an approved color”
And you’ve gotten it exactly right. Possession is the foundation of property. (For better or for worse)
Somalia is not libertarian. It has very strict government (actually there are sever governments), one of which is a hardline Islamic Sharia state.
Civil society has seen to it that there are no places left to retire outside of it. Those “benefits of society” are not optional.
Well I never said it was a particularly good argument.
Actually quite large parts of new england real estate was gained through trade with native populatilons.
“including all of the USA (other than the small amount of remaining Indian land)”
Are you claiming that there was no unowned land in America by the time colonists landed?
Try getting that much concessions for “little Acquisitions” from a modern government. No way Jose!
Things have changed huh?