- 14 May 2023 22:22
#15274080
On 18 March, I published on “Political Forum”, in the section “Libertarianism” a criticism of the defence of private property of land by John Locke, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick and Israel Kirzner. Let us now turn to the opposite side, the one challenging private ownership of land. The three voices I believe to be most notable are those of John Stuart Mill, Leon Walras and Henry George. None are socialists. Two of them are even considered among “the fathers of liberalism”: the English classical economist J.S. Mill and the French economist L. Walras, co-founder of the neoclassical school.
John Stuart Mill writes that “it would be the height of injustice to allow the gift of nature to be engrossed by individuals” (227). It is certainly preferable that agriculture be carried out on an individual basis, but alternatives to private ownership exist: occupation of the land for only one season, periodic redistribution of land when the population increases, or the State who acts as universal landlord. From a historical point of view, the first two systems were practiced at the beginning of agriculture, in particular the first by the ancient Germans as Mill recalls.
Mill reiterates his adherence to the general principle of private property but considers that the case of land is fundamentally different from that of produced goods.
This principle does not only apply to agricultural land:
Sometimes the user of the land makes investments to improve it. In this case, it is desirable for the investor to be able to enjoy these advantages for a sufficiently long period; Mill is willing to accept it as a special case where private property would be admissible. This exception does not seem coherent because here too alternative solutions make it possible to preserve the interests of the investor. The main point, it seems to me, is to guarantee long-term occupation.
Mill, attached to the principle that land should not be private property, seems however resigned to the fact that society has established this right. This leads him to plead for its prevalence to be limited to situations that are least harmful to others. Likewise, the rights of the owner must be restricted. Ownership is sometimes defined as the right to freely use and abuse one's property. Following Mill, the minimum is to erase the word “abuse”.
Léon Walras is still considered today as one of the greatest economists in history. On the other hand, it has been forgotten that he personally no less wanted to be a social reformer. His fundamental principle was to abolish taxes, give the state ownership of all natural resources, and rely on land rent to finance public spending. He explains this in his “Etudes d’économie sociale”, in his well-known methodical and categorical style:
In 1879, the American economist and journalist Henry George published "Progress and Poverty". This now forgotten book was a bestseller in its time. It was the most widely read work on political economy of the 19th century and it exerted a considerable influence on public opinion and politicians not only in the United States but in Europe as well.
The author intends to resolve this paradox which is the persistence of poverty while the growth of the economy is impressive. According to George, the main cause is to be found in the increase in the share of land rent in the national income. To remedy this, he proposes to substitute collective ownership of land for private ownership. This conception leads him to denounce the injustice of private property.
George considers the first-comer entitle theory to be the "most absurd" reason on which to base private ownership of land. To organize the occupation of the earth at one time according to what happened in a distant time is insane. The first to arrive at a banquet, is he entitled to prevent the other guests from enjoying the dishes without making agreements with him?
George remarks how difficult it is to realize the injustice of an institution to which one has been accustomed for so long. However, he recalls, in the early days, land ownership was collective and it was through usurpation that private property imposed itself. “Nowhere has unrestricted individual ownership been freely adopted. Historically as ethically, private property in land is robbery.” (333) The author then gives a historical overview of the violent vicissitudes through which private land ownership emerged in various places around the globe.
John Stuart Mill clearly understood the injustice of private ownership of land, but believed that the State should compensate owners if it expropriated them. Mill was an intelligent but timorous thinker. To see him stop in the middle of the ford is not really surprising. George reproaches him for this inconsistency and disputes the merits of this proposal. What would be given to the expropriated to compensate for their lost privilege should be deducted from what the people are entitled to. This would amount to granting those expropriated a right to the product of others' work through the taxation necessary to finance compensation.
My conclusions
The reader will have understood that I share the opinion of the last three authors about the ownership of the soil. It seems to me unacceptable that society says to someone who was just born: “You arrive when the sharing is already done. Ownership of the land belongs to others, it is not for you.” No rational argument can justify private ownership of land. What do our contemporaries who accept the principle have in mind? The arguments of the libertarians? I would be very surprised. Most have never wondered about the question. Some cling to the idea that private ownership of the land is sacred, an argument that is frankly inconclusive. And if it were sacred, why are so many people excluded from it?
On continents with a long civilization, such as Europe, an aristocracy seized by force almost all the lands, sometimes already in protohistory, sometimes in antiquity, sometimes in the Middle Ages, rarely later. Events vary from country to country, continent to continent. Sometimes it was not an aristocracy but a despotic prince. It happened that an aristocracy lost its land taken by another. As a result of the French Revolution, part of the lands of the nobility and the Church became the property of small peasants. But the proletarians of the cities, children and grandchildren of the rural exodus received nothing. The small peasants received land that had already been stolen. This transfer did not restore justice.
In overseas countries colonized by Europeans, land divisions took place more peacefully, for example in the United States in the 19th century. The method combined the principle of the first comer and supervision by the political power. But as Walras and George have shown, these distributions harm later generations. Furthermore, the pseudo-first comers only found supposedly virgin lands because they drove the natives out of them. Native Americans valued their land for spiritual rather than economic reasons. According to Locke, Rothbard and Kirzner, only economic reasons justify ownership.
Time has passed. In recent times, the struggle for land has become less heated, at least in the most advanced countries. Those who grabbed by sword are long dead. Today's owners have not used violence. Is the case file to be closed? Certainly not. The effects of the land theft are as if it had happened yesterday. A large part of the population is totally deprived of it and among those who possess land, the distribution is very unequal. There are still very large owners. Nationalization of the soil keeps all its justification. Today owners are the heirs or purchasers of lands that were previously stolen. In this case, legally, the stolen object must always be returned.
References
Mill John Stuart [1848]1909 Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy (2 volumes), Longmans, Green and Co, London. Site Internet Library of Economics and Liberty
Walras, Léon. 1896. Etudes d'économie sociale. F. Rouge, Lausanne.
George, Henry. [1879] 1881. Progress and Poverty. D. Appleton and Company, New York.
John Stuart Mill writes that “it would be the height of injustice to allow the gift of nature to be engrossed by individuals” (227). It is certainly preferable that agriculture be carried out on an individual basis, but alternatives to private ownership exist: occupation of the land for only one season, periodic redistribution of land when the population increases, or the State who acts as universal landlord. From a historical point of view, the first two systems were practiced at the beginning of agriculture, in particular the first by the ancient Germans as Mill recalls.
Mill reiterates his adherence to the general principle of private property but considers that the case of land is fundamentally different from that of produced goods.
“It is no hardship for any one to be excluded from what others have produced (…) But it is some hardship to be born into the world and to find all nature’s gifts previously engrossed, and no place left for the newcomer. » (230)
This principle does not only apply to agricultural land:
“When land is not intended to be cultivated, no good reason can in general be given for its being private property at all. » (232)
Sometimes the user of the land makes investments to improve it. In this case, it is desirable for the investor to be able to enjoy these advantages for a sufficiently long period; Mill is willing to accept it as a special case where private property would be admissible. This exception does not seem coherent because here too alternative solutions make it possible to preserve the interests of the investor. The main point, it seems to me, is to guarantee long-term occupation.
Mill, attached to the principle that land should not be private property, seems however resigned to the fact that society has established this right. This leads him to plead for its prevalence to be limited to situations that are least harmful to others. Likewise, the rights of the owner must be restricted. Ownership is sometimes defined as the right to freely use and abuse one's property. Following Mill, the minimum is to erase the word “abuse”.
Léon Walras is still considered today as one of the greatest economists in history. On the other hand, it has been forgotten that he personally no less wanted to be a social reformer. His fundamental principle was to abolish taxes, give the state ownership of all natural resources, and rely on land rent to finance public spending. He explains this in his “Etudes d’économie sociale”, in his well-known methodical and categorical style:
“THEOREM I- PERSONAL FACULTIES are, by natural law, the property of the INDIVIDUAL
(…) Here the principle of the inequality of positions applies, which means that we enjoy in proportion to our efforts. (214)
THEOREM II- LANDS are by natural law the property of the STATE
(…) Here the principle of equality of conditions applies, which means that we can all benefit equally from the resources that nature offers us to exercise our efforts.
(…) The State, being the owner of land, will be the owner of the rents (Lemma I) and owner of the rents as well of the products, consumable income or new capital, acquired by it with its rents (Lemma II). He will subsist by means of these revenues, without asking anything from the individual, either as a tax or as a loan (…) The land does not belong to all the men of a generation; it belongs to humanity, that is to say to all generations of men. If society were a conventional and free fact, the individuals contracting to establish it could decide on an equal division of land among themselves; but, if it is a natural and necessary fact, any alienation of land is contrary to natural law, because it injures future generations. In legal terms, humanity is the owner, and the present generation is the usufructuary of the land. » (218-219)
In 1879, the American economist and journalist Henry George published "Progress and Poverty". This now forgotten book was a bestseller in its time. It was the most widely read work on political economy of the 19th century and it exerted a considerable influence on public opinion and politicians not only in the United States but in Europe as well.
The author intends to resolve this paradox which is the persistence of poverty while the growth of the economy is impressive. According to George, the main cause is to be found in the increase in the share of land rent in the national income. To remedy this, he proposes to substitute collective ownership of land for private ownership. This conception leads him to denounce the injustice of private property.
“There can be to the ownership of anything no rightful title which is not derived from the title of the producer and does not rest upon the natural right of the man to himself.» (300)
“The laws of nature are the decrees of the Creator. There is written in them no recognition of any right save that of labor; and in them is written broadly and clearly the equal right of all men to the use and enjoyment of nature. » (301-302)
“When non-producers can claim as rent a portion of the wealth created by the producers, the right of the producers to the fruits of their labor is to that extent denied. » (302)
“A house and the lot on which it stands are alike property, as being the subject of ownership and are alike classed by the lawyers as real estate. Yet in nature and in relations they differ widely. » (303)
“If we are all here by the equal permission of the Creator, we are all here with an equal title to the enjoyment of his bounty. » (304)
George considers the first-comer entitle theory to be the "most absurd" reason on which to base private ownership of land. To organize the occupation of the earth at one time according to what happened in a distant time is insane. The first to arrive at a banquet, is he entitled to prevent the other guests from enjoying the dishes without making agreements with him?
George remarks how difficult it is to realize the injustice of an institution to which one has been accustomed for so long. However, he recalls, in the early days, land ownership was collective and it was through usurpation that private property imposed itself. “Nowhere has unrestricted individual ownership been freely adopted. Historically as ethically, private property in land is robbery.” (333) The author then gives a historical overview of the violent vicissitudes through which private land ownership emerged in various places around the globe.
John Stuart Mill clearly understood the injustice of private ownership of land, but believed that the State should compensate owners if it expropriated them. Mill was an intelligent but timorous thinker. To see him stop in the middle of the ford is not really surprising. George reproaches him for this inconsistency and disputes the merits of this proposal. What would be given to the expropriated to compensate for their lost privilege should be deducted from what the people are entitled to. This would amount to granting those expropriated a right to the product of others' work through the taxation necessary to finance compensation.
My conclusions
The reader will have understood that I share the opinion of the last three authors about the ownership of the soil. It seems to me unacceptable that society says to someone who was just born: “You arrive when the sharing is already done. Ownership of the land belongs to others, it is not for you.” No rational argument can justify private ownership of land. What do our contemporaries who accept the principle have in mind? The arguments of the libertarians? I would be very surprised. Most have never wondered about the question. Some cling to the idea that private ownership of the land is sacred, an argument that is frankly inconclusive. And if it were sacred, why are so many people excluded from it?
On continents with a long civilization, such as Europe, an aristocracy seized by force almost all the lands, sometimes already in protohistory, sometimes in antiquity, sometimes in the Middle Ages, rarely later. Events vary from country to country, continent to continent. Sometimes it was not an aristocracy but a despotic prince. It happened that an aristocracy lost its land taken by another. As a result of the French Revolution, part of the lands of the nobility and the Church became the property of small peasants. But the proletarians of the cities, children and grandchildren of the rural exodus received nothing. The small peasants received land that had already been stolen. This transfer did not restore justice.
In overseas countries colonized by Europeans, land divisions took place more peacefully, for example in the United States in the 19th century. The method combined the principle of the first comer and supervision by the political power. But as Walras and George have shown, these distributions harm later generations. Furthermore, the pseudo-first comers only found supposedly virgin lands because they drove the natives out of them. Native Americans valued their land for spiritual rather than economic reasons. According to Locke, Rothbard and Kirzner, only economic reasons justify ownership.
Time has passed. In recent times, the struggle for land has become less heated, at least in the most advanced countries. Those who grabbed by sword are long dead. Today's owners have not used violence. Is the case file to be closed? Certainly not. The effects of the land theft are as if it had happened yesterday. A large part of the population is totally deprived of it and among those who possess land, the distribution is very unequal. There are still very large owners. Nationalization of the soil keeps all its justification. Today owners are the heirs or purchasers of lands that were previously stolen. In this case, legally, the stolen object must always be returned.
References
Mill John Stuart [1848]1909 Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy (2 volumes), Longmans, Green and Co, London. Site Internet Library of Economics and Liberty
Walras, Léon. 1896. Etudes d'économie sociale. F. Rouge, Lausanne.
George, Henry. [1879] 1881. Progress and Poverty. D. Appleton and Company, New York.
Paul Jael
- By Rich
- By ingliz
- By Skynet