If Not Liberalism, And If Not Socialism ...
Chapter 6 (Part 3 or 4) of the book
The Discovery of First Principles, Volume 3
Edward J. Dodson
Those of us associated with the Henry George School experienced a
deep shock when Phil Finkelstein died of a heart attack late in
November, 1982. Phil had been instrumental in building the Center for
Local Tax Research into a resource for advancing the Georgist cause.
He was well-connected in both academic and political circles, and we
knew he would be impossible to replace. The trustees of the School
called on Stan Rubenstein to take over on an interim basis, a
situation made difficult because Stan had recently retired from
teaching high school and was living at the far eastern tip of Long
Island. Moreover, the School had never recovered its student
population after the departure of Bob Clancy in the early 1970s. Most
of the volunteer faculty in New York had disappeared, and few new
instructors had come through the School's program in the intervening
years. The School's location at 5 East 44th Street in Manhattan
turned out to be less attractive than anticipated. Commuters were not
interested in the School's intellectually-stimulating but noncredit
program. So, Stan focused his energy on the development of
supplemental materials for use by high school social studies teachers.
He accepted the probability that the adult education program could not
be reinvigorated because of citizen apathy, the proliferation of adult
education programs in the high schools, the loss of leisure time for
many adults and the heavy cost of recruiting students.
This was also about the time I learned of the existence of the Center
for the Study of Democratic Institutions and began to read books and
articles written by Robert Hutchins and Mortimer Adler. In October,
1983, I wrote to Donald McDonald, editor of the
Center Magazine, in response to a dialogue published on
Adler's proposal for educational reform. There was no acknowledgment;
however, shortly thereafter I received notification from the Center of
plans to hold a three-day conference on human rights. To this I
responded with a letter extensively quoting Winston Churchill on the
power of the landed interests and land monopolists to subvert efforts
to protect human rights. Although the transcript from the conference
ignored the land question, my letter appeared in a later issue of the
Center Magazine. As the year was ending I also finished a
paper on the causes of unemployment for publication in the
Philadelphia business periodical, Focus Magazine. In October,
the weekly newspaper The Greater Philadelphia Economist had
published an article I wrote, giving it the title, "Enact 'site
values' tax on all land to stimulate real economic growth." This
was written in response to an essay on New Federalism by Henry
Teune, professor of political science at the University of
Pennsylvania. At minimum, all this activity was keeping up my interest
and stimulating my activism. My hope was that at least a few
thoughtful persons might reach out to contact me. Occasionally, my
efforts were rewarded.
In the Fall of 1983, Paul Nix, an oil company executive and President
of the Board of Trustees of the Henry George School, asked me to come
to New York City to meet with him. He told me that many people thought
highly of my contribution to the School and that he would like to
bring me on as a trustee. I accepted with moderate hopes that I might
accomplish something tangible by bringing a business management
perspective and a willingness to experiment with the School's program.
Around the same time, I also made formal application with Temple
University for acceptance into the Master of Liberal Arts program. In
April, John Kenneth Galbraith responded to an earlier letter with an
explanation of his doubts about the Georgist ideas. "My
problem with Henry George," he wrote, "has always been
whether it is in the art of the possible and also of course whether
there is, indeed, that much to be gained from the [unearned] increment."[71]
That year, I also engaged in an intermittent correspondence with a
publisher, John Burkhart, who occasionally offered political or
economic commentary in his newspaper, the Philadelphia Business
Journal. At the 1984 CGO conference, this time held during July at
a conference center in Pawling, New York, I followed the showing of
the documentary film "The Moneylenders" (produced by the
U.S. public broadcasting program Frontline) with a discussion
on the global debt bomb and its repercussions. My dire predictions
failed to materialize. The international bankers and IMF officials
successfully imposed severe austerity measures on the people of those
nations most in danger of outright default. These were countries where
democratic processes were, at best, nominal, and where the ability of
dissident forces to mount a successful armed insurrection was not a
serious threat. And so, those at the bottom of the socio-economic
ladder either drifted into poverty or more deeply into poverty. To
satisfy credits and the IMF, a high percentage of goods produced or
resources extracted was sold in the global markets in order to obtain
foreign reserves with which to repay debt. The bankers also lessened
their risks and losses by swapping debt or selling off loan assets at
a sizeable discount. Remarkably, this all worked reasonably well for
the creditor nations, although many smaller banks and more than a few
very large ones became insolvent and were forced to close their doors.
The U.S. and European governments borrowed to honor their obligations
to protect depositors from the poor lending decisions of the bankers.
And, gradually the crisis subsided.
Another project I initiated during this period was to produce a
special issue of Equal Rights with essays specifically dealing
with human rights. I wrote the lead essay and solicited contributions
from two Georgist academics, James Busey and Donald Hurford. My essay
responded to the observations and conclusions of participants in a
conference on human rights held at the Center for the Study of
Democratic Institutions. Several copies were sent to Allen Weinstein,
the Center's President; and, subsequently, I received requests for
additional copies from Karl Meyer of the New York Times and Marilyn A.
Zak of the Agency for International Development. Unfortunately, funds
for a large printing of the issue were not available, and the project
never reached very many readers.
In the Fall of 1984, I began my formal studies at Temple University.
What attracted me was the fact that the program was interdisciplinary
and came close to how a degree program in political economy might be
structured. And, in each course, I took the opportunity to perform
research from the perspective of the political economist -- bringing
in the Georgist perspective wherever possible. Somehow, I was able to
balance the demands of graduate school, my position in the banking
industry and family -- while staying active within the Georgist
community. My activities at the School did change, however; I no
longer had the time to prepare for and teach a weekly class. Instead,
from time to time, I put together presentations based on research and
writing I was doing in connection with my graduate work.
Another Georgist with whom I had become acquainted, Walt Rybeck, had
in 1981 decided to form a new organization to promote the taxation of
land values. Supported by grants from the Robert Schalkenbach
Foundation, Walt started the Center for Public Dialogue (CPD) in
Kensington, Maryland. CPD produced a 30-minute documentary film
examining the experience of Pittsburgh and four other Pennsylvania
cities that had adopted the two-rate real estate tax, with a higher
rate levied on assessed land values than on improvements. Nearly 250
people attended its premier in September in the Caucus Room of the
U.S. House of Representatives.
Thanks to Bob Clancy, I was made aware in 1985 of an essay contest on
the promotion of world peace, sponsored by the Council on
International and Public Affairs. My submission, entitled "Democracy
at Risk," was one of a final group chosen for publication.
Other than from a few Georgist friends, however, the essay attracted
no attention that I am aware of. And yet, the effort had to be made.
More of us who understood the true nature of societal problems had a
responsibility -- an obligation -- to try to do something to heighten
the awareness of others. At times, of course, the results were
anything but encouraging. With high hopes, many of us joined together
at the CGO conference, held at Washington University in St. Louis,
Missouri, to form a new activist organization, Common Ground U.S.A.,
that would attempt to form chapters all across the country. During the
months leading up to the conference, I served on a committee to draft
a constitution and by-laws for Common Ground and agreed to serve on
the initial board of directors. Steve Cord was elected President, with
the understanding that Common Ground's affairs would be handled by
Steve out of the offices of the Henry George Foundation of America.
Later in the year, Bob Clancy organized a program in New York marking
the 200th anniversary of the passage of the Land Ordinance of 1785.
Although I could not attend, I submitted a paper (read by Mark
Sullivan) entitled, "Frederick Jackson Turner and the Frontier
Dichotomy."
Sometime during 1985, Paul Nix approached me with a request that I
accept his nomination to succeed him as President of the Board of
Trustees of the Henry George School. Despite demanding professional
responsibilities, graduate school, the beginning research undertaken
for the writing of this book, and a desire to leave some time for a
private life, I agreed to serve if elected. The Board, and Paul, knew
I would press them to expand the School's program and outreach. And so
I did.
My activist orientation now had a far more directed focus than ever
before. Every day I was filling in gaps relating to the intellectual
continuity of the socio-political philosophy I had come to accept as
guiding principles. I was becoming somewhat frustrated with teaching,
which required a tremendous commitment of time and energy but produced
very few activists. This provided the motivation to develop a parallel
program that would attract to the School individuals who were already
activists, already intensely committed to change, but were also
searching for guiding principles. My model came from the seminars
conducted by Mortimer Adler at the Aspen Institute. Additionally, I
looked to the dialogues held at the Center for the Study of Democratic
Institutions, a format involving recognized scholars, experts, opinion
makers and activist leaders. These programs could be video- and
audio-taped, with publication of transcripts as booklets, so that we
might reach a much larger audience than those able to attend these
programs. Here, again, my hopes were significantly disappointed. There
was no one in New York willing to take on the challenge, and in
Philadelphia the avenues of promotion available were not effective in
attracting the type of participants I hoped for.
To my dismay, I learned in mid-1987 that Donald McDonald had stepped
down as acting director of the Center for the Study of Democratic
Institutions, and its future was rather in doubt. Early in 1988 I
received -- in lieu of the Center Magazine -- an issue of New
Perspectives Quarterly, which prompted me to write to the editor,
Nathan Gardels, for an explanation. In June, I received a response
from the publisher, Stanley K. Sheinbaum, advising me that the
University of California had withdrawn its financial support for the
Center and the programs were no longer in operation. I could not help
but wonder how Robert Hutchins would have felt.
That July, I traveled to San Diego, California to participate in the
annual CGO conference being held at Point Loma Nazarene College.
There, I delivered a paper analyzing the U.S. Constitution against the
philosophy of cooperative individualism, the term I had come
to believe best described the basis for societal justice. This essay
proved to contain the central arguments and historical evidence
expanded upon in this book.
For 1988, the CGO conference venue was Oglethorpe University in
Atlanta, Georgia. My contribution that year was a presentation on the
national problem of declining affordability of housing. Walt Rybeck
also provided advance copies of a report[72] prepared by the Center
for Public Dialogue that clearly demonstrated the link between high
land prices, low taxes on land values and the housing crisis. On
September 22, the report was formally released at a meeting held in
the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee assembly
room.
While I and others associated with the Henry George School were in
Atlanta, work was feverishly continuing on the School's new
headquarters, a four-story building located in a neighborhood of
greater residential character than the East 44th Street location. A
Japanese firm purchased the old building from the School for a price
that allowed the School to acquire and renovate the new space while
adding significant financial reserves to the School's assets. That
Fall I also proposed to the Board of Trustees that the School also
undertake the restoration of the Henry George birthplace building in
Philadelphia. The building had fallen into serious disrepair and was
in desperate need of rebuilding and renovation. Moreover, 1989 was the
150th anniversary of the birth of Henry George, and Philadelphia had
been chosen to be the location for a conference co-sponsored by the
CGO and International Union for Land Value Taxation and Free Trade.
Needless to say, there was much work to be done if the birthplace
restoration was to be completed by the following July. In fact, the
work continued up to the very moment of the building's reopening for a
tour by conference attendees.
The conference in Philadelphia was held at the University of
Pennsylvania. I put together and chaired a panel discussion on housing
affordability problems, presenting the concept of the scattered
site community land trust as a vehicle for building up a rent fund
that could be recycled to assist lower income home buyers. The
community land trust would simultaneously purchase the parcel of land
underneath a house being purchased by the home buyers. Then, based on
household income, the home buyer would pay some portion of the full
annual rental value of the land. That portion of the market rent left
uncollected would accrue as a lien against the dwelling to be repaid
should the property be sold at some future date. I had been trying to
promote this program to Chuck Matthei, head of the Institute for
Community Economics (then in Great Barrington, Massachusetts), and he
participated on the panel by explaining the Institute's community land
trust initiatives -- targeted at preservation of open space,
affordability of homes in rural areas undergoing transition to second
home communities (e.g., towns near winter or summer resort
destinations) and infill rehabilitation of inner city homes for
permanent affordability. One of my professors at Temple University,
Sandra Featherman, accepted an invitation from George Collins to
participate on the panel; she expressed interest in my proposal and
also indicated her somewhat conditional support for the Georgist
proposal of collecting the annual rental value of land in lieu of
taxation.
As detailed above, Georgists were also hard at work attempting to
respond to the window of opportunity opened by Gorbachev's ascendancy
to power in the Soviet Union and the casting off of communist
government elsewhere within the Soviet bloc. The Danish Georgists
announced in the Spring of 1990 their intent to establish a Georgist
educational program in Poland. Jeff Smith, who for a number of years
was associated with the Georgist educational program in San Diego,
California,[73] and had become very involved with the Greens, made
contact with Green leaders in Western and Eastern Europe and followed
up with an extensive tour during 1990. A return trip during 1991
included meetings with the Russian Vice-President, testimony before
the Russian Parliament, scores of meetings with Russian economists and
planners and an appearance on Russian television. Thus, although
Georgist activists were few in number, our message was finding a
growing audience. Always there seemed to be more to do than time or
financial resources available.
I continued to serve as President of the Board of Trustees of the
Henry George School through the end of 1996. I had become dismayed at
the level of discord and what I perceived to be a lost sense of
mission on the part of the Board. Although the new location was
working well to attract students, and George Collins worked hard to
create an attractive learning atmosphere, the School still proved
unsuccessful as a vehicle for building the Georgist community into a
growing movement. I remained on the Board through 1997, then resigned
so that I could devote time to my own project, an internet-based
educational project to which I gave the name "The School of
Cooperative Individualism" (SCI). Building SCI into a repository
of much of the best writing by Henry George, other Georgists, as well
as other writers who have contributed significantly to the
understanding of moral principles has been a major focus of this
project. Other important components of SCI include a searchable
encyclopedia on political economy and a biographical history of the
Georgist Movement. Readers are encouraged to visit and explore the
wealth of material available at the SCI website
(www.cooperativeindividualism.org).
As committed as I was to the cause first identified by Henry George,
I had attended only one international conference over the years, held
at the University of British Columbia. In 2001, I finally managed to
attend my second international conference, this one held at Edinburgh
University in Scotland. At this conference I delivered a paper making
the case for the creation of a system of banks of deposit that would
issue currency backed by specific quantities of commodities. I
presented the historical evidence to support this proposal, concluding
as follows:
The lesson learned, the solution is to unleash
competitive forces t use sound money as the means of driving out
unbacked, central bank issued legal tender. Banks of deposit are the
cornerstones of this process. Electronic exchanges and transfers
will make it possible. When individuals and businesses become
members of these banks, they can engage in a system of exchange
absent float and absent exposure to currency devaluations. In time,
governments will be forced to become members and relinquish their
long cherished privilege of being able to self-create credit. Sound
money will have arrived.[74]
Roughly sixty Georgists attended the Edinburgh conference, most from
the United Kingdom, but with attendees coming from Denmark, Russia,
South Africa, Australia, the United States, Canada and Spain. I was
not able to attend the CGO conference that year, held in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, nor the following year in London, Ontario, Canada.
Bridgeport, Connecticut was chosen for the 2003 conference, and I
volunteered to help plan the program. A regular component of the CGO
conferences in recent years has been one day devoted to dialogue with
non-Georgist groups. For Bridgeport, we invited officials from
Connecticut's cities to participate in a discussion of how shifting to
a rent as revenue policy could help revitalize some of the state's
distressed urban centers. A bill was already under consideration by
the state legislature to permit Connecticut cities to make the shift.
The conference opened new doors for consideration of the Georgist
proposals and opportunities for legislative activists, such as Josh
Vincent, Director of the Henry George Foundation of America (based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), to work with elected officials on model
legislation and the means of gradually removing taxes from property
improvements and shifting increasingly toward a land-only tax base.
The 2004 conference is scheduled to be held in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. Then, in 2005, the Georgist community will assemble in
Philadelphia.
Publish or Perish
The Search for a Mainstream Audience
For a time in its history, the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation had
been quite active as a publisher of new Georgist books -- if only
those authored by a select few individuals, such as Francis Neilson.
By the 1980s, however, rarely were manuscripts solicited or accepted
for publication. Henry George's works were reprinted, as necessary,
and funding was provided to the
American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Attempts to
distribute existing titles to other than a narrow academic
constituency or beyond the Georgist community were essentially
unsuccessful.
The person most committed to bringing the Georgist message to the
broad transnational community was Fred Harrison. He understood that
classroom discussions, conferences and even journals such as Land &
Liberty provided little opportunity to reach a large number of
people. Moreover, he also realized that books had to be published by a
commercial publisher with the means of international distribution.
Fred began a collaboration with the publishing house Shepheard-Walwyn.
In 1983, they published Fred's book, The Power In The Land. He
gave the reader much about which to think, including those of an
activist orientation:
This enquiry has demonstrated that neither of the
extremes of political philosophy, nor a mixture of the two, can deal
effectively with the problem at its source. Yet the realignment of
property rights entailed by the introduction of land value taxation
is not even on today's political agenda. Why?
The debate about the legitimate divide between private and social
property is distorted by the misrepresentation of the alternative
systems that are available. One is either a socialist, seeking to
nationalize indiscriminately all the means of production; or a
conservative, for whom all of the means of production must be
privately owned. Thus, fiscal reform is resisted because it is
interpreted as an attack on the sanctity of private property. Land
value taxation does not fit neatly into this dualistic model of
alternatives because it establishes property rights at a new level
of sophistication. It guarantees individual possession of
land on which people can put their labour and capital to best use;
while people in society share on an egalitarian basis that portion
of economic wealth that can be attributed to the distinctive
contribution of nature and of the community to the process of wealth
creation. This complex set of rights is accomplished by the simple
device of a 100% tax on the rental value of the land, raising an
income for the exchequer that is offset by a reduction in other
forms of taxes.
This third model is neither communism nor conservatism. Nor is it a
model of reform that most people would find either offensive to
their libertarian aspirations or difficult to grasp in its
administrative implications. Indeed, it merely requires a change
measured in degrees. For people today lose a large portion of their
earned incomes which are taxed away by the exchequer. ...To
tax away the whole of the annual income from land instead, then, is
only to adapt this system while leaving the present occupants in
possession of the land and free to use it as they see fit.[75]
Equally important, Fred's research revealed a very prevalent
eighteen-year land market cycle covering a period of over two hundred
years. Here was yet another sound reason for Georgists to do whatever
was possible to develop an econometric forecasting model -- one that
distinguished between the three separate factors of production and
also tracked land markets as distinct from markets for residential
housing, industrial and commercial property and other types of real
estate. And, in fact, Fred eventually initiated just such a project in
1990 with Ray Ward of the University of London. Once again, however,
the lack of financial resources prevented this effort from advancing
very far.
For a very long time, Georgists in Britain were frustrated by their
lack of progress. Even the educational effort had collapsed. There was
no longer an institution equivalent to the Henry George School, nor
were the surviving Georgists having much success impacting Britain's
public policy choices. The British emphasis on central government
planning prevented the use of the tactics pursued in the United
States, where (theoretically) local communities could control their
own destinies. Fred Harrison felt (and a number of others agreed with
him) that unless the Georgist message could be popularized and made
part of the mainstream political discussion, the funds then available
would dwindle to nothing and there would be no one left to continue
the work. The Power In The Land had to be followed by more
books of a hard-hitting nature, written in a manner that was relevant
to the issues of the day. Well-written books could become an important
source of revenue required to carry on activist campaigns around the
globe.
After reading The Power In The Land, I wrote to Fred with the
suggestion that more Georgist writing might find its way into the
popular press if a literary agent could be found. From my own
experience, I knew that the actual writing is less challenging than
the process of finding a willing publisher. I instinctively felt there
were enough good writers within the Georgist community to produce
polemics, research articles and book manuscripts -- if only there was
a central clearinghouse and a willing editor and agent ready to
promote them. Although Fred had established a good relationship with
Shepheard-Walwyn, he was required to take on the job of rewriting and
editing the material submitted by others. The market for the Georgist
perspective was not strong enough to generate the revenue to pay
someone else.
Fred followed his own first book with an effort to subject public
officials and policy analysts in Britain to a broadly-distributed
scrutiny of their decisions. A new organ, the Centre for Incentive
Taxation (CIT), began to publish a monthly newsletter entitled Economic
Intelligence (EI). CIT joined with Shepheard-Walwyn in 1989 to
publish a collection of essays and research articles under the title
Costing the Earth. To lower the cost of publication and
increase the potential audience, this book came out in soft cover. The
book contained a warning to readers of a prolonged economic downturn
linked to the problem of rising land values and destructive tax
policies. Early in 1990, Fred went on the offensive in EI to challenge
the forecasts of a powerful industry lobby, the Confederation of
British Industry. Not only was Fred explaining the causes of
deteriorating business conditions in Britain, he warned of a serious
recession on the horizon for the Japanese. A breakthrough of sorts
occurred when economist John Muelllbauer (Nuffield College, Oxford)
publicly criticized officials at the Bank of England and Treasury
Department for failing to include in their forecasting models any
equations relating to housing markets. "Ultimately, it is the
rise in the value of the underlying land that is the problem,"[76]
wrote Professor Muellbauer. Fred advised the government that the
appropriate public policy response is to impose a tax on land
sufficient to discourage hoarding and thereby keep prices stable at a
low level.
Another book, Now The Synthesis, appeared during 1991 out of
the CIT and Shepheard-Walwyn partnership, this one designed to provide
readers with a roadmap for a future in which the failings of
state-socialism and industrial landlordism were identified and purged
from a new social contract. Richard Noyes, a long-time Georgist and
New Hampshire newspaper publisher, edited the volume, which consisted
of essays by Fred Harrison and a number of Georgist academics[77]
covering a broad range of socio-political, ecological and economic
issues. Richard Noyes observed that the modern world awakened with the
possibilities as presented first by John Locke, which were attacked by
the Marxists because of clear and unrelenting distributional
injustices. Now, civilization had reached an impasse that could only
be resolved by adopting a new set of socio-political arrangements and
institutions (based, of course, on the principles I identify by the
term cooperative individualism). Thesis and antithesis had had
their day. The world now required synthesis:
The mainspring of the thesis is liberty. The mainspring
of the antithesis is equal justice for all. They are the essentials.
The synthesis, when and if it emerges, must accommodate them both.
The claim made here is that Henry George's realisation about the
practical terms on which people must relate to each other, and to
the planet, stands the test on both counts. The Georgist philosophy
also provides the vision that nurtures the fervor and the spiritual
yearning that are the driving force of millennial hopes, which are
the emotional responses of human beings to the concepts of liberty
and justice.[78]
From here, Fred Harrison and others established the Land Research
Trust and in the Fall of 2000 launched Geophilos, a quarterly
journal designed to reach a wide audience and offer "a
multi-disciplinary approach to addressing the problems of the new
millennium."[79] The Spring 2003 issue, which included a
paper I authored directing readers to several key books documenting
the failure of neo-classical economics, turned out to be the last.
Geophilos had difficulty finding a large enough audience to
make it self-supporting despite some excellent research and
hard-hitting writing. Another reorganization followed. Fred gathered
supporters and established the Land Research Trust and returned to the
challenge of bringing out new and important books in support of the
Georgist cause.
A sometime criticism of Georgists, particularly early during the
twentieth century, is a disdain for the academic community. This can
be traced back to Henry George and his generally negative relationship
with the professional political economists of his era and the first
and second generation of neo-classical and Marxist economists who
followed. And yet, Henry George's writings have always found a
receptive audience among those with advanced formal credentials. I
have already documented many of the significant efforts by key
intellectuals and public persons - Tolstoy, Churchill, Sun Yat-sen,
Frederic C. Howe, Harry Gunnison Brown - to convert George's proposals
into law. There have been thousands of others scattered all around the
globe. For more than two decades, I have made a determined effort to
obtain and review as much of the output by Georgists and Georgist
sympathizers as I could find, creating an on-line library of this
material at the School of Cooperative Individualism website. What is
certain is that after several decades of struggling to sustain even a
minimal level of interest in Henry George's intellectual contributions
to the science of political economy, some of the more senior members
of the academic community began to re-evaluate George, and younger
scholars and researchers began to choose George and his writings as a
subject for their dissertations and published articles.
Within the community of economic professors there was a small group
strongly influenced by Harry Gunnison Brown. Brown is described by
Christopher Ryan as "of the second generation of American
economists who followed the pioneering generation
"[80]
But, then, adds Ryan, "his was the most notable attempt by an
economist to translate and carry forward this message of George's
'remedy' for 50-some years."[81] Equally important, his
legacy as a teacher was enormously important:
Many of Brown's students achieved prominence in the
field of economics or in related fields.
Alfred Kahn, Russell
Bauder, Mason Gaffney, and Paul Junk have indicated his influence on
them through their association with him at Missouri without having
been students.
At the University of Missouri for many years
Brown was remembered through an annual memorial lecture given in his
honor by the late Professor Walter L. Johnson in the introductory
class Brown had taught for so many years.[82]
Less prominent than Harry Gunnison Brown was Aaron M. Sakolski, who
earned his doctorate in 1905 at Johns Hopkins University, then taught
at New York University from 1910 thru 1924 and later at the College of
the City of New York. His book, Land Tenure and Land Taxation in
America, was published in 1957, two years after his untimely death
as a result of an automobile accident. In some important respects, his
book adds further clarity to some of the historical analysis I have
presented here. I could not agree more with his summary of the source
of so much of misery experienced by people everywhere over the
centuries:
In general, it may be said that in the evolution of
civilizations landownership changed from a collective concept,
wherein absolute title to the soil was held by no individual or
group (but was regarded as a necessity available for general use of
society or the community), to a legal status, whereby individuals or
groups, through political or economic power, where able to hold,
use, transfer, and transmit its use and tenure for their own benefit
or aggression, without any necessary regard for public welfare. This
evolution, almost universal in the history of mankind, may be
regarded as one of the principal sources of political upheavals and
agrarian discontent, accompanied by political corruption and
economic ruin, which have marked the course of great nations and
empires both past and present. It is for this reason that the study
of the land question assumes a paramount importance in solving the
ever-recurring problems of human welfare.[83]
The land question and the Georgist solution also attracted a young
political scientist in the 1950s named James L. Busey, on the faculty
at the University of Colorado. He had already traveled extensively and
had written on comparative government, organization and law. His
interests extended as well to social science and political theory. In
1958, he contributed an essay to the Henry George News titled "Free
Trade and International Peace," in which he offered advice that
we considerably ahead of his time:
The advocates of free trade commonly argue that
elimination of barriers to commerce would facilitate prosperity, and
that the resultant improvement in world economic conditions would
contribute to maintenance of peace.
I should like to add what I consider to be a compelling political
reason for advocating unhampered commerce as a bulwark to
preservation of peace and security.
The national state lies at the very heart of international problems
of peace and war. Periodicals are full of references to Great
Britain, France, the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A., the United Arab Republic,
Argentina, and so forth. These names of national states are bandied
bout with the greatest air of familiarity. Yet national states are
seldom analyzed or understood in a profound sense. They are things
that are forever being talked about, but are seldom given careful
thought.
To understand national states and the international relations which
prevail among them, we must conceive of the world as existing in a
pattern of political anarchy. In this maelstrom of international
lawlessness, each national state tries to secure its "national
interest" as determined by itself. Such "national interest"
is likely to be defined by the one, few or many who run the national
state in terms of their own political security and economic
well-being, but seldom if ever in terms of the general betterment of
mankind.
As long as the national state is the star performer in a world of
international lawlessness, there will be wars and rumors of wars.
Until the roles of national states can somehow be markedly reduced,
peace must remain a hope, a dream, an aspiration, but a shibboleth.
National states are defined by their boundaries as well as by their
governments. Governments provide needed functions; but boundaries
provide the lines of cleavage between individual national states,
and are basic to the continuance of international chaos. As long as
boundaries remain relatively impassable, national sovereign states
must continue to perform as individual, competing entities divided
by deep gulfs of misunderstanding, prejudice and separate interest.
It is the impermeable character of boundaries that makes states both
national and sovereign.
It seems hopeless to try to prevail upon the states of the world to
agree to the reduction of their boundary functions in any real
sense; and it is well known that no national state is going to
unilaterally adopt any proposals which will tend to weaken its
position in relationship to other national states. "The lamb
thinks one thing, the wolf another."
Here is the point where the United States is in a position to take
unilateral action toward the preservation of peace and
simultaneously strengthen its own security. The United States -- or
any other country, for that matter -- can begin at its own
frontiers. A reduction, for example, of the economic barriers which
prevail between ourselves and Mexico and Canada would begin the long
process of reducing the danger of war and at the same time would
even add to the security of the participants. This is a development
which can be begun at home and then extended outward in all
directions without any need to rely either on frustrating
international negotiations or on complex, bureaucratic international
organization. Once a large country such as the United States begins
lowering its own barriers on its immediate frontiers, its neighbors
are likely to follow suit, and a chain reaction be initiated. A
North American free trade area would go a long way toward reducing
political cleavages on this continent, and would undoubtedly be
expanded into South America and into the North Atlantic area of
Europe. It is here, then, that the argument for free trade can be
turned into a political contention. The inauguration of free trade,
beginning at home, can serve as a substantial contribution to the
modification of the national state, but in a pattern of enhanced
security for all who contribute to the effort.[84]
In 1968, Professor Busey produced a condensed edition of Henry
George's book, Progress and Poverty. Beginning in 1961,
editions of his booklet, Latin American Political Guide,
achieved a wide distribution within the academic community. Through
the 1980s, Professor Busey was a frequent presenter at the annual CGO
conferences. In 1991, he contributed a chapter on the situation in
Central America to the volume, Now The Synthesis, edited by
Richard Noyes. He expressed his hope that the ancient influence of
Physiocratic ideals among Spanish reformers could emerge in the wake
of the collapse of Marxism-Leninism as the ideological path to
progressive change in the southern hemisphere of the Americas:
Is there a chance that despite all the obstacles in its
path, an enlightened development of classical liberalism, inspired
by utopian idealism and illuminated by the thinking of Henry George
and physiocracy, might still play a role in the future of Central
America?
Today, with the collapse of Marxist ideology around the world, a
vacuum, a virtual mental chaos, must prevail in the minds of
idealists who were captivated by the simplistic Marxist analysis of
class struggle, workers' revolution and dictatorship of the
proletariat.
In the scheme of things, it is not inconceivable that geocracy,
which already has its old French-Iberian philosophical traditions in
parts of Latin America, and its contemporary advocates in Argentina,
Columbia, the Dominican Republic and perhaps Costa Rica, could
exercise influence on the thinking of both the right and the
left.[85]
Professor Busey retired from teaching in the early 1980s but has
remained an active member of the Georgist community. He and a group of
Georgists living in the region of the United States sharing portions
of the Rocky Mountains formed the Intermountain Single Tax
Association, with Busey as its President. From time to time, his
commentaries appeared in the publication Groundswell,
distributed by the Georgist organization Common Ground, U.S.A.
One of the most consistent champions of Henry George's
socio-political philosophy was Robert A. Andelson, who died late in
2003. Andelson, an ordained minister of the Congregational Christian
Church, received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of
Southern California in 1960. He had been teaching for several years at
Arlington College, a small denominational college near Riverside,
California. And, from 1959 until 1962, he served as Executive Director
of the Henry George School of Social Science in San Diego, California.
He left California to take a faculty position at Northwestern State
College in Louisiana. A few years later he moved on to join the
Philosophy Department of Auburn University (where he remained until
his retirement in 1992). He later recalled how his activism on behalf
of Georgist rent as revenue policies brought about his
dismissal from Northwestern. He and a colleague, Professor LeGrand
Weller, worked together on a study the results of which supported the
case for "land value taxation." They then "assembled
a board of prominent citizens, and used the occasion of Churchill's
death to
blanket the state with a three-color announcement
carrying his picture and endorsement of LVT. The state tax
commissioner, Wilma Lockhart; the state president of the AFL-CIO,
Victor Busey; and the director of the Public Affairs Research Council,
Ed Steimel, were all for us. But shortly thereafter, I received notice
that my contract at Northwestern State College (now "University")
of Louisiana would not be renewed, and I left for Auburn. A year
later, Weller, too, got the axe, and there was nobody left who was
able to carry on the work."[86] While still an associate
professor at Auburn, Andelson authored his first book, Imputed
Rights, based on his doctoral dissertation. He acknowledged the
challenge he faced attracting interest to his chosen subject:
The modern temper is not friendly to theoretical
disquisitions n the nature of justice. One hears it said that such
efforts are a waste of time, that mankind is in fundamental accord
as to what is meant by justice, and that the area of disagreement
lies in the question of what means are to be utilized in attaining
it.[87]
Andelson's targeted audience was other Christians, and he began by
making a statement meant to stir his readers from any complacency they
might enjoy:
Christian affirmations of the rights of man betray,
almost monotonously, a rationale which contradicts fundamental
Christian tenets, a rationale unconsciously borrowed from humanism,
whether of the Classical or the Enlightenment variety.
Since the Christian theories of human rights have, in fact, for the
most part depended upon essentially secular arguments, the question
may be raised as to why a theocentric view of human rights is
needed.
My answer to this question is two-fold: first of all,
it must be said that although a concern for human welfare is indeed
implicit in the Christian faith, any effort to translate it directly
into the language of rights will founder on the doctrine of the Fall
of Man, which renders untenable any simple deduction of rights from
the order of creation.
No view of human rights which fails to
take thoroughgoing account of man's fallen nature can be considered
consonant with the demands of normative Christian theology - or, for
that matter, even of psychological realism. Secondly,
only a
theocentric position can provide a really secure anchor for the
concept.[88]
From the perspective of a person of faith, Andelson goes on to argue
the case for voluntary associations as the basis for just law. "Contrary
to the popular delusion, there is no magic which can transmute a
contemptible relationship to one of honor simply because the state is
part to it,"[89] And, as history and our contemporary
experience clearly demonstrate, the hierarchies formed long ago as
ancient peoples began to settle and compete with one another for
territory remain. Just law remains everywhere a distant hope. For
Andelson, achieving justice meant that those of true faith must begin
to understand how existing socio-political arrangements and
institutions failed to meet a Christian test of justice:
Only an impersonal framework can provide for the fullest
growth of the human relationships which make for personality's
burgeoning and fulfillment. The principles of public order most
favorable to love's optimal exercise are necessarily general and
abstract. They are the principles of justice, and justice is no
respecter of persons. Yet justice enhances personal dignity and
fosters genuine communion because instead of leaving the individual
with nothing to rely upon but sentiment and subjective impulse, it
creates a stable field of mutual expectation within which voluntary
cooperation finds free play and ample scope, opening the way to
deeper levels of creative fellowship.[90]
One of those to review Andelson's book was the Jack Schwartzman, who
escaped with his family from Russia after the Bolshevik revolution
and, after an education in the law, taught literature at Nassau County
Community College on Long Island, New York. He was one of the
century's top Georgist scholars and taught at the Henry George School
of Social Science in New York during the 1950s and 1960s. In most
recent years, he served as a member of the School's Board of Trustees.
In his 1974 review, which appeared in the Henry George News,
Schwartzman wrote:
Could freedom be "an end in itself?" No,
cogently argues Professor Robert V. Andelson in a
thoroughly-reasoned, well-written book on human rights. "Personal
fulfillment requires that freedom be directed toward an object that
transcends the self," namely, God. Without such direction,
freedom has no meaning.
Does man, qua man, possess rights automatically, as argued by many
humanists? No, answers Andelson. However, "in spite of man's
total depravity he still possesses rights by virtue of the image of
God." Thus preaches Calvin, and Andelson accepts the thesis.
Furthermore, although "strictly speaking, only the elect may be
said to possess rights 'de jure' rights accrue 'de facto' also to
the non-elect. This is because there is no absolute objective human
means of determining who are elect and who are not. Hence, rights
must be attributed to all who accept their correlative obligations
"
Thus the title: "Imputed Rights." (Apart from God,
emphasizes the noted Russian philosopher Berdyaev, rights are
meaningless, and Andelson agrees, although he disputes Berdyaev's
claim that religious rights should be zealously safeguarded while "other
rights" could be encroached upon by the state.)
Does the end justify the means? There are times, indicates our
author, when "reciprocal freedom is an end which hallows any
means required for its defense" - although he urges (for each
circumstance where this may appear necessary) a "prayerful and
diligent contextual study and consideration."
Those who are familiar with the Georgist teachings are aware of
George's stress on the theory of human rights. How foreign it is to
the average college student (or teacher) who today accepts the
thesis that rights are privileges "conferred" upon the
populace by an all-powerful state!
It is Andelson's contention that the function of government is to
guarantee the right of self-expression. All other rights are
dependent upon such basic, primary, right. Andelson is emphatic in
his philosophy: "The only legitimate goal of any nation as a
political unit is that of insuring the reciprocal freedom of its
citizens to pursue goals of their own choosing." (Freedom is,
of course, necessary, according to the author, so that each person
may worship God and recognize the reciprocal freedoms of his
fellow-citizens.)
The Calvinist view, even though it is as pessimistic about man as
is the Lutheran view, does not stress blind obedience to the state
but, on the contrary, limits the power of the state. "And when
the expanding state, forgetful of its proper task of guaranteeing
rights, engulfs whole spheres of service it is extending the borders
of the Realm of Caesar at the expense of the territory of the Realm
of Spirit." ("For the use of coercion," says Andelson
elsewhere, "other than to guarantee rights, is an infringement
upon rights,..." Thus, drunkenness, gluttony, sex abuse,
perversion, and other moral violations are not, "in themselves,"
grounds for state interference.)
The second half of the book deals with the specific "rights"
(although, our author informs us, basically all rights are "one").
Such rights, all to be "protected" by the government, are
the rights to 1) physical integrity, 2) freedom of expression, 3)
freedom to pursue an occupation of one's choice (but not the "right
to work"), 4) ownership of labor products (but not private
ownership of land and natural resources. "They were not created
by human labor... And regardless of how innocently bought and sold,
how toilsomely acquired, or how ancient its pedigree, every existing
land title will be found to be spurious if traced to its origin.")
Government exists to protect individual rights, not to perpetuate
privilege, dispense welfare, cause wars, or regulate morals. This is
the theme of the second half of the book.[91]
Professor Andelson dedicated his many years to the difficult but
necessary task of urging his contemporaries and students to think more
objectively and critically about the basis for the values they held
to. In the "Introduction" to a 1979 collection of essays
looking at the treatment Henry George received from critics over the
previous century, Andelson demonstrated his own open-mindedness toward
the large body of Henry George's writing:
"People do not argue with the teaching of George,
they simply do not know it." This sentiment, expressed by
Tolstoy in 1905, had a degree of validity even then. The writers of
economic textbooks in particular, when deigning to mention George at
all, have tended to dismiss his contribution with a few patronizing
sentences that, more often than not, display a lamentable absence of
real acquaintance with his thought.
Yet there have been those who, Tolstoy to the contrary
notwithstanding, have argued with the teaching of George.
Not all of their arguments have been sketchy, crude, or
ill-informed; several have been detailed, closely reasoned, and
based upon a careful study of his works. Had most of his disciples
in this century taken Tolstoy's assertion
less literally,
they might have discovered not a few criticisms worthy of their
analysis and possible refutation, together with some areas in which
the master's legacy could profit from judicious modification or
supplementation.[92]
In the aftermath of the collapse of state-socialism in Soviet Russia
and Eastern Europe, Andelson delivered an address to the fellows,
staff and others at the American Institute for Economic Research
(AIER) in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. His other strong interest,
in monetary reform, brought him to AIER as a Distinguished Research
Fellow. He talked of Henry George and the critical importance of
George's central observations and teachings. At the end of his
presentation, he provide the essence of his definition of justice in
the realm of property:
There are two things which a government can never do and
still be just: The first of these is to take for public purposes
what rightfully belongs to private individuals or corporations. The
second is to give to private individuals or corporations what
rightfully belongs to the public. All wealth that is privately
produced rightfully belongs to private individuals or corporations,
and for the government to appropriate it is unjust. But land rent is
publicly produced, and for the government to give it to private
individuals or corporations is equally unjust.[94]
There are many others who feel similarly and have committed
themselves to the cause that came closest to achieving real progress
in the decades immediately following Henry George's death. Of some
concern, however, is that attrition is taking from the Georgist
community strong and important voices not easily replaced. There are,
to be sure, younger people of considerable capability and energy who
continue to write and teach and engage in activism. Fewer new
adherents to Henry George's philosophical principles have emerged to
replace those who have died or have drifted away for personal reasons.
The Georgist movement has proven to be remarkably resilient despite
its numerical decline. Here and there around the globe are signs that
the Georgist perspective on the land question is finding new
audiences.
Outside the Core: Oligarchies of the Americas
Most activists within the Georgist community have concentrated their
efforts on either the Anglo-American or former Soviet bloc societies
as the places where energy and financial reserves were justifiably
spent to make real
the synthesis. At the same time, through its correspondence
courses, the Henry George Institute continuously attracted students
and activists from all parts of the globe. The most successful
classroom program conducted outside the United States has been in the
Dominican Republic. There, as in all of what is commonly referred to
as Latin America, agrarian and urban landlordism continue to
impoverish the overwhelming majority of citizens. Searching for the
causes of widespread poverty in the southern Americas, Raymond E.
Crist concluded after years of research that land monopoly was both
pervasive and all-absorbing:
Traditional agriculture should be made more
productive, but land concentration in the hands of elite groups or
large corporations spell bleak prospects for the small
plot farmer and landless laborer. Case studies of
selected Latin American countries show the political
implications of how land scarcity is induced by a tiny upper
crust, often supported in power by the military. Agribusiness
emphasizes export crops rather than food crops for domestic
consumption. The rich get richer. Many are absentee owners,
living abroad. Wages are low, food prices are high.
Peasants clamor unsuccessfully for land on which to grow
some of their own food to help make ends meet.[94]
Despite the obstacles presented by Latin America's history and
entrenched landlordism, something rather remarkable had occurred in
the Dominican Republic. Beginning in the 1960s, Lucy de Silfa
established an extension of the Henry George School, introducing the
ideas of Henry George to persons at every level of Dominican society.
Not only did the School survive, literally thousands of Dominicans
have attended its courses over the years, adding their voices to a
quiet, peaceful call for structural change in their society. They have
not achieved success, yet, but the effort continues.
Lucy and other Georgists in the Dominican Republic had resisted the
Trujillo dictatorship (until his assassination in 1961), then worked
for the redistribution of land during the brief presidency of the
democratically-elected socialist President, Juan Bosch. The opposition
retaliated quickly after Bosch orchestrated adoption of a new
constitution that restricted the acquisition of land by foreigners,
instituted a system of profit-sharing for Dominican agricultural
workers, and required existing owners to sell off or distribute free
to landless peasants what the government defined as excess acreage.
For his trouble, Bosch was ousted by a military coup. For awhile, the
monopolistic interests of Gulf & Western, the island's largest
landowner, were re-established. Then, while the Dominican Republic was
still under U.S. military occupation in 1966, Joaquin Balaguer (who
had been a figurehead president during the Trujillo years) was
returned to the presidency. As observed by James Busey, "he
turned out to be an unusually able president."[95]
Subsequently, Balaguer served three successive
constitutional terms, 1966-1978. His administration actively
promoted education and culture, and revived university life; cleaned
up and beautified Santo Domingo and other cities, restored the old
colonial section of the capital where so much fighting had taken
place in 1965, sponsored a successful program of public housing for
the poor, broke up some huge estates, increased the number of
independent proprietors, introduced improvements into rural life,
and breathed more hope into the Dominican society and economy than
the country had ever known.[96]
Yet, Balaguer's zeal for reform stopped short of accepting his own
democratic removal from office. Only U.S. intervention prevented
Balaguer from overturning the election of 1978 and his defeat by
Antonio Silvestre Guzman.
After a lapse of eight years, Balaguer was re-elected. He still
occupied the office of president when Georgists convened in Santo
Domingo for the 1992 annual conference. Over the years, Lucy de Silfa
had managed to expose a significant number of public officials to
Henry George's writings and proposals. Her prestige was such that a
number of us even had an audience with President Balaguer. Yet, the
question remained in our minds whether her efforts held much chance of
breaking the chains that keep the Dominican people impoverished. The
Dominican experience adds to the body of historical evidence that
permanent change never comes willingly when at the expense of the
privileged. The lifespan of an enlightened leader is brief and is too
infrequently followed by others willing to turn government into the
servant of a small portion of the citizenry or even multinational
corporate interests. Leaders will respond only when the struggle for
change has reached critical mass, and in the Dominican Republic (as
elsewhere) the number of activists supporting the public collection of
rent remains a small minority. Despite a significant shift to a
service-oriented and tourist-driven economy, the concentration of
wealth and income continues to weigh heavily on the population. What
we observed during our brief visit over a decade ago was deep-rooted
poverty and armed military personnel guarding every building. Not much
seems to have changed. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency website
reports that the country continues "to suffer from marked
income inequality; the poorest half of the population receives less
than one-fifth of GNP, while the richest 10% enjoy nearly 40% of
national income."
Georgists have a small but important presence in Nicaragua. The
Instituto Henry George has operated since 2000 in Managua under the
direction of Paul Martin. Around 500 Nicaraguans each year have
completed the school's program.
If there is one nation that seems above all other poised to move in
the direction proposed by Georgists, that nation is South Korea. The
effort to introduce the Korean people to Henry George's ideas was
initiated in the 1950s by Rev. Archer Torrey, head of the Jesus Abbey
in Taebaek, who died in 2002. His work led to the establishment of the
Henry George Association of Korea in 1984. This group holds frequent
seminars and annual Land School meetings which last for three days.
One of Rev. Torrey's strong allies was Dr. Yoon-Sang Kim, a Professor
in the Department of Public Administration, Kyungpook National
University (who received his doctorate in City and Regional Planning
from the University of Pennsylvania). Dr. Kim lectured at both the
1995 and 1996 Land Schools. He also translated both the abridged and
full editions of Progress and Poverty. As of he mid-1990s,
several Masters theses had been written on Georgist themes and nearly
a dozen professors and researchers were meeting monthly to read and
discuss Progress and Poverty with the intent to write papers
for publication relating to George's concepts. Recently, a collection
of five addresses and important passes from George's writings were
translated by Kim Yoon-sang and Jun Gango-soo, published under the
title The Essence of Henry George.
Early in 2004, Kim Myung-whan was elected as the new president of
Henry George Association of Korea, succeeding Jun Gang-soo who had
served for six years. One of the top policy staff of the incumbent
President Roh's administration of South Korea is a Georgist, Lee
Joung-woo, the editor of the book Henry George: Revisited 100
Years Later, published in late 2002. During 2003, he set out a new
set of real estate policies to curb speculation including raising the
assessed value gradually.
If there can be said to be any one organization working globally on
behalf of Georgist ideals, the International Union for Land Value
Taxation and Free Trade, based on London since its beginnings. In
1993, the "IU" (as Georgists generally refer to the
International Union) was given Non-Governmental Organization status
with the United Nations. This provided an opportunity to participate
in important international conferences, including the 1996 Habitat II
conference in Istanbul. As the number of Georgists has declined over
the decades, activists have adopted a strategy of working with other
groups and organizations with similar objectives but who are pursuing
very different changes in policy. Global concerns regarding the
environment, over-development and sprawl in the most
automobile-dependent societies, and the disparities of wealth
ownership and income distribution have opened doors and minds to the
Georgist message. Slowly but methodically, this work continues.
SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN AN ERA OF CONTRIVED SCARCITY
As the Soviet experience revealed, hierarchical systems eventually
become so internally corrupt they implode; the question is not
if this will occur but when. We of the social
democracies have not been ready to assist these desperate people very
well as they struggle to survive long periods of upheaval and chaos.
Our world is still thought to be one plagued by a scarcity of
resources, of contracting opportunities and unsympathetic attitudes
toward those whose living conditions are so much worse than our own.
We have been nurtured by our experience to believe in the zero sum
game. Only a few decades separate many of us from generational
poverty, and many of us are fearful past conditions may return. The
fruits of agrarian and industrial landlordism - structural
unemployment and volatile land markets -- threaten our opportunity to
acquire a decent home if we do not now have one, and promise to take
from us what we do have. These are the everyday fears of those who
have much of what is required for a decent human existence but whose
margin of safety from falling into unmanageable debt due to prolonged
unemployment or serious illness is precariously thin.
The dismal failure of social democracy to generate and sustain full
employment without inflation continues to be downplayed. Among those
who have been outspoken critics, Mortimer Adler was among those who
continued to offer solutions that ignored the land question and the
problem of the private monopoly of rent. In his book Haves Without
Have-Nots, published in 1991, he repeated his failure to recognize
nature as the source of individual wealth (i.e., of natural property)
as distinct from being wealth itself. He appropriately credits John
Locke with remarkable courage in championing a labor theory of
property, although failing to mention that Locke could not bring
himself to challenge the socio-political arrangements that perpetuated
agrarian landlordism. What Locke offered was mitigation, suggesting
justice was served so long as no individual took more land than was
required to provide for a decent human existence. Thus, Locke assigned
rights of ownership in land to the individual who "staked out
his claim to owning a plot of land"[97] then cut down trees
and put up a fence. That titles to land are inherently monopolistic
forms of economic license not equally available to all is left out of
his treatment of equality of opportunity. Even Marx and Engels, in the
Communist Manifesto -- which Adler analyzes at length -- list
as a principal axiom of socialism the abolition of private property in
land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. By
adhering to the scheme of universal capitalism developed in concert
with Louis Kelso, Adler remains outside the framework of cooperative
individualism and condemned to efforts that mitigate rather than
eliminate injustice.
Fortunately, the transnational community has been invigorated by the
expanding influence of those holding deep feelings for the protection
and preservation of the earth as an ecosystem. Many individuals have
come to recognize the system of nation-states as a serious threat to
life on earth. Their efforts have engaged the interest of thoughtful
people everywhere in a manner Georgists have longed to emulate. Two
organizations based in the United States have been particularly
influential. The first, Global Economic Associates, published a series
of papers in the 1980s that awakened the consciousness of activists
everywhere. Number seventeen in the series, published in 1982, was
titled Land And World Order. Contributing authors challenged
conventional wisdoms and the monopolistic nature of existing systems
of land tenure -- and the claims by nationalistic groups to
sovereignty over portions of the earth. Robert Swann, who worked
closely for years with Ralph Borsodi to promote self-sustaining
communities, described the concept of putting land in trusts so that
communities rather than individuals would govern the use of land while
sharing in its locational value:
The CLT has a purpose which goes beyond simple
preservation of land. It recognizes that human beings are ultimately
a part of the total ecological reality and that in order to reach
ecologically sound goals, we must also support economically sound
objectives. For this reason the CLT encourages an approach to land
use planning which includes a mixture of housing and farmland in
ways that are mutually compatible and supportable. ...
The user pays the trust a regular monthly rental for the land and
the trust in turn pays the taxes as well as the cost of the land
purchased from the income. Properly managed and financed, the income
from such rentals is generally sufficient to create a revolving loan
fund for the purchase of additional land. The trust, in return for
helping users gain access to land, imposes lease conditions that
prevent the user from building more than necessary structures, or
farming it in ways that might damage the soil.[98]
Into the 1980s, Bob Swann and others connected to the E.F. Schumacher
Society (based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts) worked to establish
self-sustaining communities and spread the adoption of community land
trusts around the globe. In more recent years, their efforts also
extended to the former Soviet bloc nations.
Transnational interest in the land question has greatly
expanded over the last decade or so in response to the work performed
by another activist organization, the Washington, D.C. based
Worldwatch Institute. Under the leadership of Lester Brown, the
institute has undertaken controversial research and advocated
solutions to a full range of socio-political, economic and ecological
problems few other organizations have dared to approach. Worldwatch
Institute researcher Holly B. Brough produced a powerful article,
published early in 1991, that directly linked land monopoly with
desertification, deforestation and environmental degradation. She also
reported that land redistribution efforts had little impact on these
global problems. "In most cases," Brough found, "a
fraction of landless families have benefited. Measured against the
enormous obstacles facing land reforms -- resistant landowners,
uncommitted leaders, unorganized peasants, and sketchy land records --
these results are not surprising."[99] In response to those
who supported land redistribution in LDCs but contended there was
nothing problematic about the land tenure or distribution of ownership
in the developed world, Marcia Lowe responded with a penetrating
article early in 1992. She identified land hoarding as one of the
great causes of urban sprawl. "Many cities have so much
underused space that they could develop for decades to come without
bulldozing another square yard of undisturbed land,"[100]
wrote Lowe. The consequences of sprawl are many and deeply-felt, in
particular the enormous quantities of time and energy (both human and
that derived from fossil fuels) created by automobile dependency.
Among Lowe's proposed solutions is the public collection of the rental
value of locations:
By taxing vacant land according to its true worth in the
market, cities can make these parcels less attractive as an
investment vehicle. Local governments typically assess such
properties at far less than their market value, effectively
rewarding property owners for keeping their land idle. More accurate
property assessment encourages redevelopment. Cities can go a step
further to tax vacant land more heavily than developed parcels. ...
Cities can further spur the regeneration of their blighted land
through a differential property tax, levying a higher charge on land
than on buildings. This dual approach is now in effect in 15 U.S.
cities -- mostly in Pennsylvania, which, unlike most other states,
has specific "enabling" legislation that allows localities
to make such a change. When Pittsburgh introduced a sharply graded
dual tax system in 1978, the number of vacant lot sales, new
building permits, and new dwellings quickly increased. At the same
time, demolitions declined.[101]
Much of the credit for the progress achieved in Pittsburgh and the
other Pennsylvania cities mentioned by Lowe goes to Steven Cord of the
Henry George Foundation, along with handful of dedicated activists in
Pennsylvania. Still, the connection between taxation and
ecologically-sustainable economic growth remains understood by far too
few citizens; and, the task of educating even the world's activists is
daunting.
Considerable further discussion and debate over the control and use
of nature arose during the June, 1992 United Nations Conference on the
Environment and Development, held in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. A real
concern of environmental activists was the threat to existing
international agreements on grounds that the laws of nations
conflicted with the free flow of goods. To monitor and coordinate
international environmental cooperation, the member nations created a
Commission on Sustainable Development with powers to censure
governments that fail to live up to their treaty commitments. Equally
important, for the first time non-governmental groups were included
and provided access to data obtained by the Commission. Despite these
positive signs, however, the lingering global recession took a serious
toll on activist groups that relied on private funding. Greenpeace,
for example, was forced to reduce its staff and curtail much of its
more costly activities. Other organizations faced similar problems.
Of note was the fact that at least some economists were beginning to
listen to criticisms of the failure of economic science to take into
account the costs associated with environmental degradation and
clean-up. A meaningful attempt to address this challenged appeared in
1993 from World Bank economist Herman E. Daly,[102] in which he argued
against superfluous consumption and for the dedication of more time to
nurturing and to relationships as steps toward rebuilding a sense of
community for people no longer connected.
By late 1993, the attention of environmental activists was focused on
the proposed revisions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT). U.S. activists had good reason for concern, despite the fact
that in 1992 (in connection with NAFTA) the House of Representatives
had passed without opposition a resolution stating that the Congress
would not approve any trade agreement that compromised U.S. standards
for health, safety, labor and environmental protection. Language in
the vast documentation of the GATT strongly suggested that
environmental protections would fall to the lowest common denominator;
that is, the nation with the least enforced controls. The instrument
for forcing social democracies with strict laws and environmental
regulations into submission is the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Worldwatch Institute's Hilary French detailed environmentalists'
concerns that governments had given little or no consideration to the
environmental ramifications of the GATT reforms (or, which is probably
closer to the truth, were heavily influenced by lobbyists representing
multinational corporations):
[G]overnments seem to be heading toward committing
themselves to these changes with little study -- or understanding --
of their implications. For this reason, three U.S. groups ...
(Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, and the Sierra Club) filed
suit with the U.S. District court, arguing that trade negotiations
should be subject under U.S. law to environmental impact statement
procedures. In an important victory, Judge Charles Richey ruled in
the groups' favor in June, finding that such an assessment is
required for the North American Free Trade Agreement.[103]
As French later reported, despite assurances from officials of many
governments to maintain existing environmental safeguards, changes to
the GATT opened the door for challenges to a wide variety of product
standards considered to be technical restrictions against trade. A
frightening characteristic of WTO is that each member -- regardless of
the size of its economy -- has an equal vote on all issues. Writing in
the periodical Liberty, Fred L. Smith, Jr. observed how the
votes of small countries might be bought and sold by special
interests:
One danger inherent in an unweighted, veto-free voting
system is that [narrow pressure] groups could work with foreign
protectionists to advance the ideologues' domestic agendas. For
example, a German firm might argue that American's lower rates of
recycling or higher rates of energy consumption are "non-sustainable,"
and thus constitute an unfair trading practice.[104]
In the midst of these adjustments to trade practices, representatives
of more than sixty of the world's governments finally agreed in
December of 1993 (after more than nine years of negotiations) to the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, declaring in part
that seabed deposits of minerals are a common heritage. Momentum
toward international cooperation accelerated following hearings in the
mid-1980s under the auspices of the World Commission on Environment
and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norwegian minister
of the environment from 1974-79). "We now need to build new
coalitions that cross sectors, generations, and nations,"
Brundland later wrote. "Time is short and the need for change
acute. We must build a new global ethic. We must fashion a global
concept of security that will embrace the notion of sustainable
development, the need to combat poverty, the unequal distribution of
wealth, the degradation of our environment, and the depletion of our
resources. And we must make clear our commitment to aid the developing
countries on their way to sustainable development."[105] In
1988, more than 150 nongovernmental organizations, business and trade
unions, international institutions and development banks came together
to form the Centre for Our Common Future, with headquarters in Geneva,
Switzerland. Early in 1993, Land & Liberty published an
article by geophysicist Pat Willmore (a leading member of Britain's
Green Party) which challenged Georgists as well as other activists not
to ignore in programs for solving economic, environmental and
socio-political problems the entrenched nature of money creation.
Willmore's proposed solution has considerable appeal within currency
reform circles; however, my own feeling is that if government (or, a
private bank of issuance, for that matter) is to be authorized to
issue currency, the issuer should possess actual goods or commodities
with which to back the currency. Willmore's approach is for government
to issue currency restricted to specific types of investment:
Undertake an environmentally-friendly capital-investment
programme, funded by a special issue of government-created money.
Counter the inevitable accusations of inflationary irresponsibility
by pointing out that this created money is no more inflationary than
the same amount borrowed from commercial sources, while being free
from the burden of interest which commercial sources impose.[106]
Such schemes ignore history. The key to preventing monetary-induced
inflation, I have long felt, is for new banks of deposit to issue
lines of credit linked to specific baskets of precious metals,
commodities, or other material assets. For small communities, currency
backed by promises to perform specific services have proven successful
as well. Government must not be permitted to create its own credit by
mandating the issue of currency printed by a central bank or
government agency in exchange for government bonds. In short, the
private sector must galvanize its power to require governments to pay
for goods and services with sound currency. Citizens might not be able
to force governments by legislative change to abandon the practice of
self-creation of credit; however, market forces and currency traders
are already pushing governments in the right direction. How this might
be accomplished was the subject of my own final research paper[107]
in 1990. As another monetary reformer, Thomas Greco, has written: "The
single most important feature of any potential monetary system is that
the unit used to measure value be relatively invariant over time in
terms of real goods and services."[108]
Another great concern (and area of disagreement among Georgists) is
whether the rapid increase in human population threatens the earth's
ability to sustain life. Henry George led the way in arguing with
great persuasion that mass poverty was caused not by actual scarcity
but by contrived scarcity attributable to monopolistic socio-political
arrangements and institutions. He was not oblivious to the destructive
processes associated with the unbridled conquest of nature but viewed
these problems as independent of population. In less than a hundred
years, however, the aggregate impact of human activity has, perhaps,
pressed the earth near the edge of its systemic endurance. So much
damage is being done by people either desperate to somehow find the
means for survival or by the unthinking exploitation of nature by
multinational corporations that activists have been hard pressed to
know where to focus their energy. Population increases have in this
century remained highest in societies with the lowest per capita
wealth and meanest distribution of wealth and income. On the other
hand, millions of people in these societies live at the margin; they
consume almost nothing in comparison to citizens in the social
democracies. The problem, of course, is they not only live at the
margin of production, they exist on lands unable to sustain the
presence of human populations. I have joined with those who believe
the fate of the earth cannot wait until we somehow solve all of our
socio-political problems and create an atmosphere of equality of
opportunity. We must work simultaneously to educate people in all
societies on the virtue of curtailing the growth in human population
as an essential component to the preservation of life on earth.
Within the Georgist community, one person who had given the problem
of population expansion considerable attention was Robert V. Andelson.
His interest in the population dilemma had been prompted when
University of California professor of human ecology, Garrett Hardin,
visited Auburn in 1986. What Hardin had to say about the impact of
human activity on the earth troubled Andelson. He decided to look more
closely at the evidence and respond to Hardin from a Georgist
perspective. A few years later, Andelson shared his conclusions with
other Georgists attending the CGO conference in Philadelphia:
Over the past few years I have become persuaded that the
problem [of overpopulation] is quantitative as well as qualitative.
This change in my position stems from ecological instead of narrowly
economic considerations. No doubt, with proper land arrangement and
the application of advanced technology, the earth could support,
after a fashion, a vastly greater population well into the distant
future. But when account is taken of the quality of life, and of the
environmental degradation that significant increase in population
would inevitably entail, the issue assumes far more ominous
perspective. ...
I shall probably be accused of being alarmist. While I realize that
the scientific community is not unanimous as to the precise
magnitude or imminence of the ecological ills portended by exploding
population, there is broad consensus that at the very least the
prospect of such ills is not to be dismissed as nugatory. To do
nothing in the hope of some technological miracle would be to court
disaster. Mandatory population control, the only long-run safeguard
against possible environmental doom, presents a threat only to
sentimental and conventional notions of rights and freedoms.
...Self-interest and prejudice must not be permitted to place at
risk the condition and perhaps even the very survival of the
essential joint-heritage of the human race.[109]
Not long thereafter, Fred Harrison convinced Andelson that this
subject deserved broader treatment. Andelson agreed to serve as editor
for a book of essays later published in 1991(by Shepheard-Walwyn and
the Centre for Incentive Taxation) under the title Commons Without
Tragedy. In addition to Andelson and Fred Harrison, the volume
included essays by historian Roy Douglas, economists Alexandra R.
Hardie, David Richards and T. Nicolaus Tideman -- and Garrett Hardin.
This volume is a beautifully-written and thought-provoking exposition
on the human condition. Andelson, sensing the opening of a window of
opportunity through which transnationals might influence the course of
history, introduced the book stating: "The time is now upon
us, then, for Great Ideas to display their wares. These must be
subjected to the correct tests by social scientists and by the
standards of acceptability required by representative government. We
are obliged to hope that people will rationally select appropriate
models to meet the challenges of the future."[110] With
Hardin's contribution to the volume, Andelson increased the potential
for a broader readership than might otherwise have been the case.
Hardin's central message is that the Commons have never been managed
for the benefit of entire communities. Almost always, political power
held by the few exerts itself on the public domain. Hardin provides
particularly valuable insight into the conflict between the exercise
of license over liberty,/i> where the global Commons
are concerned:
By long tradition, the open ocean -- far beyond the
reach of national sovereignties -- is an unmanaged common. That is
why the stocks of most oceanic fisheries are now accelerating toward
exhaustion. Oceanic fisheries haven't a chance of survival so long
as their exploitation is guided by the rubric, 'freedom of the seas'
(read, 'laissez-faire' once more). An apparent exception is
the Alaska fur-seal resource which has prospered for nearly a
century, but that is because the commons of its breeding grounds in
the Pribilof Islands are in fact managed jointly by only two
exploiters, Russia and the United States.
A more serious case is that of air pollution which is out of
control because the absorptive capacities of the atmosphere are
treated as unmanaged commons. As people have become concerned with
the proven damage of acid rain and the possible disaster of an
atmospheric greenhouse, nations have moved closer to converting the
global atmosphere from an unmanaged common to a manageable one. (The
political roadblocks to this reform are, of course,
formidable.)[111]
In another volume to which Hardin contributed several essays, he very
appropriately demonstrated by repeating the observations of Thomas
Gresham that without the effective enforcement of just laws, people
tend to act in their own perceived self-interest even when the known
aggregate impact is the destruction of cooperative societal activity.
"Let us imagine someone who was absolutely convinced that
laissez faire is the only right approach to all problems,"
writes Hardin. "Were we to follow such advice in monetary
matters, we would allow genuine and counterfeit coins to compete
freely in the market place, confident that an invisible hand would
protect us. Needless to say, disillusionment would soon follow."[112]
The distinctions in behavior are those recognized only when the
principles of cooperative individualism are understood. Freedom
must be constrained by justice in order to preserve liberty.
Otherwise, the exercise of freedom results in an act of
criminal or economic license. Hardin had been in the vanguard
of the scientific wing of transnational activism, individuals who
seemed to understand just how integrally linked were socio-political
inequalities and the devastation of the earth. This message came
through loud and clear, for example, in the introductory essay to
Worldwatch Institute's 1992 State of the World report:
Eliminating [the] threats to our future requires a
fundamental restructuring of many elements of society -- a shift
from fossil fuels to efficient, solar-based energy systems, new
transportation networks and city designs that lessen automobile use,
redistribution of land and wealth, equality between the sexes in all
cultures, and a rapid transition to small families. It demands
reduced consumption of resources by the rich to make room for higher
living standards for the poor. And with notions of economic growth
at the root of so much of the earth's ecological deterioration, it
calls for a rethinking of our basic values and vision of
progress.[113]
A definitive answer to the question of whether -- once contrived
scarcity is eliminated -- will there be more than enough of the goods
for a decent human existence to go around, is not possible. Perhaps
there will need to be limits placed on a person's accumulation of
property or consumption of goods in order to ensure all persons have
enough. Clearly, we are even now capable of producing sufficient goods
for all to enjoy a much better existence than is now the case for half
or more of the world's population. Achieving even this objective,
however, will require fundamental changes in law in every society.
Moreover, I join those who make the case for a significant
redistribution of wealth as a means of righting past and present
wrongs. Wealth acquired by virtue of privilege rather than the
exertion of labor or investment of financial reserves in the creation
of capital goods is unearned. Those who have acquired such wealth as a
result of privilege and economic license are in a position to absorb
taxation of their assets and incomes that is redistributive but not
punitive. Are there difficulties attached to this proposal? Certainly.
However, I believe that ability to pay is, when combined with
tests that measure the degree to which one has benefited from license
and privilege, a necessary means of mitigation on the road to equality
of opportunity. And, if we are ever to establish equality of
opportunity, the principles of cooperative individualism must become
our guideposts.
COOPERATIVE INDIVIDUALISM:
THE FINAL FRONTIER
At some point in my reading, I encountered the term "
cooperative individualism" in connection with the
socio-political philosophy espoused by Henry George. For several
years, I was certain the term was actually used by George; however,
while in Fairhope, Alabama attending the 1994 CGO annual conference I
learned from historian Paul Gaston that an early use of the term came
from his grandfather, E.B. Gaston, who sought to establish at Fairhope
an experimental community based on his concept of cooperative
individualism.
The idea of building a society based on cooperative individualism
immediately appealed to my own moral sense of right and wrong, of
justice. The words offered the prospect of securing and protecting
individual liberty within a cooperative societal framework.
Continuously over the course of the last ten years, I have endeavored
to put these principles into words, subjecting early attempts to the
critical analysis of seminar participants, colleagues and individuals
strongly committed to liberal, conservative, socialist and libertarian
ideas for discussion and reaction. The result has been a gradual
unfolding of a set of principles that, I believe, meets a very high
standard of reasoning.
My search for first principles ended with the discovery of
cooperative individualism as the basis for just law. As the historical
evidence provided in the three volumes of this work reveals, these
principles have been there for us to find in the writings of many
thoughtful individuals. Cooperative individualism argues against the
assertion that all belief systems are essentially arbitrary and,
therefore, equal. Rather, belief systems are arbitrary the extent to
which they conflict with reason and evidence derived from
investigation and experience. Divine inspiration may coincidentally
provide one with a belief system that stands the test of reason and
experience, but only coincidentally. People have attempted to apply
reason to argue the existence of one god, a special god, or numerous
gods for thousands of years. In the absence of conclusive proof,
however, one is left with faith as a repository of belief. Our powers
of reason and self-contemplation, on the other hand, arm many of us
with a healthy dose of skepticism. One of the great challenges facing
the scientific mind is reconciling the necessity for reliance on faith
with respect to one's spirituality with the necessity for reliance on
observation and reason with respect to the material world.
History also shows us that the belief system that best serves us is
that which contributes to our survival as a species by recognizing the
complex interdependency we share with one another and as stewards of
our delicately balanced ecosystem. In our favor is the fact that as we
have evolved and are able to learn from our mistakes. We have
gradually acquired a moral sense of right and wrong, an understanding
of good and evil, of just and unjust behavior, of wise and foolish
ideas. Individually, our moral sense may never be perfected. We are
far too frequently harmed by the absence of positive nurturing within
our family, our community and our society. Illness or some defect in
our genetic inheritance may prevent us from thinking and behaving
rationally. Even organized religion by virtue of its long emphasis on
unquestioning obedience, reliance on ritual and tradition and
hierarchy continues to interfere with the widespread acceptance of
transnational values. That we do have a surviving moral sense of right
and wrong is evidenced by our everyday actions and the consensus of
support for or opposition to certain types of behavior. Where our
governing socio-political arrangements and institutions instruments of
entrenched privilege, our moral sense is impaired, prevented from
expression. For much of history, the isolation of peoples from one
another allowed moral relativism to operate unopposed. Today, societal
elites have a more difficult time controlling the information to which
people are exposed. We are moving, ever so slowly, toward consensus
over moral principles, although one would be hard pressed to reach
this conclusion based on the upsurge in violence and war between
groups committed to imposing their will on others.
There are some societal issues - the appropriate extent to which
criminal behavior ought to be punished, the best approach to
preventing people from becoming addicted to narcotics, whether a woman
has the right to terminate a pregnancy and under what conditions -- on
which consensus may never be achieved. In those instances, citizens
ought to do all that is humanly possible to minimize the instances in
which the coercive power of the State is permitted to intervene.
Principle, far more than expediency, must direct us in the formation
of societal action. This is not suggest that the most just practices
are always self-evident. Reaching the right decisions will often
require extended societal debate.
As I described much earlier in this long journey through history, one
person who combined the healthy skepticism of experience with a
socio-political philosophy rooted in a well-developed moral sense of
right and wrong was Thomas Paine. In an era remarkable for challenges
to established authority, Paine was one of the few courageous enough
to follow reason and evidence to their appropriate conclusions. He
refused to compromise principle and paid an enormous price for his
convictions. More than a system of beliefs, Paine presented and
defended a system of values. He borrowed from John Locke and his
Physciocratic contemporaries, and many of his ideas were independently
paralleled and further developed late in the nineteenth century by
Henry George. Both of these great thinkers were also great teachers.
For much of the twentieth century, the person who came closest to
equaling their contributions to socio-political philosophy was another
great teacher, Mortimer J. Adler. Anyone familiar with Mortimer
Adler's writing will recognize in the words below his overwhelming
influence. In a very real sense, the first principles of cooperative
individualism come directly from Paine, George and Adler.
The First Principles of Cooperative Individualism
That, all persons share the same
species-specific characteristics and have a similar need for the
goods that make for a decent human existence.
That, such goods include adequate food, clothing,
shelter, nurturing, health care, education, civic involvement and
leisure.
That, we join together voluntarily to form societies in
order to enhance our possibilities to acquire such goods and
for our mutual benefit, protection and survival.
That, the source of the material goods necessary for
our survival and happiness is the earth, equal access to which is
the birthright of every person.
That, in the pursuit of such material goods each
person has the sole right to the use and disposition of whatever
other material goods are produced by his or her labor
(whether produced by labor alone or with the assistance of
additional material goods (i.e., capital) created and
utilized for that purpose.
That, such material goods, by virtue of acquisition
by means of one's labor or voluntary exchange with others, fall
exclusively in the realm of natural property.
That, our behavior falls within the scope of liberty
when such behavior in no way infringes on the opportunity for other
persons to use their efforts to produce or obtain by exchange material
goods.
That, human behavior ventures beyond the scope of liberty
and within the realm of criminal license when such behavior
results in the physical or mental harm to another person or the
theft and/or destruction of another person's natural property.
That, human behavior ventures beyond the scope of liberty
and within the realm of economic license when such behavior
denies to other persons the opportunity to use their efforts to
produce or obtain by exchange material goods.
That, a society by virtue of practical considerations,
grants economic licenses to persons (individually and
collectively) the result of which is to convey privileges not
enjoyed by others. To the extent such economic licenses come
to have exchange value in the market place, such exchange value is acknowledged
to be societally-created. Justice requires, therefore, that society
collect this value for distribution to all its members as a social
dividend or for use in providing for societal amenities and services
democratically agreed upon.
That, a society is just to the extent liberty is
fully experienced and protected, equality of opportunity
prevails, criminal license is prevented and when prevention
fails appropriately penalized, the full exchange value of economic
licenses is collected for distribution and/or societal use; and
That, the material goods produced by the labor of
individuals (and whatever capital goods they also legitimately
acquire) is protected as one's natural property; and,
therefore, not subjected to taxation or otherwise confiscated.
|