Libertarian Land Philosophy:
Man's Eternal Dilemma
Oscar B. Johannsen, Ph.D.
BOOK IX: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Chapter 1 -- Rights
Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its
goods, and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as
Freedom should not be highly rated. [Thomas Paine - The Crisis]
That spark, flame, force, energy or "elan vital" which
differentiates the animate from the inanimate apparently is the same
for all. If it be true that the mysterious life principle is no
different for plant or animal life, then no matter how majestic some
of the plant world may be, as the towering redwood trees which soar so
unbelievably high into the sky, and no matter how detestable some of
the animal world may be, as the pestilence-carrying mosquito, neither
has any superior or inferior claim to life.
Yet the one feeds on the other. Questions whether this is right or
wrong have as little validity as questions whether the pull of gravity
is right or wrong. For such is the nature of our world.
Men are animals. To exist they must feed on life -- either plant,
animal or both. Whether the life principle in plants and in the lower
animals differs from that in man is merely of academic interest. Since
to live, men must subsist on other living things, few concern
themselves with any claims that plants and animals may have to life.
But in the case of mankind, the picture is different. Men recognize
that no convincing arguments can be adduced to prove that the life
principle which animates one man is different from that which
vitalizes another. It follows, therefore, that no man has a greater or
lesser claim to life than another; that is, that all men have equal
claims to life. As men consider this, a feeling arises that it should
be that way. It is proper, it is right, it is just.
To those who are religiously oriented, justice emanates from God. It
is human conduct in accord with some metaphysical or mystical
standards which have been established by the Almighty. When men live
in accordance with such criteria, they are in harmony with the Will of
God. They are acting properly, they are acting justly. Thus, a claim
which is proper is a just one. It is called a right. To the
God-fearing, then, a right is a just claim which a man possesses in
virtue of its being a gift from the Almighty.
To those seeking an explanation without postulating a supernatural
Being as the causal factor, justice is the pattern of behavior which
men should practice for their nature makes such necessary if they are
to live in harmony with their fellowmen.
If men are not just, it is impossible for them to enjoy social,
economic or other relationships with their fellowmen on any sustaining
basis. Virtues, as truthfulness and honesty must be followed if men
wish to cooperate with one another. If all men lie and steal, how
could they possibly combine their efforts to produce wealth? Inasmuch
as the nature of their physical and mental makeup requires that they
cooperate if they wish to rise above the bare animal stage, it is
imperative that men be honest.
To the humanist, therefore, a right is a just claim which a man
possesses in virtue of his own nature. While this utilitarian doctrine
suffers from the apparent lack of any emotional basis, such as is
implicit in the theological rationale, nonetheless the typical
humanist can be just as emotionally exorcised over injustice as his
God-fearing friend and possibly for the same reason. Something within
man cries out when injustice is perpetrated. There seems to be little
connection between this cry and the reasoning faculty. Though reason
may serve to reinforce his anger, it is his heart which is inflamed at
genocide, concentration camps and infanticide.
Primitive men knew that to subsist they had to dig in the good black
earth for roots, hunt in the forbidding forests for animals, fish in
the sparkling rivers or mighty oceans for food, as well as seek
raiment and shelter to protect themselves from inclement weather and
predatory animals.
Few savages meditated on such abstractions as rights. They knew that
to live they had to have the necessities of life. Therefore, they had
to have access to the earth's treasures. Only from the land could they
obtain the things which life requires. To prohibit them the use of the
land was to deny them the right to life itself. If they thought of it
at all, they knew that the right of access to the earth, that is land,
comes from man' s inalienable right to life.
As men have the right of access to the land, they have the right to
the things they take from it, after taking into consideration the
equal rights of all other men to the land. The fish they snare, the
game they kill, the roots they pick are theirs and theirs alone for
not only do they need such wealth to sustain their lives, but they
obtain those goods by expending their own physical and mental energy.
Thus, their right to wealth arises from their right to life and from
the labor expended in acquiring wealth.
These rights to wealth are called property rights. Wealth and only
wealth is property. Thus, property rights are the rights to own wealth
and only wealth. They are not rights to own men or land.
Human beings can never be property for this would mean that property
rights exist in humans. It would mean that one man had a just claim to
another man. To the God-fearing, it would imply that the Almighty had
given to one man the right to the life of another man. But this is
absurd since all men are equally the children of the Father of all. No
just father would ever give to any of his children the right to the
life of another of his progeny.
The humanist would argue that there is nothing in the nature of man
which requires that he own other men. His nature requires that he own
wealth to maintain his life, but he does not need to own another human
being in order to live.
At the present time, it is hardly necessary to indulge in any
elaborate proof of the injustice and stupidity of slavery for no one
defends it. Some day it may be necessary, however. After all, it is
only a few generations since slavery existed in America. This is the
country which in 1776 in ringing terms, which stirred the world,
declared that all men are created free and equal. Then, in 1789
ratified a constitution which legalized slavery. It may be that if the
countries of the world continue on their present path to barbarism,
slavery will once again become respectable. But whether or not it ever
becomes respectable again, it will never he right.
Just as a human being can never he property, neither can land. If
land were property, then men would have the right to own it. But this
would mean that the owners of the land could deny other men access to
it. As the land is the only place from which men can derive the means
of sustenance, this would be tantamount to denying them the right to
life. But this is contradictory to the basic premise upon which all
rights are built -- that all men have equal rights to life.
To appreciate the absurdity of assuming that property rights to land
can ethically exist, all one needs do is to recognize that, then,
conceivably one man could acquire ownership of the entire universe. As
the owner, he could deny all other men access to the land which would
result in their deaths. That such would never occur is not only
because there is no place to which men could go if denied access to
the land, but because men simply would not be so foolish as to follow
the principle of property rights in land to its logical conclusion.
Men, unwisely do accede to property rights in relatively small
portions of the earth because they have not appreciated that
inferentially it means that one man, or a small group of men, could
own the entire universe. To argue that if they assent to the ownership
of one square inch of land, that such a result would ensue is brushed
off as too absurd, men would never tolerate it, which is true enough,
but only because they simply would not follow the principle they
espouse to its logical ending.
Legally in countries outside the Communist orbit, property "rights"
to land exist. To call them such is a misnomer. They are not just
claims to land; they are unjust claims. Legalized property rights' to
men (slavery) are not just claims to men; they are unjust claims. To
apply the word "rights" to the legal claims to ownership of
land is as erroneous as to apply that word to the legal claims to
ownership of men (slavery). These are not rights; they are wrongs.
If the reader wishes to read one of the most powerful indictments of
the concept of private property rights to land, he should peruse the
famous ninth chapter of Herbert Spencer's original "Social
Statics". There is little one can add to what the "perplexed
philosopher" wrote when he was a young man.
Today, the fact that land of many countries is treated as private
property has meant that except for land owned by the States, a
relatively small number of people own most of the rest of the land.
This important fact, however, is generally overlooked as both land and
capital are customarily called capital. Most of the arguments raging
about the excessive amount of capital owned by the few is really
against land ownership, but few realize that. Most think in terms of
mills, factories and the like. But the owner of a factory, no matter
how large it is, is at the mercy of the owners of the land under the
factory, not to mention the land from whence come the raw materials
which the factory uses.
Although men will scoff as absurd the notion of a few men owning the
whole universe, nonetheless something approaching that situation
already has existed and still does. When ancient Persia perished, two
percent of the people owned the land. When mighty Rome crashed, its
land also was owned by two percent of the population. When ancient
Greece fell, only about three percent of the people were the
landlords. At the time of the French Revolution, less than one percent
of the people owned more than fifty percent of the land.
In Russia, before the Communist Revolution, the Czar owned one-third
of the land, the nobility another third.[1] (It is interesting to note
that the Czar -- one man --- owned one-third of Russia, which meant
that he owned about 1/12th of the dry surface of the earth. And, yet
many people will dismiss as too absurd that the logical result of
private property in land is that one man could own the earth.
Monarchs almost invariably are the biggest landlords. They are truly
the lords of the land. In England, today, the Queen heads the list. In
Germany before World War I, the Kaiser had that dubious honor . In
1932, 1/10th of 1% of the people owned three-fourths of England; 2%
owned all of England, and 44,000,000 owned none.[2]
Is it any wonder that England is still perplexed by economic
problems?
And what about the United States? Probably a greater proportion of
its population own land than in any other great western power.
Nonetheless the proportion is probably not too great. Though no
overall statistics are available, the following is illuminating.
Within the present generation, thirteen families in New York City own
about 1/15th of the island of Manhattan. 2000 people own most of
Greater New York. Over half the business center of Chicago is owned by
85 people. Fifty-two men own one-third of Florida. The King Ranch in
Texas consists of one million acres -- about the size of the state of
Delaware.[3]
One could go on showing the concentration of land in a few hands no
matter which country is examined in the Western World. It is
interesting to note that if you will carefully observe the revolutions
in countries outside the Communist orbit, almost invariably you will
find that they occur where land ownership is concentrated in few
hands. Where revolutions have not as yet occurred, it is obvious that
the potential is there.
It is hoped that the above discussion, inadequate though it may be,
will have at least made the reader aware that the two fundamental
factors in the production of wealth -- that is, man and Nature, i.e.,
labor and land --- are superior to property rights for they are
primary. Just as the child is the result of the union of the father
and the mother, so are property rights in wealth the result of the
union of labor and land.
But the reader may wonder how man can even have property rights in
wealth, inasmuch as wealth is the result of the union of labor and
land. While a man owns his own labor, he does not own the land on
which he labors. Therefore, how can a man have an unconditional right
to the wealth he produced as he is utilizing something he does not own
-- the land? He cannot. The most that could be said is that he has a
partial ownership in the wealth produced, to take into account the
labor he expended.
The problem this raises, however, can be resolved if man somehow
compensates for the fact that he works on something he does not own.
To do that, he must fulfill one or the other of the following:
I. He exerts his labor on land which no other human being desires.
2. He exerts his labor on land desired by others, but compensates
them on terms agreeable to all.
As regards the first proposition, if no other man wants the land, and
as he has as much right to use it as anyone else, anything he produced
from it is his own in entirety. Since no one else wants that land, he
injures no one by using it. He does not deprive any other man of
anything that might be taken from this land for no other man wishes to
use it.
As regards the second proposition, if even only one man desires the
land, then some adjustment must be made for justice to be maintained.
Since A uses it, and as two things cannot occupy the same place at the
same time, then obviously B cannot. But B has as much right to the
land as A. Therefore, B's rights are infringed for B cannot produce on
that land. He must go elsewhere, but in another location he may not be
able to produce as much though he uses the same amount of energy. So
some compensation must be given to B (and all other men) on terms
which are just.
Very often, attempts are made to differentiate between human rights
and property rights. Human rights usually are considered to be the
rights to life, liberty, freedom of speech, press and assembly. These
are assumed to be different from property rights, that is, the right
to own wealth. But there is actually no distinction. The human right
to life is meaningless unless a man has the right to the means to
sustain that life, that is, unless he has the right to property.
To divorce so-called human rights from property rights is analogous
to divorcing a man's life from his body. Without a body, a man cannot
have life as we know it. Without property rights, a man cannot have
the human right to sustain his life for a man cannot ethically consume
food which does not belong to him. If he does, he will be eating food
which belongs to some other man. By so doing, he may cause the other
man's death for this man may now lack food.
It might not be amiss to point out that because rights are said to
come from the nature of man and the nature of the universe, that they
are usually called natural rights. Rights do not come from any
man-made entity, as a State. Theists say rights come from God.
Humanists assert rights come from Nature, or from a Law of Nature.
Regardless of what is assumed to be the source, those who recognize
that natural rights exist, appreciate that they come from a source
which is beyond man and anything he has produced.
Some claim there are no natural rights; that all rights come from the
State. If that is so, where did the State get these rights which it
gives to men? If it is claimed that the rights came from men as the
price of their membership in an organized State, then from whence did
these rights come which they gave up. The rights must have been
antecedent to the State. We are back at our starting point. . Rights
must have come from some entity superior to man, call it God, call it
Nature, call it a Law of Nature, call it what you will. It is
something outside of man or anything he organizes, as the State.
Since man has rights to wealth, he can do with it as he wishes. He
can consume it, destroy it, give it away. For anyone to take property
from him without his permission is an indirect attack on his life. If
all his food, clothing and shelter were taken from him, he would be in
danger of starving or freezing to death. Therefore, stealing his
property is an attack on his life. It is probably for this reason that
stealing is considered by members of all societies to be almost as
serious as murder, for stealing is an indirect form of murder.
Primitive men, by and large, have been much more sensible in their
recognition of what are and are not property rights than civilized
men. Savages generally assumed that while food and tools were personal
property, the land belonged either to nobody or to the tribe.
Disputes did arise among different tribes over certain areas of land,
but whenever and wherever the trackless forests provided more than
enough for everyone, they usually tended to let one another alone. As
long as one area was about as good as another, the likelihood of
arguments arising over the land was not too great.
The relationships were probably similar to those occurring today on
the high seas. Men of all nations fish peacefully in the oceans and do
not object as long as conditions are favorable. It is only when
certain areas become particularly important for one reason or another
that disputes are likely to arise. In general, however, all recognize
that everyone is entitled to fish in any part of the ocean as long as
no one interferes with the others equal rights. If civilized men would
apply as much common sense to their treatment of the dry surface of
the earth as they do to the oceans, many of their incessant arguments
over land might disappear.[4]
Unfortunately, as civilization advances, highly complicated economic
organizations arise which very often obscure the fundamental
principles which are perfectly apparent to primitive men. Civilized
men have even deluded themselves that changed economic arrangements
and modern technology require a different approach to what are and are
not property rights. Thus, while they may admit that it is vitally
important that primitives have access to the land, as their livelihood
revolves primarily around hunting, fishing and farming, and therefore
it is both right and wise for the land to be held as the common
heritage of the savages, they feel modern society requires a different
system of land tenure. In short, they feel that private property in
land is necessary for civilized society in order to guarantee security
of possession. Of course, this is not so. As long as the economic rent
is paid to the community, those in control of the land are secure in
whatever they produce. This argument that property relationships are
altered by differing technologies as analogous to asserting that a jet
airliner, due to its new technology, has made obsolete the fundamental
principles upon which the Wright brothers constructed the first plane.
As man lives in a world of natural law, everything he does is in
accordance with the Laws of Nature. While this is generally
appreciated with respect to the physical sciences, many do not realize
that it also applies to the social sciences, that is, to the
relationships of man with his fellowman.
Possibly it is because most men are not aware that natural laws
permeate all phenomena and not merely that which is physical, that the
social sciences have lagged so far behind the physical sciences. But
the fact is that in the economic or the monetary discipline, it is
just as necessary for man to seek out the natural laws governing such
sciences as any physical science. And for men to live happily, they
have to live in harmony with the natural laws controlling the social
sciences just as they must in the case of the physical sciences.
Some assume that the fantastic troubles that man draws upon himself
are due to his violating natural laws. However, it is impossible to
violate a natural law. Nobody ever did and no one ever will . It is
impossible to violate the law of gravity. If a man, walks off a high
building, he will be drawn to the surface or the earth and killed
whether he is a saint or a sinner. An airplane does not violate the
law of gravity. It is this law which prevents it from flying into
space.
People generally recognize that the natural laws governing physical
phenomena cannot be violated, and that the wise policy is for man to
try his best to understand them and then adapt himself to them.
However, it is not generally appreciated that man cannot violate the
natural laws governing economic and social relationships. This is
partly because of a disbelief in any such natural laws and partly
because of a faulty understanding of them.
For example, it is sometimes believed that the law of supply and
demand can be suspended by some legislative body by merely instituting
price controls. Since the law of supply and demand acts through men,
it is assumed that by ordering men to take certain actions, that law
can be, in effect, amended. But all a legislative body can do is to
put obstructions in the way of its operations. It is similar to
putting boulders in a stream. Because these hindrances are there, the
water will flow around or over them, but downhill it will and must go.
Similarly, price controls impede efficient operation of the law of
supply and demand, but they cannot prevent it from operating. As it is
a natural law, it is beyond the control of man.
The complexity of the relationships which arise in modern society
confuse many into believing that altered conditions enable men to
ignore or to change some of the natural laws governing social and
economic matters. It may appear that legislative fiat has prevented
prices from rising since statistics may be adduced as proof. However,
such statistics are merely evidence that a certain quantity of goods
may have been sold at the prescribed prices. They do not indicate the
amount or prices of goods sold on the "black market", which
always arises when controls are levied.
Men have been buying and selling land for hundreds of years. When it
is pointed out that this is unwise and unjust, some may agree that to
start the practice was a mistake. However, they will argue that so
much time has elapsed and so many institutions and customs have arisen
whose existence is predicated on private property in land that to
eliminate that property relationship peacefully would he almost
impossible and might even be unjust. This is analogous to arguing that
if slavery has existed for hundreds of years, it would be impossible
and unjust to eliminate it. Such arguments, also, ignore the fact that
men must live in harmony with natural laws it they wish to avoid grave
problems.
Men are often blissfully unaware of the injuries which arise from
ignoring nature's laws. At first, few, if any, recognized that smoking
was harmful. But that did not stop the inveterate smokers from
suffering the effects -- inexplicable illnesses, as lung cancer, and
shortened lives. Now that the danger is known, the wise have stopped
smoking. The unwise still smoke -- still live out of harmony with the
laws of health governing smoking -- and suffer accordingly.
Man only deceives himself when he pleads that institutional or other
reasons make it impossible for him to correct error. That is the
rationale of the chain smoker who pleads that emotional and other
tensions make it too difficult for him to stop. As a result, his
health suffers, and men suffer both economically and socially when
they refuse to correct social injustice.
Possibly, men, in the present, have a right to indulge in practices
which are wrong if they are all willing to suffer the consequences,
but they have no right to make their progeny suffer. That is what they
are doing when they permit injustice to continue. When the Indians
were urged by the white men to sell the land, they had difficulty
understanding what was being proposed. When they did comprehend, they
replied that while they who were living might sell the land which they
required in order to live, nonetheless they had no right to sell it.
To do so would be to barter away the rights of their children, born
and unborn, to the land which they, in turn, would need in order to
live.
Primitive men's recognition that land is not property puts them in
this regard head and shoulders above so-called civilized men.
As man has property rights in wealth, he can do with it as he
pleases, and one of the things he chooses to do is to exchange it. The
entire exchange mechanism which man has evolved and developed into a
highly intricate pattern is grounded upon man's right to property --
the wealth which he produces.
When exchanges are made, more is involved than merely the exchange of
wealth or services. Actually an exchange is the surrendering of the
rights to those goods. Exchanging an apple for an orange involves the
physical exchange of those two articles. However, at the same time,
there is an exchange of the property rights by the respective owners
of the apple and the orange. If the men had stolen the fruit, no
exchange would be possible. Physically they could make the transfer,
but they could not exchange property rights to them. No honorable man
would ever knowingly accept stolen property. Even if a man had been
imposed upon and innocently purchased stolen property, he would feel
it incumbent upon himself to return the property to the rightful
owner.
In many exchanges, there is no physical transfer of property. Rarely
is a building moved. What happens is that the rights to the building
are sold to the new owner. Basically the exchange of goods is an
ethical proposition for exchange is based on natural rights. It is for
this reason, if for no other, that the attempt of economists to make
economics into an amoral science, somewhat similar to physics may not
be successful. Since exchange is one of the most fundamental elements
of economics. and as it is grounded on ethics, how can economics be
made amoral?
It is necessary for men to have property rights in goods, as
otherwise it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to arrive
at the prices of goods. An individual cannot establish prices by
exchanging goods with himself. He must exchange them with someone
else. If property rights did not exist, ethically men could never make
exchanges. Therefore, prices would not be set. With prices
non-existent, men would be hampered in satisfying their most urgent
desires, not to mention being restricted in allocating land, labor and
capital most efficiently.
All of this may appear a bit far-fetched to the reader, but this is
precisely the problem perplexing any socialistic country. As the State
owns everything, since it cannot exchange the rights to goods with
itself any more than a single individual can, it finds it very
difficult to determine what prices should be put on goods. It has to
look to the world market -- to the market wherein individuals who own
property are exchanging goods -- to give it some idea what prices
probably should be placed on the goods it produces.
As economics is really a moral science, ethical concepts constantly
intrude. The hiring of money has been an ethical question for ages.
Through an improper understanding of property rights, people in the
Middle Ages assumed that it was unjust to levy a charge for lending
money. Usury had affixed to it a connotation of injustice which exists
to this day. Despite disapproval by public and ecclesiastical
authorities, however, money was borrowed using one subterfuge or
another to conceal the charges. Finally, under pressure of the growing
expansion of trade, the basis of property rights in money was
re-examined, and today, of course, it is clearly recognized that no
impropriety is involved. After all, money is wealth. Since that is the
case, why should a person not be permitted to lend it for a fee if he
so wishes?
Inasmuch as capital is wealth, men have property rights to it. Those
who produce capital own it with as much right as they own wealth
produced for consumption. Capital ownership is solidly based on an
ethical foundation. As it is private property, it can be exchanged for
money, for other capital, for any form of wealth or services.
Capitalists have the right to do with their capital as they please.
They can give it away, exchange it, or loan it for a fee.
Capital may be owned by one man or jointly by many, directly or
indirectly, as through the of shares of stock in a corporation. But,
above all, it must be privately owned if people are to build it
voluntarily.
Men will not produce tools unless they are of advantage to them. The
native who makes a tool on the spur of the moment, by tearing off the
branch of a tree to knock down some apples made the tool because it
was to his advantage. It was his property and he used it as he thought
best.
When he specialized in tool-making, he did so because his property
rights to those tools were recognized. He could sell or lend his tools
for a fee to other natives, as he pleased. Had his property rights not
been recognized, he would never have concentrated on making tools.
Instead, he would have produced consumptive wealth, as the rest of the
tribe did. All would have suffered for they would have been deprived
of the advantage of the greater production of wealth possible with
tools.
It is no different with modern man. He will not voluntarily produce
tools (capital) unless his property rights to them are respected.
Investors in capital take great risks when they join together with one
another in a company to have new factories and equipment built, which
is then put at the disposal of laborers. They will not make these
investments unless they are certain that their ownership rights will
be respected, and that they will receive a share of the wealth which
is produced with their capital.
If a State foolishly decrees that property rights in capital are
illegal, the construction of tools would be reduced to a minimum. That
is why all socialistic countries suffer from a lack of capital as
there is little inducement for anyone to produce tools. To obtain
them, the States have to establish tool-making bureaus. But the
results of such bureaucracies are not too satisfactory, particularly
for the construction of sophisticated forms of capital. To obtain such
tools, they usually must be purchased from nations where private
property is permitted. This amounts to admitting that the principle of
private property in tools is so powerful that it must be let in
through the back door.
The vital distinction between the just principle of private property
in capital (tools) and the unjust principle of private property in
land should be noted. As capital is man-made, men must have
inducements in order for it to be produced. Capital has a cost of
production. It requires human energy which is expended on the land or
on other wealth. Men, and only men, make it. And they will not produce
it unless it is to their advantage for no one really wishes tools at
all. Men want the products which tools help to make -- wealth which
can be consumed.
Land, on the other hand, is Nature-made. It has no cost of
production. Man has nothing to do with its creation or existence. No
inducements are necessary to create land as man cannot make one single
grain of it.
Much of the confusion among men who vehemently argue for or against
private property in capital is the result of a lack of appreciation of
what each side is really favoring. This is principally because, most
unfortunately, land and capital are both usually termed capital.
The socialist, whether he realizes it or not, in his denunciation of
capital usually advances arguments which actually amount to inveighing
against the private ownership of land. On the other hand, the
capitalist's arguments are usually predicated on a defense of property
rights in tools. He knows that capital will not be produced unless
there are inducements for men to expend the energy necessary to make
the tools. That such arguments have no validity as regards land is
unnoticed for he terms land as part of capital. Thus, each is arguing
correctly in one instance and incorrectly in the other.
Services are also privately owned but they cannot be exchanged
physically. A physician's service may be advice to a patient which may
save his life. This is service between two people. It cannot be
exchanged over and over again as most wealth can. Services are
directly administered by individuals to other individuals. To induce
men to render service, some incentive must be given to them. This is
usually money.
Socialists may argue that a physician or a singer; trained by the
State, does not possess rights in his own abilities, but rather that
the State does. Therefore, such services should be rendered to the
community in accordance with the State's dictates. But this argument
borders on the absurd. You cannot force an artist to sing, no matter
who paid for his training. It you make him sing at bayonet point, he
may sing so badly you may regret ever having brought compulsion to
bear. The musician, the doctor, the dentist are well aware that their
ability to render services is their own. The only way in which others
can obtain such services is by giving them some inducements.
Before concluding this chapter, it might be in order briefly to note
the distinction between justice and morality.
The term - moral -- is ordinarily used interchangeably with the term
-- just. It is probably wise, however, to distinguish between the two
and possibly most people unconsciously do. The distinction is that
justice is concerned with standards which arise out of the nature of
man (as was explained previously) whereas morality deals with
standards which arise out of man's experiences and customs.
As has been explained in the early part of this chapter, an
individual has a right to own property for unless he can feed and
clothe himself he dies. Therefore, this is a just claim. It is a
right, and it derives from his nature -- the fact that he needs wealth
to sustain his life.
In a monogamous society, polygamy or polyandry is immoral because it
does not accord with that society's marital standards. There is no
question whether such is just or unjust as there is no natural
necessity requiring that a man or woman have more than one spouse.
There have been, and possibly there are today in primitive areas,
societies in which such behavior is countenanced. For such societies,
polyandry or polygamy is moral.
Possibly it is because men rarely make this subtle distinction
consciously, that they often dismiss justice as something which merely
depends on the particular customs which a society evolves.
But rights are the same at all times and in every society, and until
man's nature changes, justice will always be the same. Murder is
always wrong for it denies a man his right to life. Theft is always
wrong for indirectly it denies man's right to life inasmuch, as has
been pointed out, without property he cannot live. Slavery is always
wrong for it denies to man the right not only to the freedom he
requires to produce the necessities and amenities of life, but to the
very property which his labor produces. Private ownership of land is
always wrong for implicitly it denies to man his right of access to
the earth -- the only source from which he may obtain the wealth
needed to maintain life.
For a man to be just means he lives up to the standards which the
nature of man requires in order for men to exist peacefully together.
This is true in all societies and at all times.
For a man to be moral means he lives up to the standards which the
society in which he lives requires in order to facilitate harmonious
relationships among the members. What is moral in one society at one
time may be immoral in another society or at another time.
Manners are a subtle form of morality. Good manners have a psychic
value to the individual, and that alone might be sufficient reason for
them to be cultivated. If good manners are not practiced, no injustice
is perpetrated. Their absence merely violates a pleasant custom which
men have evolved which aids them in cooperating and living
harmoniously with one another. Good manners require that you listen to
your friend without interruption. Most might assume this is being
polite for politeness sake. Actually, it facilities communication
between your friend and you.
Sometimes justice and morality are assumed to be ends in themselves
which transcend happiness, and people are often exhorted to sacrifice
happiness for justice or morality. But this is a confusion of means
with ends. Because man is possessed of deep philosophic and spiritual
feelings, justice and morality have psychic values which cannot be
ignored. But the principal reason for practicing such virtues is that
they enable men in society to cooperate with one another to their
mutual advantage, that is, to their mutual happiness.
When one argues that conditions in society differ in time and place,
and therefore what is just in one society may be unjust in another,
what he really is saying is that what is moral in one society may not
be moral in another. This is true enough.
Putting it simply, that which is just is eternally the same; that
which is moral differs as societies differ.
Recapitulation
The basis for the private production and exchange of wealth is the
natural right of a man to his own life. Since a man has a right to
life, he has a right to the means to sustain his life, that is, a
right to wealth. This right to wealth is called a property right. To
deny property rights to a man is to deny him his "human right"
to life. Thus, property rights are extensions of human rights, that
is, they are human rights.
Property rights exist in wealth and only in wealth. They do not exist
in man or in land. A man owns himself, so no other man can have
property rights in him.
Land is a free gift in perpetuity to all men so it cannot be owned by
any man. If property rights ethically existed in land, then
conceivably one man or a small group of men might acquire all the land
and deny the rest of mankind its use. To do so, would be to deny them
the right to life. But this contradicts the very basis of rights,
which is that rights stem from the right of every man to life.
Since wealth is the union of land and labor, and since land cannot be
owned by anyone, a man can have unconditional rights to the wealth
produced only if due consideration of the rights of all men to land is
taken into account, and any adjustments required are made on a basis
of justice.
When one notes the congruence of various phenomena, as the just basis
of property, and the necessity for property rights to exist in order
for men to perform what are considered amoral operations as the
calculation of prices, one becomes dimly aware of the harmony among
phenomena which must have originated with some Power outside of man -
some Great Designer - who man can never quite understand but can only
contemplate with awe.
NOTES
- Bowen and George L. Rusby, "Economic
Simplified", p. 142
- Ibid. p. 142
- Ibid. p. 220-21
- As it has become more apparent
that in addition to fish, the oceans contain tremendously valuable
resources, disputes among nations are arising. To date, it is a
sad fact that the resolution of most of these quarrels appears to
be on the same unsound principles as have been applied to the dry
surface of the earth.
|
