Henry George and
the Concept of Natural Law

Jack Schwartzman

[A paper presented at the first Lafayette College Conference
on Henry George, 13-14 June 1991]

In the biography of his father, Henry George, Henry George, Jr., wrote: "As has been pointed out many times, the essence of Henry George's economics is ethical-the natural order, justice. It carries with it a profound belief in All-maker; it pulses with the conviction of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man."[1]

In another passage in the same book, the author pointed out that "the discovery of the natural order" was of the utmost importance to Henry George. It was "the answer to the quest he had set himself in the streets of New York -- why poverty accompanies wealth in advancing civilization."[2]

An outstanding exponent of Henry George's philosophy, George R. Geiger, observed: "George's interpretation of a 'natural right to property,' was an ethical one. That is to say, while George's approach was undoubtedly phrased in absolutist terms, still the concept of 'natural,' in a word, was that which ought to be law."[3] Geiger's comment concerning the natural law concept was "utilitarian." It could be compared to Voltaire's quip that "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[4]

For those who have studied the thought of Henry George, and examined his writings thoroughly, it becomes abundantly clear that no study of George can take place unless and until his idea of natural law (or natural order, as George sometimes phrased it) is discussed and analyzed. It is the central theme in all of George's works; whether it is regarded as "absolutist" or "ethical" (or both)/ it cannot be subtracted from George's philosophy. His economics is interwoven with natural law ideology. To understand George, therefore, one must comprehend his view of a natural order, his concept of natural law.

What is natural law?

According to Henry George, it is "an invariable relation of things," which "is always so."[5] "Laws of nature...," he further defined, "are the names which we give to the invariable uniformities of coexistence and sequence which we find in external things, and which we call laws of nature because our reason apprehends in them the evidence of an originating will, preceding and superior to human will."[6]

(It should be pointed out at the outset that George used the singular and the plural of the term "law" interchangeably.)

"Why is it," asked George, "that some things always coexist with other things? and that some things always follow other things? The Mohammedan will answer: 'It is the will of Gou.' The man of our Western civilization will answer: 'It is a law of Nature.1 The phrase is different, but the answer is one."[7]

Natural law, George pronounced, is eternal and universal. "The great fact which Science in all her branches shows is the universality of law. Wherever he can trace it, whether in the fall of an apple or in the revolution of binary suns, the astronomer sees the working of the same law."[8]

What is the difference between human laws and the laws of nature? "Human laws," differentiated George, "are made by man, and share in all his weaknesses and frailties. They must be enforced by penalties subsequent to and conditioned upon their violation. Such penalties are called sanctions. ...Limited to the circumscribed areas which we call political divisions, they are even there constantly fluctuating and changing."[9]

What about natural laws?

Natural laws, on the other hand, belong to the natural order of things; to that order in which and by which not only man himself but all that is, exists. They have no sanctions in the sense of penalties imposed upon their violation, and enforced subsequent to their violation; they cannot be violated. Man can no more resist or swerve a natural law than he can build a world. They are acknowledged not only by all men in all times and places, but also by all animate and all inanimate things; and their sway extends not merely over and throughout the whole earth of which we are constantly changing tenants, but over and through the whole system of which it is a part, and so far as either observation or reason can giv6 us light, over and through the whole universe, visible or invisible. So far as we Can see, either by observation or reason, they know not change or the shadow of turning, but are the same-yesterday, today, tomorrow; for they are expressions, not of the mutable will of man, but of the immutable will of God.[10]

George emphasized his distinction: "These natural laws are in all times and places the same, and though they may be crossed by human enactment, can never be annulled or swerved by it."[11]

Why constantly stress the difference between human and natural laws, especially in economics? George had the answer.

I dwell on the distinction between laws of nature and laws of man, because it is of the first necessity in beginning the study of political economy that we should grasp it firmly and keep it clearly in mind. This necessity is the greater, since we shall find that in the accredited economic treatises laws of nature and laws of man are confused together in what they call laws of political economy.[12]

"It is only," added George, "with the implication that by law is meant natural law, that we can say, 'Everything in this world is governed by law.'"[13] Unlike human "laws," natural laws are not to be found in any published ordinances, or any other human proclamations. "Laws of nature are not written or printed, or carved on pillars of stone or brass. They have no parliaments, or legislatures, or congresses to enact them, no judges to declare them, no constables to enforce them."[14]

However, lest we fall into the error of assuming that natural laws are only "physical," in the sense that scientific laws are, George made one additional contrast. "Natural law," he declared, "is not all comprehended in what we call physical law. Besides the laws of nature which relate to matter and energy, there are also laws of nature that relate to spirit, to thought and will."[15]

The world, therefore, is ruled by natural law. And just as physical science deals with its natural laws, such as gravitation, the science of political economy (economics) deals with the laws of nature that pertain to its own study. With human laws, economics must not be concerned. "If political economy is a science --" elucidated George, "and if it is not it is hardly worth the while of earnest men to bother themselves with it-it must follow the rules of science, and seek in natural law the causes of the phenomena which it investigates. ...It is concerned with the permanent, not with the transient, with the laws of nature, not the laws of men."[16]

What is the basic, permanent, axiom {or postulate) of political economy? According to George, there is no doubt as to what it is: "Men always seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion."[17]

Elsewhere, George declared: "This fundamental law of political economy is, like all .other laws of nature,...supreme."[18]

Why should this axiom be considered a natural law? And why should it be the "fundamental law of political economy"?

George answered:

This disposition of men to seek the satisfaction of their desires with the minimum of exertion is so universal and unfailing that it constitutes one of those invariable sequences that we denominate laws of nature, and from which we may safely reason. It is this law of nature that is the fundamental law of political economy -- the central law from which its deductions and explanations may with certainty be drawn, and, indeed, by which alone they become possible. It holds the same place in the sphere of political economy that the law of gravitation does in physics. Without it there could be no recognition of order, and all would be chaos.[19]

Again and again, George stressed this postulate. "The movements with which political economy is concerned," he wrote, "are human actions, having for their aim the attainment of material satisfactions. And the laws that it is its province to discover are...the laws of man's own nature, which affect his own actions in the endeavor to satisfy his desires by bringing about such changes."[20]

To summarize: "The law of nature which is really the postulate of a true science of political economy is that men always seek to gratify their desires with the least exertion, whether those desires are selfish or unselfish, good or bad."[21]

Granting that the above-mentioned postulate is a "fundamental" law of nature, why is it important in economics?

It is important, George replied, because it is the motivating cause of other economic laws, such as the laws of production and distribution of wealth, the main laws of political economy. And those laws are natural. "The natural laws which political economy discovers, whether we call them laws of production or laws of distribution, have the same proof, the same sanction and the same constancy as the physical laws."[22]

What is production?

To gratify their desires (the basic axiom), men produce satisfactions (measured in economics by the term wealth). As George phrased it: "The demand for consumption determines the direction in which labor will be expended in production."[23] "They who do the work of production put in as they take out -- they receive in subsistence and wages but the produce of their labor."[24]

Production is regulated by natural laws, physical natural laws. In order to be able to produce, people must comply with the laws of nature that govern production. "In considering the production of wealth, we are concerned with natural laws of which we can only ask what is, without venturing to raise the question Of what ought to be. ...There is nothing that has any reference to right or justice, or that arouses in us any perception of ought or duty."[25]

"Thus it is," George continued, "that in considering the nature of wealth or the production of wealth we come into no direct or necessary contact with the ethical idea, the idea of right and justice."[26] Production is governed by natural laws, but not moral natural laws, the laws of "ought" or "duty." Those moral laws govern distribution.

But this becomes confusing. Are moral laws also laws of nature? If so, why should they govern distribution? The answer is two fold: They are natural laws because they are immutable (as one discovers who tries to meddle with distribution). And they are moral laws because they pertain to the ethics of dividing what has been produced. "The immutable character of the laws of distribution is even more quickly and clearly recognized than the immutable character of the laws of production. Princes, politicians and legislatures attempt to influence distribution, but they always try to do it, not by aiming at distribution directly but by aiming at distribution indirectly, through laws that directly affect production."[27]

All such attempts end in disaster, poverty, starvation, thievery, murder, rebellion, war, barbarism, and collapse of civilizations.

In his attempt to clarify his meaning of the term distribution, George differentiated between production and distribution.

The distinction between the laws of production and the laws of distribution is not, as is erroneously taught in the scholastic political economy, that the one set of laws are natural laws, and the other human laws. Both sets of laws are laws of nature. The real distinction is ... that the natural laws of production are physical laws and the natural laws of distribution are moral laws. And it is this that enables us to see in political economy more clearly than in any other science, that the government of the universe is a moral government, having its foundation in justice. Or, to put this idea into terms that fit it for the simplest comprehension, that the Lord our God is a just God.[28]

What is meant by distribution? "Distribution," George declared, "is in fact a continuation of production-the latter part of the same process of which production is the first part. For the desire which prompts to exertion in production is the desire for satisfaction, and distribution is the process by which what is brought into being by production is carried to the point where it yields satisfaction to desire-which point is the end and aim of production."[29]

How can one define distribution?

"As a term of political economy," George pointed out, "distribution is ... the division into categories corresponding to the categories of production."[30] Since the factors of production are land, labor, and capital, the factors of distribution are rent, wages, and interest.

How can we be sure that the distributed returns are just? By adhering, George responded, to the natural law of distribution.

The moment we turn from a consideration of the laws of production of wealth to a consideration of the laws of distribution of wealth the idea of ought or duty becomes primary. All consideration of distribution involves the ethical principle; is necessarily a consideration of ought or duty -- a consideration in which the idea of right or justice is from the very first involved.[31]

The science of political economy is the necessary forum to investigate the laws of the just distribution of wealth. "The laws which it is the proper purpose of political economy to discover are not human laws but natural laws. ...What we have to seek are those laws of the distribution of wealth which belong to the natural order-laws which are a part of that system or arrangement which constitutes the social organism or body economic."[32]

The science of political economy, if properly taught, should show that when monopolies, or governments, or marauders attempt to take from producers any part of their earned distributive share, then

the swift result would be fatal to that civilization- would be poverty, famine and death to the people individually and collectively. ...The moment producers saw that what they produced might be taken from them without their consent, production would cease and starvation begin. Clearly then, this inevitable result is not a consequence of human law, but a consequence of natural law. Not a consequence of the natural laws of matter and motion, but a consequence of natural laws of a different kind -- laws no less immutable than the natural laws of matter and motion.[33]

Furthermore,

should we treat the present products of farm or mine or mill or factory as we may treat the products of a dead civilization, we shall feel the remonstrance of an immutable law of nature wherever we come in conflict with the moral law...[34] Any remonstrance of the moral law of nature ... will not show itself in, or in relation to, these identical things. But it will show itself in the future -- in checking or preventing the production of such things.[35]

Let us (in the year 1991) but look at the horrible economic mess in the Soviet Union. For decades, the Communist thugs in control thought that they could interfere with both production and distribution of goods. The result is complete chaos, abject destitution, and the possibility of a revolution or civil war. Listen to the wise words of Henry George concerning production and distribution:

Production and distribution are in fact not separate things, but two mentally distinguishable parts of one thing-the exertion of human labor in the satisfaction of human desire. Though materially distinguishable, they are as closely related as the two arms of the siphon. And as it is the outflow of water at the longer end of the siphon that is the cause of the inflow of the water at the shorter end, so it is that distribution is really the cause of production, not production the cause of distribution. In the ordinary course, things are not distributed because they have been produced, but are produced in order that they may be distributed. Thus interference with the distribution of wealth is interference with the production of wealth, and shows its effect in lessened production.[36]

(Or, one might say, in no production at all.)

Meddling, by the State, in human production and distribution has been attempted from the beginning of time, always with disastrous results. "This has been tried again and again," observed George, "by the strongest governments, and is to some extent still being tried, but always unavailingly."[37] (The reader will please note that this passage was written at the end of the nineteenth century; the shattering totalitarian experiments of the twentieth century had not yet begun!)

George used the analogy of the human body to compare it to the body economic. "And as to pierce the heart and divert the blood that has been produced from the natural course of its distribution is to bring about the death of the physical organism most swiftly and most certainly, so to interfere with the natural laws of the distribution of wealth is to bring about a like death of the social organism. If we seek for the reason of ruined cities and dead civilizations we shall find it in this."[37]

All attempts to interfere with the natural law of distribution have been futile. These attempts may create temporary ranks of class, nobility, wealth, prestige, or power, but, in the long run, they will be met with permanent obliteration and total destruction. (All due apologies to Keynes, who is long since dead!)[38]

The greatest injustice of all, according to Henry George, is the constant, continuing, chronic maldistribution of wealth caused by the "ownership" of natural resources (land, in economics). To allow a few mortals to monopolize what is God-given, to permit them to attempt to violate the natural law of just distribution, is to submit to the greatest robbery that may be conceived. Land is a factor of production; it is not something produced. No reams of paper, parchment, or papyrus can declare it to be "property."

What is property? And how is it related to the law of distribution?

"Since the distribution of wealth is an assignment of ownership," commented Henry George, "the laws of distribution must be the laws which determine property in the things produced. Or to put it in another way, the principle which gives ownership must be the principle which determines the distribution of wealth."[39]

"The real basis of property," he continued, "the real fundamental law of distribution, is so clear that no one who attempts to reason can utterly and consistently ignore it. It is the natural law which gives the product to the producer. But this cannot be made to cover property in land. Hence the persistent effort to find the origin of property in human law and its base in expediency."[40]

What is the difference between land and wealth?

"All in this panorama that was before man came here, and would remain were he to go, belongs to the economic category land.-while all that has been produced by labor belongs to the category wealth, so long as it retains its quality of ministering to human desire."[41]

Then when may one be certain what things are property?

"In so far as they are wealth, not land, they are property; not because human agency can add any qualities to the natural factor, land; but because of the natural law of property, which gives to the producer the ownership of what his labor has produced."[42]

According to George, therefore, "ownership" of land is violative of the law of nature. "The recognition of individual proprietorship of land is the denial of the natural rights of other individuals -- it is a wrong which must show itself in the inequitable division of wealth. ...The fundamental law of nature, that her enjoyment by man shall be consequent upon his exertion is thus violated. The one receives without producing; the others produce without receiving. The one is unjustly enriched; the others are robbed."[43]

The evils of poverty, misery, war, and destruction will persist until the cause of this suffering -- the unequal distribution of wealth-is removed. However, these evils

will not cure themselves, but, on the contrary, must, unless their cause is removed, grow greater and greater, until they sweep us back into barbarism by the road every previous civilization has trod. But it also shows that these evils are not imposed by natural laws; that they spring solely from social maladjustments which ignore natural laws, and that in removing their cause we shall be giving an enormous impetus to progress.[44]

George becomes lyrical in his vision of things to come -- if the existing evils are swept away, and if his "remedy" is adopted.

The poverty which in the midst of abundance pinches and embrutes men, and all the manifold evils which flow from it, spring from a denial of justice. In permitting the monopolization of the opportunities which nature freely offers to all, we have ignored the fundamental law of justice -- for so far as we can see, when we view things upon a large scale, justice seems to be the supreme law of the universe. But by sweeping away this injustice and asserting the rights of all men to natural opportunities, we shall conform ourselves to the law -- we shall remove the great cause of unnatural inequality in the distribution of wealth and power; we shall abolish poverty; tame the ruthless passions of greed; dry up the springs of vice and misery; light in dark places the lamp of knowledge; give new vigor to invention and a fresh impulse to discovery; substitute political strength for political weakness; and make tyranny and anarchy impossible.[45]

What was the "remedy" by which George proposed to abolish the existing iniquity?

George proposed to abolish the monopolistic ownership of natural resources by means of taxing land values only, thus forcing the speculative powers to give up their enormous holdings, which deny access to nature. He advocated the removal of all barriers to the Road of Justice. This is how he stated it: "Unless we come back to first principles, unless we recognize natural perceptions of equity, unless we acknowledge the equal right of all to land, our free institutions will be in vain; our discoveries and inventions will but add to the force that presses the masses down!"[46]

He reiterated that the current, situation of injustice could not be permitted to remain. "We have seen that the waste of human powers and the prodigality of human suffering do not spring from natural laws, but from the ignorance and selfishness of men in refusing to conform to natural laws."[47] "We see that economic law and moral law are essentially one."[48]

Confirming that his "remedy" was in keeping with the laws of nature, he confidently declared:

The laws of the universe are harmonious. And if the remedy to which we have been led is the true one, it must be consistent with justice; it must be practicable of application; it must accord with the tendencies of social development and must harmonize with other reforms.

All this I propose to show.[49]

"All this I propose to show," uttered Henry George. And "show" he did. In page after page, in detailed analysis and analogy, he demonstrated, with infinite patience and brilliant skill, the working of a beneficent moral law, to which his "remedy" adhered.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to deal with the concept of natural law as found in Henry George's writings. It was (hopefully) demonstrated here how, in work after work, George consistently modeled his theories to coincide with the principles of the natural order. His view was that, everywhere, the operations of natural law are visible. Human beings must live their lives, George declared, in adherence to the eternal precepts of nature, in compliance with the natural law.

Political economy, George emphasized, since it was a science, had to discover the natural laws that pertained to the subject. The basic axiom of economics (which George declared to be a natural law) is that men always seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion. From that axiom, he went on to show that the natural laws of production and distribution were based on that axiom (or postulate). The laws of production (he claimed) were physical; the laws of distribution were moral. Ethical behavior, social behavior, economic behavior, are all based on the moral law of distribution and justice. All poverty and iniquity stem from the actions of short-sighted human beings, who follow expediency instead of the "first principles" of ethical behavior (the compliance with natural law).

Therefore, George proposed to do away with injustice by abolishing the monopoly of the resources of the earth, by means of his "remedy." However, he subjected his "remedy" to the test of adherence to the eternal laws of nature. After an exhaustive self-analysis, he satisfied himself that his "remedy" met the test. All that now remained was for him to urge his readers, the generations of the future, to adopt his plan and to accept his Utopia.

Proclaiming the universality of natural law, George wrote:

Now, if we trace out the laws which govern human life in society, we find that in the largest as in the smallest community, they are the same. We find that what seem at first sight like divergences and exceptions are but manifestations of the same principles. And we find that everywhere we can trace it, the social law runs into and conforms with the moral law; that in the life of a community, justice infallibly brings its reward and injustice its punishment.[50]

Human progress, morality, justice -- are they not all the "essence" of natural law? To find peace and equity in this tortured world, should we not abide by the everlasting principles of the natural order?

George had the final answer-as well as the final warning:

The law of human progress, what is it but the moral law? Just as social adjustments promote justice, just as they acknowledge the equality of right between man and man, just as they insure to each the perfect liberty which is bounded only by the equal liberty of every other, must civilization advance. Just as they fail in this, must advancing civilization come to a halt and recede.[51]

With faith in the future, and with adherence to the precepts of natural law, let us determine that civilization will nev recede!

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Henry George, Jr., The Life of Henry George, (New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1960), p. 568.
2. Ibid.. p. 209.
3. George Raymond Geiger, The Philosophy of Henry George (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933), p. 510.
4. Voltaire, Epitre a M. Saurin, November 10, 1770.
5. Henry George, The Science of Political Economy (New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1981), p. 55.
6. Ibid., pp. 435-6.
7. Ibid., p. 57.
8. Henry George, Progress and Poverty (New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1979), p. 560.
9. George, Science of Political Economy, p. 60.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., pp. 428-9.
12. Ibid., p. 61.
13. Ibid., pp.. 62-3.
14. Ibid., p. 435.
15. Ibid., p. 437.
16. Ibid., p. 64.
17. Ibid., p. 87.
18. Ibid., p. 91.
19. Ibid., pp. 87-8.
20. Ibid., pp. 76-7.
21. Ibid., p. 99.
22. Ibid., p.444.
23. George, Progress and Poverty, p. 77.
24. Ibid., p. 79.
25. George, Science of Political Economy, p. 451.
26. Ibid., p. 452.
27. Ibid., p. 453.
28. Ibid., pp. 450-1.
29. Ibid., pp. 426-7.
30. Ibid., p. 428.
31. Ibid., p. 452.
32. Ibid., pp. 428-9.
33. Ibid., p. 437.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., pp. 437-8.
36. Ibid., pp. 438-9. (Emphasis supplied.)
37. Ibid., p. 439.
38. John Maynard Keynes, "A Tract on Monetary Reform," in Collected Works. IV, 1971. Keynes died in 1946. (The original quotation was: "In the long run we are all dead.")
39. George, Science of Political Economy, p. 454.
40. Ibid., p. 461.
41. Ibid., p. 468.
42. Ibid., p. 469.
43. George, Progress and Poverty, pp. 341-2.
44. Ibid., p. 544.
45. Ibid., p. 545.
46. Ibid., p. 394.
47. Ibid., p. 559.
48. Ibid., p. 560.
49. Ibid., p. 329.
50. Ibid., p. 561.
51. Ibid., p. 526.