John Locke
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Locke/second/second-frame.html
(Locke was the man who inspired the Founding Fathers to recognize a "right to property" through his writing.)
This space is dedicated to the exploration of the Right to Own Property. Often it is misinterpreted to favor the rich; the classic example is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. As the above quote demonstrates, it does not apply when the accumulation of wealth is so great others cannot own significant property.
Extreme wealth disparity violates this Right. Nobody can own everything; if they could King George would never have been criticised for owning everything in the 13 colonies. The Right to Own Property does NOT allow anyone to own so much property that others are denied their access to property.
Corpses are not People any more and do not have this Right. Inheritance is a custom, part of our culture; not an Inalienable Right.
"This term [property] in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage...
...Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected...
...That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where...monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called."
James Madison
March 29, 1792
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=57
"The twelfth law is that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right."
Chapter XV of Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
("John Locke [like Hobbes] also based his political writings on the idea of the social contract. He stressed the role of the individual. He also believed that revolution was not just a right but an obligation if the state abused their given power. Obviously these ideas had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm)
"It is true, in land that is common in England or any other country, where there are plenty of people under government who have money and commerce, no one can enclose or appropriate any part without the consent of all his fellow-commoners; because this is left common by compact- i.e., by the law of the land, which is not to be violated."
John Locke
"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."
Federalist Papers
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111fed.html
If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.
[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 14:466.]
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?document=31
"And the said Aldermen shall meet together, at the court-house of their county, at some time between the second Tuesday in July and the first day of August in every year, and by taxation of the persons and property, in their county, according to the mode of assessment prescribed by the law which shall be then in force, for raising money for the public exigencies, shall raise competent sums of money for the necessary relief of such poor, lame, impotent, blind, and other inhabitants of the county as are not able to maintain themselves. "
[From "A Bill for Support of the Poor," Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 2:419-20, 422.]
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/support-of-poor.html
EDIT 1/17/10 It has recently been asserted that Madison was an elitist who wanted to oppress the poor. This was offered as evidence:
A necessary fence agst. this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness might seasonably interpose agst. impetuous councils. It ought finally to occur to a people deliberating on a Govt. for themselves, that as different interests necessarily result from the liberty meant to be secured, the major interest might under sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the minority. In all civilized Countries the people fall into different classes havg a real or supposed difference of interests. There will be creditors & debtors, farmers, merchts. & manufacturers. There will be particularly the distinction of rich & poor. It was true as had been observd. [by Mr. Pinkney] we had not among us those hereditary distinctions, of rank which were a great source of the contests in the ancient Govts. as well as the modern States of Europe, nor those extremes of wealth or poverty which characterize the latter. We cannot however be regarded even at this time, as one homogeneous mass, in which every thing that affects a part will affect in the same manner the whole. In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we shd. not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in in this Country, but symtoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded agst. on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded agst.? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Govt. sufficiently respectable for its wisdom & virtue, to aid on such emergences, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale. Such being the objects of the second branch in the proposed Govt. he thought a considerable duration ought to be given to it. He did not conceive that the term of nine years could threaten any real danger; but in pursuing his particular ideas on the subject, he should require that the long term allowed to the 2d. branch should not commence till such a period of life, as would render a perpetual disqualification to be re-elected little inconvenient either in a public or private view. He observed that as it was more than probable we were now digesting a plan which in its operation wd. decide for ever the fate of Republican Govt. we ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation cd. require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our own experience had particularly pointed out.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_626.asp
http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=124653&page=2
I analyzed this passage as follows.
This is the debate from which that passage was pulled:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_626.asp
The debate is on June 26, 1787. The topic:
"The duration of the 2d. branch [being] under consideration."
This means, I believe, that they are debating how long a Senator should serve before the next election. I thought the Second Branch was the Executive, but General Pinkney uses the word Senators.
Mr. Ghorum and Mr. Wilson suggest " "six years," one third of the members to go out every second year. "
General Pinkney prefers four years. He believes if Senators serve for too long they will lose their loyalty to their State and become loyal to the Federal Government and the State in which they work for it.
Mr. Read and Mr. Broome suggest "nine years. This wd. admit of a very convenient rotation, one third going out triennially. He wd. still prefer "during good behaviour," but being little supported in that idea, he was willing to take the longest term that could be obtained."
Now Madison begins to speak.
Madison opens his speech by observing that it's a good idea to clarify the purpose of the Senate before making this decision.
"first to protect the people agst. their rulers"
That's clear enough.
"secondly to protect the people agst. the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led"
Wow. WTF does that mean?
A people deliberating in a temperate moment, and with the experience of other nations before them, on the plan of Govt. most likely to secure their happiness, would first be aware, that those chargd. with the public happiness, might betray their trust.
So, when things get rough, and passions get heated across the nation, people might get concerned about corruption in government. Such corruption needs to be addressed.
An obvious precaution agst. this danger wd. be to divide the trust between different bodies of men, who might watch & check each other. In this they wd. be governed by the same prudence which has prevailed in organizing the subordinate departments of Govt., where all business liable to abuses is made to pass thro' separate hands, the one being a check on the other.
An anti corruption measure to protect the People in the same model as the rest of the government, sounds good.
It wd. next occur to such a people, that they themselves were liable to temporary errors, thro' want of information as to their true interest, and that men chosen for a short term, & employed but a small portion of that in public affairs, might err from the same cause. This reflection wd. naturally suggest that the Govt. be so constituted, as that one of its branches might have an oppy. of acquiring a competent knowledge of the public interests Another reflection equally becoming a people on such an occasion, wd. be that they themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion.
OK. Madison is arguing that if all representatives in both parts of Congress (House and Senate) have short terms, they'd never become competent at doing their jobs. One of the two should consist of a sort of council of Wise Men who are professionals and can take a longer view of things...who can take the time to "[acquire] a competent knowledge of public interests" and can help restrain the people from impulsive decisions made by Congress based on ignorance on the part of the representatives.
Another reflection equally becoming a people on such an occasion, wd. be that they themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence agst. this danger would be to...
The context of your quote is that Madison describes a danger - the danger of having an impulsive, passionate Congress without any experience...ever.
This is the danger to which the "necessary fence" is against.
The Wise Men or "enlightened individuals" would, again, restrain against amateur impetuousness.
For example, it was probably the Senate's role to restrain Bush and the House from attacking Iraq. That they didn't do so suggests either that we chose poor Senators or that they don't have the power they need to do so.
Madison argues that having few Senators with long terms will allow them to provide that seasoned, restraining influence on the government.
He then suggests that the majority on occasion might impetuously, in the heat of the moment, decide to oppress the minority, and implies the Senate should be designed to restrain this sort of thing.
Madison observes that in all societies everywhere there have been classes. While in other nations the classes were based on birth, we had eliminated that. However no society ever has managed to not have classes, and different classes have different interests.
OK, clear enough. He's right; the classless society is a utopian ideal even now that has never been able to sustain itself when the people tried.
Madison also observes - this is important I think - that wealth disparity in the USA was much lower than in other parts of the world. Whether this is true or not I have no idea even when only considering white males, but this is part of his argument, which is very significant.
Next, Madison asserts that over time, as the population grows, wealth disparity will increase. He says roughly that someday this may result in people under the poverty line outnumbering those above it. Naturally this leads to power going to the poor.
Madison claims that there are faint signs that the poor are upset and might consider some sort of revolution or uprising - or maybe just vote more tax money be sent their way. I'm not sure. This is an interesting sentence:
No agrarian attempts have yet been made in in this Country, but symtoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger.
So Madison feels there is danger of an "agrarian attempt" to express a "leveling spirit" sometime in the future, when wealth disparity increases. OK, sounds reasonable.
Madison questions:
How is this danger to be guarded agst. on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded agst.?
This is very interesting and ambiguous. It might imply a deliberate attempt to form the government into an instrument oppressing the poor; but then again, it might imply a deliberate attempt to form the government into an instrument for peaceful wealth distribution to counter the natural laissez-faire consequence of greater and greater wealth disparity.
Madison continues to emphasize that the Senate should act as a brake on the combination of amateur, passionate politicians and increasing wealth disparity. Still ambiguous.
The next part is weird, because now he's referring to some third person "he" and I have no idea what he means by that:
Such being the objects of the second branch in the proposed Govt. he thought a considerable duration ought to be given to it. He did not conceive that the term of nine years could threaten any real danger; but in pursuing his particular ideas on the subject, he should require that the long term allowed to the 2d. branch should not commence till such a period of life, as would render a perpetual disqualification to be re-elected little inconvenient either in a public or private view. He observed that as it was more than probable we were now digesting a plan which in its operation wd. decide for ever the fate of Republican Govt. we ought not only to provide every guard to liberty that its preservation cd. require, but be equally careful to supply the defects which our own experience had particularly pointed out.
Assuming Madison is talking about himself (highly uncertain), he says that because the Senate is to act as a restraining influence on impetuousity (sp?), it should consist of older people whose terms of service are long and who are so old they won't care if they can't get re-elected.
He then reminds the audience that they are making a Constitution for the ages, for a nation which is to endure, and to preserve liberty indefinitely. Thus the need for a restraint on passionate impulse in government.
Sounds creepy, but on deeper analysis I see no reason to think this means Madison was an elitist interested in being the Man keeping the People Down.
EDIT - 3/27/10 I have later seen writings of his that seem more incriminating, but even so - if he's an elitist, how does that explain bias in statements that argue for property ownership only in the midst of plenty, and that when land is highly populated the land ownership system begins to break down?
Also:
A modern myth is that some societies, notably Native American ones, appeared to exist without the concept of personal ownership. Members of a society would feel free to take any objects they had need of, and expect them to be taken by others. Recently, however, researchers have started to question just how collectivist Native American societies really were. Citing earlier studies done by anthropologists and historians "who were able to interview tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society," they argue that in fact, "most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership."[1] These researchers further assert that Native American collectivism is a myth originating from the first encounters with tribes who, because of their hunting-orientation "did not view land as an important asset", and indeed, did not have a private property system with regards to land. The collectivist myth was initially propagated by reporters and politicians who never actually had contact with Native Americans and then made into a reality by the collectivist property rights system forced on Indians by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership#Ownership_Models
No comments:
Post a Comment