Thou Shalt Not Steal
You may not have thought about the injunction "thou
shalt not steal!" as relating to how society functions
and how our laws and taxes are arranged, but Henry George
and those who are persuaded by his ideas see the extent
to which our poverty and many of our other social and
economic ills are related to a system of perverse
incentives and wrong taxes which allow some to privatize
that which is rightly the property of all of us. And on
the flip side, Georgists seek to reduce and even
eliminiate our reliance on taxes which take from the
individual that which is rightly his: the fruits of his
labor.
Henry George: The Land Question
(1881)
Is it not but yesterday that in the freest and
greatest republic on earth, among the people who boast
that they lead the very van of civilization, this
doctrine of vested rights was deemed a sufficient
justification for all the cruel wrongs of human slavery?
Is it not but yesterday when whoever dared to say that
the rights of property did not justly attach to human
beings; when whoever dared to deny that human beings
could be rightfully bought and sold like cattle–the
husband torn from the wife and the child from the mother;
when whoever denied the right of whoever had paid his
money for him to work or whip his own nigger was looked
upon as a wicked assailant of the rights of property? Is
it not but yesterday when in the South whoever whispered
such a thought took his life in his hands; when in the
North the abolitionist was held by the churches as worse
than an infidel, was denounced by the politicians and
rotten-egged by the mob? I was born in a Northern State,
I have never lived in the South, I am not yet gray; but I
well remember, as every American of middle age must
remember, how over and over again I have heard all
questionings of slavery silenced by the declaration that
the negroes were the property of their masters, and that
to take away a man's slave without payment was as much a
crime as to take away his horse without payment.
And whoever does not remember that far
back, let him look over American literature previous to
the war, and say whether, if the business of piracy had
been a flourishing business, it would have lacked
defenders? Let him say whether any proposal to stop the
business of piracy without compensating the pirates would
not have been denounced at first as a proposal to set
aside vested rights? ... read
the whole article
Henry George: The Wages of
Labor
God cannot impose on His creatures laws that
clash! If it be His command to men that
they should not steal – that they should
respect the right of property which each one has in the
fruits of his labor; and if He be also the Father of all
men, Who has intended all to have equal opportunities for
sharing in His common bounty; then, in any possible stage
of human civilisation, however elaborate, there must be
some way in which the exclusive right to the products of
industry may be reconciled with the equal right to land.
...
read the whole
article
Henry George: The Condition of Labor
— An Open Letter to Pope Leo XIII in response to
Rerum Novarum (1891)
You assume that there are in the natural order two
classes, the rich and the poor, and that laborers
naturally belong to the poor.
It is true as you say that there are differences in
capacity, in diligence, in health and in strength, that
may produce differences in fortune. These, however, are
not the differences that divide men into rich and poor.
The natural differences in powers and aptitudes are
certainly not greater than are natural differences in
stature. But while it is only by selecting giants and
dwarfs that we can find men twice as tall as others, yet
in the difference between rich and poor that exists today
we find some men richer than other men by the
thousandfold and the millionfold.
Nowhere do these differences between wealth and
poverty coincide with differences in individual powers
and aptitudes. The real difference between rich and poor
is the difference between those who hold the tollgates
and those who pay toll; between tribute-receivers and
tribute-yielders. ...
Men who are sure of getting food when they shall need
it eat only what appetite dictates. But with the sparse
tribes who exist on the verge of the habitable globe life
is either a famine or a feast. Enduring hunger for days,
the fear of it prompts them to gorge like anacondas when
successful in their quest of game. And so, what gives
wealth its curse is what drives men to seek it, what
makes it so envied and admired — the fear of want.
As the unduly rich are the corollary of the unduly poor,
so is the soul-destroying quality of riches but the
reflex of the want that embrutes and degrades. The real
evil lies in the injustice from which unnatural
possession and unnatural deprivation both spring.
But this injustice can hardly be charged on
individuals or classes. The existence of private property
in land is a great social wrong from which society at
large suffers, and of which the very rich and the very
poor are alike victims, though at the opposite extremes.
Seeing this, it seems to us like a violation of Christian
charity to speak of the rich as though they individually
were responsible for the sufferings of the poor. Yet,
while you do this, you insist that the cause of monstrous
wealth and degrading poverty shall not be touched. Here
is a man with a disfiguring and dangerous excrescence.
One physician would kindly, gently, but firmly remove it.
Another insists that it shall not be removed, but at the
same time holds up the poor victim to hatred and
ridicule. Which is right?
In seeking to restore all men to their equal and
natural rights we do not seek the benefit of any class,
but of all. For we both know by faith and see by fact
that injustice can profit no one and that justice must
benefit all.
Nor do we seek any “futile and ridiculous
equality.” We recognize, with you, that there must
always be differences and inequalities. In so far as
these are in conformity with the moral law, in so far as
they do not violate the command, “Thou shalt not
steal,” we are content. We do not seek to better
God’s work; we seek only to do his will. The
equality we would bring about is not the equality of
fortune, but the equality of natural opportunity; the
equality that reason and religion alike proclaim —
the equality in usufruct of all his children to the
bounty of Our Father who art in Heaven. ... read the whole
letter
Henry George: Thou
Shalt Not Steal (1887 speech)
Natural religion and revealed religion alike
tell us that God is no respecter of persons; that He did
not make this planet for a few individuals; that He did
not give it to one generation in preference to other
generations, but that He made it for the use during their
lives of all the people that His providence brings into
the world. If this be true, the child that is born
tonight in the humblest tenement in the most squalid
quarter of New York, comes into life seized with as good
a title to the land of this city as any Astor or
Rhinelander.
How do we know that the Almighty
is against poverty? That it is not in accordance with His
decree that poverty exists? We know it because we know
this, that the Almighty has declared: "Thou shalt not
steal." And we know for a truth that the poverty that
exists today in the midst of abounding wealth is the
result of a system that legalizes
theft.
The women who by the thousands are bending over
their needles or sewing machines, thirteen, fourteen,
sixteen hours a day; these widows straining and striving
to bring up the little ones deprived of their natural
breadwinner; the children that are growing up in squalor
and wretchedness, underclothed, underfed, undereducated,
even in this city, without any place to play —
growing up under conditions in which only a miracle can
keep them pure — under conditions which condemn
them in advance to the penitentiary or the brothel
— they suffer, they die, because we permit them to
be robbed, robbed of their birthright, robbed by a system
which disinherits the vast majority of the children that
come into the world.
There is enough and to spare for them. Had they
the equal rights in the estate which their Creator has
given them, there would be no young girls forced to
unwomanly toil to eke out a mere existence; no widows
finding it such a bitter, bitter struggle to put bread
into the mouths of their little children; no such misery
and squalor as we may see here in the greatest of
American cities; misery and squalor that are deepest in
the largest and richest centers of our civilization
today.
These things are the results of
legalized theft, the fruit of a denial of that
commandment that says: "Thou shalt not steal." How
is this great commandment interpreted today, even by men
who preach the Gospel? "Thou shalt not steal." Well,
according to some of them, it means: "Thou shalt not get
into the penitentiary." Not much more than that with
some. You may steal, provided you steal enough, and you
do not get caught. Do not steal a few dollars —
that may be dangerous, but if you steal millions and get
away with it, you become one of our first
citizens.
"Thou shalt not steal"; that is the law of God.
What does it mean? Well, it does not merely mean that you
shall not pick pockets! It does not merely mean that you
shall not commit burglary or highway robbery! There are
other forms of stealing which it prohibits as well.
It certainly means (if it has any
meaning) that we shall not take that to which we are not
entitled, to the detriment of
others.
Now, here is a desert. Here is a caravan going
along over the desert. Here is a gang of robbers. They
say: "Look! There is a rich caravan; let us go and rob
it, kill the men if necessary, take their goods from
them, their camels and horses, and walk off." But one of
the robbers says: "Oh, no; that is dangerous;
besides, that would be stealing! Let us, instead of doing
that, go ahead to where there is a spring, the only
spring at which this caravan can get water in this
desert. Let us put a wall around it and call it
ours, and when they come up we won’t let them have
any water until they have given us all the goods they
have." That would be more gentlemanly, more polite, and
more respectable; but would it not be theft all the same?
And is it not theft of the same kind when people go ahead
in advance of population and get land they have no use
whatever for, and then, as people come into the world and
population increases, will not let this increasing
population use the land until they pay an exorbitant
price?...
People do not have a natural right to demand
employment of another, but they have a natural right, an
inalienable right, a right given by their Creator, to
demand opportunity to employ themselves. And whenever
that right is acknowledged, whenever the people who want
to go to work can find natural opportunities to work
upon, then there will be as much competition among
employers who are anxious to get people to work for them,
as there will be among people who are anxious to get
work.
Wages will rise in every vocation to the true rate
of wages — the full, honest earnings of labor. That
done, with this ever increasing social fund to draw upon,
poverty will be abolished, and in a little while will
come to be looked upon — as we are now beginning to
look upon slavery — as the relic of a darker and
more ignorant age.
I remember — this man here remembers
(turning to Mr. Redpath, who was on the platform) even
better than I, for he was one of the men who brought the
atrocities of human slavery home to the heart and
conscience of the north — I well
remember, as he well knows, and all the older men and
women in this audience will remember, how property in
human flesh and blood was defended just as private
property in land is now defended; how the same charges
were hurled upon the men and women who protested against
human slavery as are now made against the men and women
who are intending to abolish industrial
slavery.
We remember how some dignitaries
and rich members of the churches branded as a disturber,
almost as a reviler of religion, any priest or any
minister who dared to get up and assert God’s truth
— that there never was and there never could be
rightful property in human flesh and
blood.
So, it is now said that people who protest against
this system, which is simply another form of slavery, are
people who propose robbery. Thus the commandment, "Thou
shalt not steal," they have made "Thou shalt not object
to stealing." When we propose to resume our own again,
when we propose to secure its natural right to every
child that comes into being, such people talk of us as
advocating confiscation — charge us with being
deniers of the rights of property. The real truth is that
we wish to assert the just rights of property, that we
wish to prevent theft.
Chattel slavery was incarnate
theft of the worst kind. That system which made
property of human beings, which allowed one person to
sell another, which allowed one person to take away the
proceeds of another’s toil, which permitted the
tearing of the child from the mother, and which permitted
the so-called owner to hunt with bloodhounds the person
who escaped from the owner’s tyranny — that
form of slavery is abolished. To that extent, the
command, "Thou shalt not steal," has been vindicated; but
there is another form of slavery. ... read the whole
article
|
To share this page with a friend:
right click, choose "send," and add your
comments.
|
|
Red links have not been
visited; .
Green links are pages you've seen
|
Essential Documents pertinent
to this theme:
|
|