Georgist Values, Christian Economics
Three panelists spoke on the subject of Georgist
Values, Christian Economics at the Council of Georgist
Organizations conference July 23, 2004 in Albuquerque.
Comparison of George's Economic Theory of
Justice with the Catholic Church's Social
Teachings Concerning the Right to Private
Property in Land
by Brendan Hennigan
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Introduction
Without diluting the difficulties that exist
between the Georgist position on private property in land,
and the Catholic Church's social teachings, on the same
subject, there are some surprising similarities between the
basic principles advocated by both. Recent documents, in
particular those developed after Vatican II, are of
particular interest to the followers of Henry George.
The Vatican II document "The Pastoral Constitution
of the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes"
(proclaimed 7 December, 1965), extended and defined the
meaning of the common good. The common good is that:
which is the sum total of social conditions which
allow people, either as groups or as individuals,
to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily.
The document also emphasised that all created
earthly goods were to be shared fairly. This would include
land, all natural resources, and those things produced by
one's labour. Pope John Paul II, was a participant at
the council and assisted in the writing of key documents.
He has first hand knowledge of the spirit of Vatican II,
its intent, and importance of the Church's role in the
modern world. John Paul II's social encyclicals renew and
update the themes of the economic, ethical, and social
realities of "New Things", which include a response to the
worker question, poverty, and social injustice. John Paul
II was in an unique position to comment on these social
questions. He lived under two Totalitarian regimes: the
Soviets and the Nazi's. His pontificate saw the fall of
communism or as he calls it "Real Socialism": the political
and economic system he experienced in his native Poland.
He is a renowned advocate of the dignity of the human
person, the rights of workers and the oppressed.
What do the Catholic Church and the popes have to
say about land? Catholic social teachings and John Paul
II's encyclical letter Centesimus Annus: On the Hundredth
Anniversary of Rerum Novarum (1991), are of relevance to
Georgists. Henry George's book The Condition of Labour: An
Open Letter to Leo XIII, published in 1891, was a critique
of the Church's first social encyclical Rerum Novarum. In
it, George severely criticised the Church's view that one
had a natural right to private property in land. He
systematically exposed the failure of the encyclical to
address the true cause of poverty, that is, private
property in land. Also, in George's opinion, Rerum Novarum
did not provide a sufficient remedy for the eradication of
poverty and other social problems. George had friends
and adversaries within the Catholic Church. The tone of
his writings reflect the respect he had for the office of
St. Peter. However, this did not stop him from thinking
the Catholic Church had got it all wrong. In fact, it
inspired him to broadcast his views on landownership,
private property, and land value taxation to a wider
audience of believers. The purpose of the open letter to
Leo XIII was not to debate, but to define his own views.
Quoting from a letter he wrote to his son, Henry George junior:
What I really aimed at, he informed his son, "is to
make clear brief explanation of our principles, to show
their religious character, and to draw a line between us
and the socialist. I have written to such men as Cardinal
Manning, General Booth and religious minded men of all
creeds."
The Georgist movement needs to do the same thing
today. They need to reach out to all men and woman of good
will. The dream that Henry George had of a more just
society must not die. It may be obscured by time and
circumstances, but it is alive in his writings and the
actions of people who desire a better world, one not racked
by poverty and the misuse of God's gift to humanity: land.
A century later the question must be asked. Is
there some compatibility between the philosophy of George
and Catholic social teachings on the land question. My
purpose is to highlight Catholic social teachings in the
areas of property rights, the common good and justice. My
proposition is that justice demands that Christians and all
people of good will put their differences aside and look
for common ground on matters concerning the land question
and poverty.
Both Henry George and Catholic social teachings
agree that natural law and justice are the foundation of
property rights. George was fervently opposed to the
concept of private property in land. Catholic social
teachings wholeheartedly support it. However, George and
his principles were never directly condemned in Catholic
social encyclicals. This leaves open the possibility of
dialogue when considering land, economic justice and the
common good.
I emphasise 'directly condemned'. It is true that
Henry George believed Rerum Novarum was written as an
attack on his social and economic theory. It could be
argued, that since George's purpose was to differentiate
his theory of natural and economic justice from the
socialist model; the fall of communism may have actually
helped his cause. George was not a socialist and his adversaries do him an injustice to
class him as one. Today, Georgism must accurately define
its mission and insist that land reform, and the
introduction of a land value tax system, is neither
collectivist nor absolutely individualistic. It is a
doctrine in accord with the Christian principles of natural
law, justice, and social development. In the economic and
ethical realities of landownership, George's guiding light
was the Golden rule "do unto others as you would have them
do unto you." It is a maxim that one ought to keep in
mind in our discussion today.
Catholic social teachings
Three important points should be remembered when
discussing Catholic social teachings:
* First, the Church does not offer any 'technical
solutions' to land management and taxation. No economic or
political system is specifically promoted. However, human
dignity and the Church's ministry must be respected at all times.
* Second, the Church's way is not a 'third way'
between collectivism and primitive capitalism. Neither is
it an ideology. "Its main aim is to interpret [economic
and social] reality" in accordance with Gospel teachings.
* Third, "the goods of this world are originally
meant for all". There is a "social mortgage" that needs to
be taken into account when considering private property.
Land and created goods each have both an individual and a
social function.
The idea of a social mortgage, in relation to land,
its use, and property rights, has a familiar ring to
Georgist ears. Was not George advocating the same thing,
with the collection of the economic rent, with the
expression in Progress and Poverty "give to the individual
what belongs to the individual, and to the community what
belongs to the community." The Church's preference is
proclamation, rather than condemnation. Similar to Henry
George, the Church wants to show how to do good and avoid evil.
The arguments I make will be based on two areas
that are of mutual concern to Georgists and Catholics.
They are: (1) natural rights and land; and (2) justice and
solidarity.
Natural rights and Land
George and Catholic social teachings are in
agreement that land is a gift from God to all humankind
from generation to generation. Equal rights to land is
based on the dignity of the human person. Work is both
personal and necessary. It is through land and work that
one provides for one's daily needs and wants. The
universal destination of earthly goods requires stewardship
of and respect for God's gift. The claim of Catholic
social teachings is that individual rights must always be
subordinate to community rights. John Paul II writes in
his Encyclical "On Human Work" the right to individual
ownership or property is not absolute:
Christian tradition has never upheld this right as
absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has
always understood this right within the broader
context of the right common to all to use the goods
of the whole of creation: the right to private
property is always subordinate to the right to
common use, to the fact that goods are meant for
everyone.
How one is to determine the rights to individual
property and common property is what seems to separate
George and Catholic social teachings. It may be one that
is not insurmountable. Both believe that it is by work
that we attach one's natural right to property and that is
the way we can call a thing our own. For example, if I
plant a crop, build a house, or bake a loaf of bread one
has a moral and a legal entitlement to it. Does the same
principle apply to land? Land meaning the natural
materials, forces, and opportunities of nature.
Unlike George, Catholic social teachings does not
differentiate between private property in land and private
property in productive goods. George says that private
property in land is a violation of natural law. Land is
common property and private property rights cannot be
attached to it. Catholic social teachings is based on the
fundamental principle, as stated in Rerum Novarum, that
while it is true that land is a gift given to all,
individual property in land (here the Church means
agricultural land) is in accordance with natural law.
Rerum Novarum and other encyclicals talk of the
"inviolability of private property" rights. But these
rights are not absolute. St. Thomas Aquinas says that the
"world's resources" must be used wisely. Selfishness must
not impede the aim of the common good.
Solidarity and justice
John Paul II identifies the justification for land
ownership to the act of work. In his 1991 encyclical
Centesimus Annus, commemorating the one hundredth
anniversary of Rerum Novarum, he seems to be in agreement
with George that land speculation is unjust, especially
when it deprives others of a livelihood:
Ownership of the means of production, whether in
industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if
it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate,
however, when it is not utilized or when it serves
to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain
a profit which is not the result of the overall
expansion of work and the wealth of society, but is
rather the result of curbing them or of illicit
exploitation, speculation or the breaking of
solidarity among working people. (ft.: see John
Paul II's Laborem Exercens: On Human Work, no. 14,
"Work and Ownership".) Ownership of this kind has
no justification, and represents an abuse in the
sight of God and man.
How are these abuses to be addressed? Those concerned about the impact of urban decay
and urban sprawl may see in John Paul II's observations
that land-use must take into account the needs of the
community. Especially, when misuse of land deprives others
of work. Legitimate public authorities have a
responsibility and duty to guard the common good. The
principle of "solidarity" is one of the cornerstones of
Catholic social teachings. It has a twofold purpose: (1)
promote the idea of Christian friendship and charity
between individuals; and (2) fraternity between communities,
both locally and world-wide.
George believed that land value taxation is the way
to achieve a balance between individual and communal
rights. Vacant city lots could be put to better use, for
example, for affordable housing, when the tax system limits
inefficient land speculation. Social reforms which created
better living conditions for the less fortunate in society
would be justified under the principle of 'solidarity'.
Modifying existing tax laws to emphasise the best use of
land would be compatible with Catholic social teachings.
As long as taxes were not a burden on any particular group
or class.
Agrarian reform is also advocated by Catholic
social teachings. The Pontifical Council for Justice and
Peace report: Towards A Better Distribution of Land
(1997), acknowledges the human and social problems created
by the concentration and misappropriation of land. This is
especially true in Third World countries, but does not
exclude the concerns of all those living in more developed
countries. Again, those possessing land must not view it
as exclusively theirs: Section 23 of the document reads:
The underlying nature of creation is that of being
a gift from God, a gift for all, and God wants it to
remain so. God's first command is therefore to
preserve the earth in its nature as a gift and
blessing, not to transform it into an instrument of power
or motive for division.
The report goes on to say that the possession or
ownership of land (private property) is not "unconditional"
and it "entails some very precise obligations". Large land
holdings are "illegitimate" when they are "poorly
cultivated, or simply left uncultivated for speculation".
It is morally wrong to deprive people of the necessities of
life and the capacity to access nature's bounty:
In the social teachings of the Church, such
latifundia go against the principle that "the world
is given to all, and not only to the rich." so that
"no one is justified in keeping for the exclusive
use what he does not need, when others lack
necessities." (footnote: Paul VI, Encyclical
Letter Populorum Progressio, 1967, no. 23.)
George did not believe that the equal distribution
of land would eradicate poverty. This being said, he was
in favour of a wider distribution of land. There seems to
be enough common ground so that Georgists and Christians
can co-operate to achieve this goal.
Henry George writes in The Science of Political
Economy: "The government of the universe is a moral
government, having its foundation in justice."
George talks a lot about justice and how it is to
be achieved. The traditional definition of justice quoted
by Catholic philosophers and moral theologians can be found
in the writings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Justice is: "The habit whereby a man renders to each one
his due by constant and perpetual will." And goes on
further to say that: "Justice is the virtue of the good
citizen."
In Catholic social teachings, justice is applied
three ways: through communative, legal, and distributive
justice and all these constitute a social whole.
Communative justice governs the exchange between
individuals and where contracts are freely entered into
with strict respect to one's rights. Legal justice is what
the individual owes to the community. Distributive justice
is what the community owes to the individual.
George writes about justice in relation to natural
law and social progress. Tax is a matter of human law and
would thus fall under the title of legal justice. It is
what the individual owes "in fairness" to the State. A
land value tax would be an example of this. A land value
tax is also linked to the distributive justice. The
disbursement of public revenues in proportion to one's
needs is an application of distributive justice. It is
what the community regulates or owes to the individual.
An argument may be made that the present system of
taxation is unjust because it does not comply with the
principle of justice. Communative justice, that is,
legally and freely entered into, and binding contracts, is
called into question with the payment of economic rent to
landowners. Is it a fair and equal transaction in
relations to one's rights? Or are your rights violated by
the landowner demanding the community portion of the
economic rent. Distributive justice may be breached when
the community does not have the revenue to invest in the
social development of the community. A good many Catholic
moral theologians would most likely disagree with me on
this, but it is one worth exploring.
Conclusion
Fr. Edward McGlynn of New York was suspended from
his public priestly duties for 4 years for supporting and
advocating George's remedy. In the first part of the last
century Catholic moral theologians have published articles
and books criticising George and his "Single Tax". Of note
is the Swiss born Jesuit Scholar Father Victor Cathrein
(1845-1931) and American Monsignor John A. Ryan
(1869-1945). But time has dimmed the name of Henry George
and this may be a blessing in disguise. The demise of
"Real Socialism", concern for the environment and natural
resource management, and the failure of governments to
stop urban decay, provide affordable housing and public
transportation, may create the atmosphere where Georgist philosophy is once again at the
forefront of social consciousness.
Henry George had many Catholic followers,
especially amongst the working poor of Europe and the
United States. Politically the "Catholic vote" is still of
importance in the United States, especially in a
Presidential election year. For example, a headline in the
New York Times, dated 20th April, 2004, read:
"Conservatives Try to Exploit Catholic Democratics' Views".
The Catholic constituency does not have a united position
on land reform and taxation, property rights, or how to
tackle social problems. But the time is ripe for Georgists
to promulgate their views amongst those Christians
advocating social justice for all. Gerry Barr, the
president and CEO of the Canadian Council for International
Co-operation, a coalition of organisations working in
Canada and overseas to end global poverty, wrote a recent
article in "The Ottawa Citizen" newspaper on development,
charity, and poverty. He chides governments and
individuals for thinking charity alone will help developing
nations. He writes:
The problem isn't lack of knowledge or basic skills
but access to resources (be it fishing grounds or
equipment) or fair market system (to sell their catch).
Access to land and fair markets are still important
issues today. On key principles Catholic social teachings
and George do coincide. There is still the difficulty of
the concept of private property in land, but this should
not stop Catholic, Christian, and Georgist dialogue.
---------------------------------
Brendan Hennigan spent 20 years in TV
broadcasting and is a Doctoral candidate at the
Dominican College of Philosophy and Theology. He
may be emailed at brendanhennigan@hotmail.com