Rights Come Not From Nature
But From Reason

Steven Cord

[A paper presented at the 15th International Conference on
Land-Value Taxation and Free Trade, Utrecht, Holland, July 1982]

There are two independent ways to argue that some reform such as the taxation of land values ought to be adopted: one, we can show that it is moral, that it ought to be done; two, we can show that it is practical and will benefit society in a material way. One would assume that if it morally ought to be done, then it would be materially practical as well; and vice versa.

I will maintain that George's moral conclusions are undeniable. Certainly we have rights to our life, liberty and property limited only by the equal rights of others. Certainly we can own the product of our labor, which is to say that labor is the sole justification for private property, in which case land cannot be privately owned unless the annual rental income from it is collected by government via taxation. But when George bases these rights on natural law, I demur and so do the vast majority of modern philosophers. We must find another basis for the equal rights of individuals. It can be done.

Defects of Natural Law

Natural Law certainly exists in the material world, dealing as it does with the biological, physical and chemical aspects of reality. But it does not apply in economics or in any of the social sciences because they deal with people, and people have free will. They can become laws unto themselves (within limits).

To the degree that natural lawyers claim that we must follow natural law, that is a determinism which suffers all the defects of that outlook. Suffice it here to say that non-neurotic or non-psychotic individuals are more aware ability to choose their thoughts and actions (limited only by their mental and physical abilities) than they are aware of anything else they may know. Normal people are free, not compulsive. Those who feel they are not in control of their own thoughts and actions suffer from that horrible psychological debility called autism. Natural lawyers, in any case, are always quick to complain about the vast amount of government interference in the natural workings of the economy, which is to admit that we needn't follow Natural Law, that people have free will even If they often exercise it perversely.

"Ah yes," say the natural law advocates, "but they should obey the Natural Law." Well then, now Natural Law becomes prescriptive, not descriptive. It becomes defined as a body of law derived from nature and morally binding upon human society prior to governmental law. But we can well ask why Nature is the one true moral standard. Why should we assume it to be so? Can't we improve upon Nature, as when we cure natural diseases or protect ourselves from rain and storm, wind and cold? A cave isn't better than a house because it is more natural. And certainly a government should prosecute monopolists, regulate utilities, establish an army, repress crime, contain pollution, provide for occupational and consumer safety, and so forth -- but what is so "natural" about all that when natural is defined as what exists prior to government?

John Locke, the premier philosopher of natural law, claimed that when man was living in a state of nature -- i.e., in the wilderness beyond the reach of government -- he had a right to his life, liberty and property, and when he joined society he did so only on condition that he was to bring those rights with him, although limited now by the equal rights of all others.

Nice conclusion -- but faulty reasoning. It cannot be said that our wilderness-dwelling Hermit had any rights, since a right is a claim that others should choose to respect* and since in the natural state there were none others to respect his claims, "rights" in that context lack any real meaning.

Besides, if he wants to join society, then perhaps he should be let in not on his terms but on society's terms, whatever they may be. And what should stop a society from joining our individual -- i.e., from encompassing his territory -- and imposing its laws on him? To say he had rights when he lived by himself is not to say he has those rights when he lives in society.

And even if he did have rights -- what about his descendants living today who can find no livable wilderness beyond the reach of government? Do we get our natural rights from him by inheritance?

Henry George himself passed over this very basis of his moral philosophy with the quick assumption that a man belongs to himself and therefore he has rights to his life, liberty and property. He took these rights to be self-evident, but in our time, alas, they are not. They have to be proven, not merely assumed.

So it is with good cause that Natural Law has fallen so low among philosophers today. Its conclusions, however, can be truly justified by resort to another standard -- Reason.

The "Ought" is in Correct Thought

The ought is to be found not out there in Nature but within us -- in our minds, in the process of correct reasoning. If we wish to find out what the truth is, then there are certain definite rules we should follow. In order to convey any meaning at all, we should first of all be consistent (i.e., non-self-contradictory). To say "the Eiffel Tower is in Paris and it is also in London" is to make no statement that has any meaning at all.

And if we should be consistent, we should be accurate -- i.e., our statements about reality should be consistent with our observations of reality. Accuracy is just one type of consistency, albeit an important one.

So here we have the two standards of correct reasoning -- consistency and accuracy. And in order to be both consistent and accurate, we should try to treat reality as it is, as an end in itself. We cannot be both consistent and accurate unless we treat reality as it is. When we treat the Eiffel Tower as being in Paris, for example, we are treating reality as it is. Here then we have, in all its pristine simplicity, the basic moral precept, which when applied to our dealings with other people, leads ineluctably to a respect for their equal rights. Here's how we can go from the Reality Principle to Equal Rights:

(1) We have the right to be free to do whatever we wish, limited only by our duty to treat reality as it is. We can think of no other legitimate limitation on our right to be free, and there couldn't be any other limitation anyway as it would necessarily limit our duty to treat reality as it is.

(2)In dealing with others, our right to be free is limited by their equal rights. This is because we should treat people (who are part of reality) as they are, and they have the same right to be free we do (all of us have that right).

(3) Each person has a right to his life limited only by the equal right of others. Otherwise, we cannot be free. Respect someone's right to be free and you must automatically accord him the right to his life.

(4) The right to property also arises from the right to be free, for if everyone has the right to be free, he can freely exchange his own labor for the goods and services produced by others, which is to say that he has the right of property in those things (limited by the equal rights of others). This means that labor is the sole Justification for private property (we can think of no other justification and if one existed, it would necessarily violate the property rights of each worker to the full fruits of his labor). But as Henry George made crystal clear, if labor is the sole justification of private property, then private ownership of land cannot be justified unless the privilege of landownership is shared equally by us all through the full taxation of land values.

We see, then, that Reason rather than Nature is the true basis for both equal rights and land value taxation. Nature is morally inert. It shows us what is, not what ought to be. But once we follow the principle of correct Reason (by treating reality as it is), we have a moral guide for all our actions. We know what we ought to do, and what we oughtn't.

In short, the Ought is in the Thought.