 SCI LIBRARY |
 |
 |
 |
SCI LIBRARY |
|
|
|
| AN
INQUIRY Into Your Beliefs · ASKHENRY Search Engine · BIOGRAPHICAL HISTORY of the Georgist Movement · DISCUSSION · ENCYCLOPEDIA on Political Economy · ENCYCLOPEDIA on Political Economy - INDEX · HENRY GEORGE Page · LAND QUESTION - Quoted Authors · LINKS to Other Websites |
Economic LiberalismOle Wang[Reprinted from Land & Liberty] |
When, as a young man, I was trying to take my bearings in the political field I happened to meet some of the men who had been inspired by the ideas of Henry George, as first brought to Norway by Viggo Ullman (1848-1910). As early as 1886 this liberal politician and educator had translated Progress end Poverty, and it was through this translation and the efforts of Jakob F. Lange that the seed was sown from which the great movement has grown up on Danish soil. When I met these Georgeists I had been rather uncertain whether to join any political party. None of them appealed entirely to me. The ways of [continued below...] |
NEWS and OBSERVATIONS |
the socialists and half-socialists for righting injustices seemed to me to be leading to other injustices, especially to loss of liberty. On the other hand, the ideas of non-socialist parties did not seem to offer any prospect of economic justice for the masses. Thanks to a thorough knowledge of Ricardo's theory of rent as expounded by John Stuart Mill, it was as if a film fell from my eyes when my new friends explained their views to me. Here was the true natural foundation for the regulation of this world's affairs Justice. Not a nostrum, but a basic principle, the firmest pillar of government" as George Washington has stated. I do not think the goal at which Henry George was aiming can be better described than by quoting the words which John Stuart Mill wrote in his Autobiography of the result at which he and his inspiratrix had arrived after life-long mental progress: "The social problem of the future we considered to be, how to unite the greatest individual liberty of action, with a common ownership in the raw material of the globe, and an equal participation of al~ in the benefits of combined labour." What Mill here visualised, before Progress and Poverty was written, was a truly liberal society, but, unfortunately, present day liberals" seem not to understand how the achievement of liberal ideals depends on the prior destruction of the greatest of all monopolies. The solutions they offer differ only in degree from those of the socialists. Lacking a policy which combines liberty with justice, they have been steadily losing ground, incapable of arresting the general trend toward "The Servile State " foreseen 45 years ago by Hilaire Belloc, or even to " 1984". Some prominent liberal thinkers there have been, how-ever, who have understood the importance of the land question. Notable among them was the late Professor Eli F. Heckscher, the universally known Swedish economist. In 1921, he stated as a point of principle that the appropriation by the community of rent must form cart of the new economic liberalism, which cannot fulfill its mission or live up to its teaching without it." The number of great men who have from time to time. mere or less definitely, declared themselves in favour of our ideas, is very large, but the impression which might thereby have been made has been minimised by soft-pedalling, ridicule and misrepresentation in influential quarters. Opposition has come not only from those who wished to preserve their own privileged economic position but also from those whose pet ideas of State economic planning and welfare" were questioned. Many eminent statesmen, amongst them President Eisenhower, have pointed out that communism can, in the long run, be successfully combated only by means of ideas. Imitation of socialist methods, so common among those bidding for votes, is of no avail. In the economic field it is essential to confront communism with the diametrically opposed ideas of individualism. This involves maintaining the rights of each to the result of his efforts, while reserving to the community the value that attaches to the natural resources by the growth of the community. The resultant fund should be used for the common benefit, and for fulfilling the social obligations towards those who are unable to support themselves. |
Is there any prospect of winning the electorate ? I believe that most ordinary people would prefer a system giving justice with liberty. Not many are convinced socialists or communists. Whether those who are can be won over is an open question but it is worth recalling that tern No. I of the programme in Marx's Communist Manifesto dealt with ground rent. That is not to suggest that Henry George was a half-way follower of Karl Marx. On the contrary, the two were strongly opposed to each other. Marx's proposals for state-governed production, for the establishment of armies for industry and agriculture, etcetera, were utterly repugnant to George who, to use the words of Eli F. Heckscher " is the most thorough-going liberal of the old school that ever existed." If the liberal parties adopted Henry George's ideas they might attract support from the rank and file of labour. And even the leaders of the socialist parties could scarcely object to the carrying through of item No. I in their founder's programme. George was opposed to "the substitution of governmental direction for the play of individual action, and the attempt to secure by restriction what can be better secured by freedom..." But he did not oppose the "ideal" of Socialism, which in one passage he called "grand and noble." He foresaw a society in which Government took upon itself functions which must of necessity be monopolies. There is, of course, nothing in his views opposed to Co-operation on a free basis in any other branch of human endeavour. The chief concern of statesmen at the present moment is how to put an end to cold war and secure peace. One hears much about the restriction of the manufacture and use of the means of war, but little about the removal of the causes of war. Amongst these latter, the ideological ones are perhaps dominant, but that there are also economic causes cannot be denied. If these could be removed, it is possible that " peaceful co-existence " could be realised. Which of the rivalling ideologies would then survive would be a question of competition in giving satisfaction of human "wants both as regards things temporal and things spiritual. And they could perhaps influence each other. It is the hall-mark of a true basic principle that it is applicable to any problem. Justice. which includes true liberty, is for worldly affairs what Love is in the Kingdom which is not of this world. The first is perhaps the prerequisite for the second's chances of working its good. What if statesmen at the highest level would apply the principle of Justice to the solution of the international questions and to other affairs of this world ? Justice, not only as between the sovereign states, but also for the masses and individuals, would mean the securing to all of their right to the natural resources of the globe. Free Trade could secure a just distribution provided each country's share of these resources was equal, not necessarily in kind but in value. An equalisation might be necessary owing to maldistribution as between the countries of the gifts of nature. No help to underdeveloped countries would then be needed if their peoples could get their rights to these gifts secured internally. A Start in the assertion of just rights to natural resources could he made in the |
establishment of rules for the utilisation of the resources in uninhabited territories such as the Antarctic continent, which is now a question of immediate importance, or in extra-territorial "raters, where such rules are needed for the preservation of natural riches. We often hear that " the World is One " in consequence of the development of the means of communication. But, notwithstanding endeavours after the two wars, the politico-economic strucure of the world has not kept pace. Barriers against the free movement of goods, capital. men and ideas have become anachronisms at a time when vou can travel around the world in a day, and these barriers are another cause of tension. The proposals for removing them in restricted areas are halfhearted and vacillating, and apt to create blocks antagonistic to each other. What is wanted is a courageous world-wide "brooming out." It remains to be seen whether the proposed conferences at top level will come about, and. if they are held, whether the two ideologies can be made to co-operate. It seems evident that some sacrifices must be made of the sacred sovereignty. The obvious instrument for putting the measures agreed upon into operation would seem to be the United Nations organisation, whose charter is now ripe for revision, but recent utterances from high quarters are to the effect that the great powers have the responsibility and should act for themselves. Whatever procedure is adopted, what matters is the spirit in which the negotiations are prepared and carried on, and whether first things are put first: the removal of the causes of international tension and. ultimately. of war. |
|
|
 |
|
|