A Tilt at William Blackstone |
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
March-April, 1941]
|
That so early an American as Robert Coram should perceive clearly
the injustices of our inherited land laws, at a time when land was
still a glut in our young country, is noteworthy. In his little book,
"A Plan for the General Establishment of Schools in the United
States," first published in 1791, his clear reasoning on the
befogged reasoning of the renowned jurist, Dr. Blackstone, constitutes
an important contribution to Georgeist literature. Coram writes as
follows:
"The only question remaining," says the
Doctor, "is how this property became actually vested, or what
is it that gave a man an exclusive right to retain in a permanent
manner that specific land which before belonged generally to
everybody, but particularly to nobody. And as we before observed,
that occupancy gave a right to the temporary use of the soil, so it
is agreed upon all hands, that occupancy gave also the original
right to the permanent property in substance of the earth itself,
which excludes every one else but the owner from the use of it. . .
.However, both sides agree in this, that occupancy is the thing by
which the title was in fact originally gained, every man seizing to
his own continued use such spots of ground as he found most
agreeable to his own convenience, provided he found them unoccupied
by any man."
But the act of occupancy is a degree of bodily labor; that is, the
occupancy extends 'as far as the labor; or in other words, a man has a
right to as much land as he cultivates, and no more; which is Mr.
Locke's doctrine. This distinction is therefore absolutely necessary
to determine the quantum of lands any individual could possess under
the laws of nature. For shall we say, a man can possess only the
ground in immediate contact with his feet; or if he climbs to the top
of a mountain, and exclaims, Behold, I possess as far as I can see!
shall there be any magic in the words, or in the expression, which
shall convey the right of all that land, in fee simple, to him and his
heirs forever? No; as labor constitutes the right, so it sensibly
defines the boundaries of possession. How then shall we detest the
empty sophist, who in order to establish his system of monopoly, would
fain persuade us that the Almighty did not know what he was about when
he made man. That he made him an animal of prey, and intended him for
a polished citizen; that he gave us bounties in common to all, and yet
suffered a necessity to exist by which they could be enjoyed only by a
few. Had Dr. Blackstone been disposed to give his readers a true
account of the origin of landed property in Europe he might have said,
exclusive property in lands originated with government; but most of
the governments that we have any knowledge of, were founded by
conquest; property therefore in its origin, seems to have been
arbitrary.
"But after all," continues the Doctor, "there are some
few things, which must still unavoidably remain in common: such (among
others) are the elements of light, air and water."
Thank you for nothing, Doctor. It is very generous indeed, to allow
us the common right to the elements of light, air and water, or even
the blood which flows in our veins, Blackstone's Commentaries have
been much celebrated; and this very chapter, so replete with malignant
sophistry and absurdity, has been inserted in all the magazines,
museums, registers, and other periodical publications in England, and
cried up as the most ingenious performance ever published. ...We will
however never believe that men originally entered into a compact by
which they excluded themselves from all right to the bounties of
Providence, and if they did, the contract could not be binding on
their posterity; for although a man may give away his own right, he
cannot give away the right of another.
The wants of man, instead
of having been lessened, have been multiplied, and that in proportion
to his boasted civilization; and the fear of poverty alone is more
than sufficient to counterbalance all the fears to which he was
subject, in the rudest stage of natural liberty. From this source
arise almost all the disorders in the body politic. The fear of
poverty has given a double spring to avarice, the deadliest passion in
the human breast; it has erected a golden image, to which all mankind,
with reverence, bend the knee, regardless of their idolatry. Merit is
but an abortive useless gift to the possessor, unless accompanied with
wealth; he might choose which tree whereon to hang himself, did not
his virtuous mind tell him to "dig, beg, rot and perish, well
content, so he but wrap himself in honest rags at his last gasp, and
die in peace." It is a melancholy reflection that in almost all
ages and countries, men have been cruelly butchered, for crimes
occasioned by the laws; and which they never would have committed, had
they not been deprived of their natural means of subsistence. But the
governors of mankind seem never to have made any allowance for
poverty; but like the stupid physician who prescribed bleeding for
every disorder, they seem ever to have been distinguished by an
insatiable thirst for human blood. The altars of a merciful God have
been washed to their foundation from the veins of miserable men; and
the double edged sword of Justice, with all its formality and parade,
seems calculated to cut off equally the innocent and guilty. Between
religion and law, man has had literally no rest for the sole of his
foot. In the dark ages of Gothic barbarity, ignorance was some excuse
for the framing of absurd systems; but in the age in which Dr.
Blackstone lived, he should have known better, he should have known
that the unequal distribution of property was the parent of almost all
the disorders of government ; nay, he did know it, for he had read
Beccaria, who treating upon the crime of robbery, says,
"But this crime, alas ! is commonly the effect of
misery and despair, the crime of that unhappy part of mankind, to
whom the right of exclusive property (a terrible and perhaps
unnecessary right) has left but a bare subsistence."
|