Rights of Land to Sustain Life

[Jake Surge]

Here is a portion of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison. Let me know what you think:

Dear Sir,

Seven o’clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you…

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could get no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.

The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. I should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivision go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of the state.

[Xul Daethreen]

I'd have to agree with his opinions. Charity, simply giving away money, is not a bad thing but it isn't the best thing we can do. It seems to me that he is of a mind that the most efficient form of philanthropy would be to provide jobs, of some sort, for the poor unemployed who are willing to work.

Agriculture and personal farms and gardens were more of a mainstay then, hence why he believes everyone should be apportioned at least a small area of land, or be allowed to cultivate unused land for a small rental fee. Even with no money, one could work the land for domestic animals such as chickens, goats, or pigs, that don't need large pastures. One could also raise crops, at the very least a small garden. While the poor would still be poor, they would at least have the opportunity and capability to raise food for themselves to stave off starvation until employment is available. With higher population densities and much more industrialized economy, modern America would be less than ideal for this system.

This brings to mind, of course, the old adage "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for life." I may have misquoted the second line, but the meaning is there.

[musashi]

Interesting letter, even though I’m not a big Thomas Jefferson fan what with him raping his slaves, and holding his own children as slaves, not to mention his life long penchant for failing to repay his creditors. John Adams / Ben Franklin appeal more to me.

I like the letter, in part because it is dated; much like the thoughts of Thomas Malthus. We have a chance to see how the future unfolded after TJ set down these reflections. To me JT’s point here is that of the pure unconstrained market - no impediment should be placed on supply as long as there is demand; in this instance the cultivation of as much wild land as needed.

To me, events after TJ’s time answered his question and told him he was wrong. Sure in the short term, cultivating more land feeds more people. But we’ve seen where excess cultivation created some extremely insoluble problems. Here a few examples that come to my mind

• China’s rapid expansion of farming after the Communist revolution. For a time they did get more food. The land could not bear that degree of water consumption, the water table dropped and the desertification effect fueled a rapidly expanding Gobi.
• Agricultural expansion (as a partial factor) has expanded the Sahara.
• Agricultural expansion in South America is having a desertification effect in the Amazon Basin, a place that previously had some of the highest rain fall totals.

Unregulated expansion can lead to this type of problem if demand is high enough.

In the US we had a similar problem after TJ’s time – we called it the Dust Bowl. We in essence did what TJ suggested – farmed as much land as possible to meet the need. Lots of people starved, much wailing & nashing of teeth; guys like John Steinbeck & Arthur Rothstein got to make some money. Other solutions may have been accessible, but Government intervention; bureaucracy; market constraint; and technology were the solutions employed and they worked. Those things have yet to happen in Asia, Africa and South America and desertification is still a big problem in those places.

I think there are some significant examples to refute TJ in this instance. Nice read though.

[Oleksandr]

It's a common fallacy today to say "Oh, Ancient Greeks and Founding Fathers were bad b/c they had slaves."

That's a historically ignorant view. Every single kid can now look back and say "Oh, they were soo racist!" Excuse me, how was it discovered that all man were equal? How was it discovered that all men were able to be rational? All these discoveries take time, so in the context of what was known, there did nothing wrong.

[musashi]

… so in the context of what was known, there [he?] did nothing wrong.

Very true, about our current perspectives coloring our impressions of the past. Having not lived in those times, I could think that I understand their moral code with a high degree of certainly and still be completely wrong. Let’s break down my assertions;

Slave Holder – Agreed nothing unusual here, many founding Father’s held slaves. Right or wrong it was a common practice at the time. Although I would say there was a rather large segment of population that was anti-slave at the time. And if A is A, and morality is not subjective, How do we get a historical circumstance where it is acceptable for one man to own another simply due to the unfortunate circumstances of birth?

Slave Rapist – Now we get into it. Biblically (one pervasive tenant at the time) this is wrong. From some accounts I’ve read TJ went to great lengths to conceal his relations with Sally Hemmings. During his life holding stead fast to these denials, so by his own actions I think we could conclude that this was a taboo act. Add to this that generations of historians labored to cover up the deed, again choice on their part based upon their own taboos. The genetic tests confirm it.

Owning his Family Members – Probably more common than we could ever know. And there were legitimate mechanisms for indentured servitude. Ben Franklin’s older brother held a bond against Ben to pay for Ben’s apprenticeship as a Printer. Ben’s first steps in the home town of the Liberty Bell were not as a free man. Ownership for life is a different story. Ultimately Hemmings' four surviving children were not freed until Jefferson’s death. And the inconvenient situation lead to one of my favorite negative euphemisms “ … like a red-headed step child.” As in “he’s going to beat you like a red-headed step child!”

Thief – To me this is the clearest historical case. People have failed to pay their debts throughout the ages. It is easy for me to feel confident that people in TJ’s time held negative perspectives about a guy robbing Peter to pay Paul.

More or less, I don’t consider it unfair to cling to some of my negative opinions about Jefferson. He did some great things. Valadimir Lenin did some great things too, doesn’t mean I have to like the guy.

[redhotrebel]

Although slavery is an atrocious historical fact it’s a null point in the argument anyways. Human kind has done some “regrettable” things as far as experimentations on other people for the advancement of medicine but that does not make the scientific discovery invalid. Using slavery is an argument to obfuscate from the fact that the premise in Jefferson’s letter (at least in this context) is incorrect. I would go so far as to say that they may have been hypocrites by todays standards but women, children and black people were considered the males property in that age. That being “morally” right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that altruism is only moral when a person chooses to give rather than being forced to give etc... etc...

By my first paragraph can you conclude if I am addressing the moral standards of this post? Am I addressing the historical authenticity? What exactly would you counter agrue if you disagreed?

I’ve been guilty of using quotations, although I generally disagree with the use as anything other than adding to a given argument. I.e. “Here is what I think and here is what So-N-So wrote that says it better, more clearly or more poetically than I could...” Large amounts of text with antiquated language with no supporting argument from the poster other than

Let me know what you think:

is a joke. What do “I” think about what? What is the purpose of the post? Is there something specific you would like to discuss?

This is just an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument, poisoning the well, special pleading, red herring, misleading vividness, guilt by association and many other logical fallacies that are completely interpreted ONLY by mere guesses as to what part of the text/historical/moral/social component each individual is arguing at best and sounds more like post-modernist crap at the very least.

So please tell me “Mr. Surge”, exactly what part of this "post" would you like addressed?

P.S. Can you please browse this website (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/) or something comparable so that I can go back to responding to better spam

[redhotrebel]

“ … like a red-headed step child.” As in “he’s going to beat you like a red-headed step child!”.

You haaaad to go there...