Let it be remembered that this aim of ours for the restoration of private property among a determining number of the community, the distribution of property among the masses of citizens who should thus be made free, does not contradict state ownership of certain functions. What it contradicts is the false doctrine of general or preponderant state ownership, or what is worst of all universal State ownership. The State exists for the family and the individual; not these for the State.In many European countries where highly divided property is the rule, railways are State owned, and in all without exception, the Post Office.There is no hard and fast line, but the general principle is clear enough. Any free and well ordered state includes a proportion of State ownership which is based upon private ownership in the hands of as many citizens and families as possible at any rate, of so many as to make the principle determining character of society. Such ownership may be co-operative in the form of the Guild where large units are necessary or as in the case of nearly all agriculture and a great deal of industry as well, owned in small units by craftsmen.The function of distribution should also follow the same lines. Where there must be concentration in a large unit, that unit should be organized as a Guild; but in the vast majority of cases a small unit of distribution—the small store—is sufficient.
19 de junho de 2011
A Restauração da Propriedade Privada
3 de maio de 2011
30 de abril de 2011
Inheritance Tax and Property Tax
Inheritance TaxInheritance tax is another Keyensian method of wealth redistribution. It is based on the idea that a portion of the accumulated wealth of individuals needs to be redistributed through the government to those in greater need. It is, in my opinion, an excellent example of a society that takes a utilitarian view of its citizens. What else can explain the willingness to add to the grief of surviving relatives by making them pay for what they inherit from the one who died? Beyond that, there is not much difference between the inheritance tax and an income tax. The inheritance is treated as a special form of income and taxed at its own special rate.Property TaxThe main problem I have with property tax as it is implemented here in the United States is that it actually negates the principle of ownership. I say this because, regardless of what it may say on the deed of title, you can be evicted from what is supposed to be your property for failure to pay the tax. In what way is this different from the early feudal period where the landlord could kick out the tenants for failure to pay the required tax? I can see none. Despite the fact that we claim to own our property, we are in fact nothing more than tenants with more rights to the property than renters.Another problem with property taxes is that the government claims a revenue from that which it has not provided. John Médaille makes excellent points on the claim that a community can make on the value it has provided to the land, but the current practice of property taxes goes well beyond that. It also taxes the value provided by the individual or business as though the community has some natural claim to it. It is one thing to say that the presence of community has provided value to a piece of land and therefore the community can make a claim against that value; it is quite another thing to say that the community can make a claim against an increase value of your house on that land because you decided to improve it at your own expense.These problems are the reason I cannot support property taxes as they are currently implemented. With these defects in place, I would personally prefer the sales tax.
10 de abril de 2011
A Ira do Assalariado
So it has been with the wage-worker. So long as most citizens owned land and instruments and house-room, and the rest, then it was a natural contract for one man to take wages from another. The wage worker might himself be an owner, adding to his income for the moment by a particular bit of work; or if he saved on his wages he could become an owner. The number of wage-workers working for one particular man was small. The relations between the citizen who paid the wage and the citizen who earned it was personal and human. But when, under the action of competition and the use of expensive and centralized machines, and rapid communication, you had thousands and thousands of men working at a wage under one paymaster or corporation, things were utterly changed—and that is where we stand today. Our industrial society has become divided into a very large body which lives wholly, or almost wholly, on wages, that is on food, clothing, and housing doled out to it at short intervals by a much smaller number of paymasters, who control capital: that is, stores and reserves of land, housing, clothing and food.
The human relation has disappeared, you have the naked contrast between an employing class exploiting a vastly larger employed class for profit. The interests of the two are directly hostile. The wage-worker is the enemy of the paymaster. It is the business of the paymaster to give the wage earner as little as possible, and to make him work as hard as possible for that little. It is the business of the wage-worker to work, and therefore to produce, as little as possible for as much as he can get out of the paymaster. The whole scheme of wealth production becomes irrational and topsy-turvy. The paymasters, who direct, do not aim at wealth production—which serves us all—but at their own profit. The wage-worker does not aim at wealth production by his work, but on the contrary, at working as little as possible for the largest pay.
Meanwhile, every sort of social abomination arises from this evil root. There is the spiritual abomination of what is called “Class Hatred.” The oppressed hating the oppressor. There is the corresponding spiritual abomination of contempt, injustice, and falsehood. The secure oppressor despises the wage-earner, does him the injustice of using his labor without thought if the wage-earner’s advantage or of the community, and he tells a falsehood that was a truth at the beginning of the affair but is now a lie: he says that all this is based on free contract and is therefore rightly enforced by the courts of law and the armed services of the community.