A Just Society

Edward J. Dodson

[A letter published in The Center Magazine, a publication of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, November/December 1986]

TO THE EDITOR:

I would like to suggest that you reconvene the dialogue on American democracy. An appropriate extension of the discussion begun with James MacGregor Burns [THE CENTER MAGAZINE, July/August, 1986] would be to explore the principles under which a just society is constituted. There are, I submit, several principles attached to a universal standard of justice which will provide the basis for such a discussion:

(1) Equal access to nature is the birth right of each and every human being. Justice requires, therefore, that all positive (i.e., political) law support and protect such equal access.

(2) The natural right of each individual to such access excludes all of nature from private appropriation as property by the individual. Natural property, then, is limited to that which is produced from nature by direct and stored human labor (stored labor being what we normally refer to as capital). Individual control over nature is privilege, a form of unnatural property in return for which the recipient must compensate all others in society.

(3) Natural property belongs to its producer. Therefore, any form of confiscation or other involuntary transfer of natural property from its producer to others is theft.

(4) The economic value of unnatural property belongs equally to all individuals within society, not to any individual license holder. Therefore, failure on the part of those who are charged to act in behalf of the entire citizenry to collect and distribute the value of unnatural property is also theft.

Based on the above principles, there should be serious questions in the minds of the dialogue participants concerning the extent to which we are victimized by positive law. I would argue that title to land, which is the most prodigious form of unnatural property, has no legitimate basis for existence as presently structured. Land title is privilege; its treatment as natural property directly conflicts with just principles. In return for license to use, the individual must he required to compensate his fellow citizens for the privilege received. What is then produced by the individual is natural property. Any attempt by the state or other parties to confiscate natural property by taxation or force violates the principle of a Just society and is theft.

What I have offered is a yardstick against which to measure the degree of justice incorporated into the constitutional framework adopted by our Founding Fathers. To the extent that positive law meets the above test, what have been the benefits? Conversely, how have we suffered by failing to adhere to these principles?