Creation and public revenue

[David Giesen]

The earnest effort to determine public policy that is socially just and which conforms with faith-informed values can be bewildering at times. For instance, how do we, as community, ensure that all are satisfactorily housed and have opportunity to pursue a suitable and sufficient livelihood? To what extent should welfare and employment programs travel in providing services to the unemployed and the poor? The recent federal deliberation over raising the minimum wage is a case in point: how intrusive should government be in the performance of business? Business is community, but community is also the people who work in and for businesses. How do we care for all the people and interests that community comprises?

I believe distinguishing Creation from things made from Creation by humanity is a good starting place for sensibly simplifying (but not simplistically addressing) the establishment of right-values informed social legislation.

The entire material universe outside of humanity can (and I argue should be) distinguished as a gift to all humanity. This Creation is like the Garden of Eden: it embodies all the natural opportunity humanity as a whole needs in order to satisfy its biological needs and Creation is not the special gift to some to the exclusion of others. The privatization of the economic value of land/earth/Creation is the fundamental cause of social distress. The taking of Creation as one's own, without full and recurring compensation to all interested parties for their equal moral right to the economic power of Creation is a fundamental theological blunder and an economic catastrophe.

It is not enough to say that a family can sit in the shade of its own fig tree and eat the fruit of the vine it has tended if the land those plants grow on is owned by another, for in that case the mere owner of Creation will take a portion of the figs and of the grapes without any effort RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION OF THOSE FIGS AND GRAPES. Yes, the owner has bought Creation, but from whom? From its Creator? No, land is a gift to all and may properly be only taken title to if the rent of Creation, the rent of land, is paid to society. (This means, of course, that the family that owns its own land that has land rent should pay that land rent to society; just because one is owner rather than renter that does not mean that one is excused from paying land rent.) The property tax does this to a very little extent. Once society takes the whole of land rent, however, it immediately resolves a multitude of social questions.

Socializing the rent of land recognizes Creation as the commonwealth. Socializing the rent of land abolishes land speculation. Socializing the rent of land clarifies what is properly private property: things and services produced by people. Socializing land rent abolishes land speculation and that means that those who wish to use land for gaining a livelihood are not dependent upon paying a premium in lower wages (the speculative part of land rent) in order to use Creation. In short, socializing land rent will end involuntary poverty; where all have equal access to the material universe because none are receiving income from mere ownership of Creation, the full rewards of labor are transparent. . . no longer need we wonder if it were effort or economic alienation from Creation which induced an economic circumstance.

What do you thnk? Can Creation's economic opportunity for all people be seized by some? Can a child born today have, by some contract between adults unknown to her, have lost her equal birthright in the economic opportunity of Creation? We do not speak of the houses and businesses constructed by people--those are the creations of men--, we speak of the land under cities, farms and mining equipment. Are these not Creation? Are these not a gift "to the least of these?"

[David Giesen]

Well, My only comment is this, for which I am likely to be attacked.

"Socialism", in an ideal world, would be the best government philosophy possible, other than the Lord himself being ruler directly over the people as in the comming millenial riegn.

The problem is, there is never "true" socialism. "Someone" always ends up in power pulling all the strings, as in the case of russia, china, etc.

Since we know that socialism only works in an ideal world, one where everyone has everyone else's interest at heart, and we know we don't live in such a world, then socialism is discarded as an invalid philosophy of government and social order.

When you study the Bible, the land of Israel was divided by lot, according to tribe and family. Each person's land was there own in virtually every respect*, except when it came to such issues as tithe, sabbath, and the year of Jubilee, and the harvesting of crops, in which case any "second growth" as well as the corners of a field were supposed to be for the poor and strangers, etc. Even then, said poor people had to go glean the field themselves, not sit around waiting for a handout. In other words, whoever owned the land had every right to choose how it was used, so long as it wasn't in violation of God's Word. wheat, barley, beans, or sheep? Up to the owner.

So the Bible did make "socialistic" provisions for those who were poor or destitute for whatever reason, but it was by no means an "absolute socialism" in which everything is "community property".

[apothanein kerdos]

The essay is flawed on the premise that social factors is the cause of distress. This is not true.

If you are going to use Creation as the basis then you have to take into account the fall of man. Once we do this we realize that it is man's own sin, not social factors, that causes distress and pain in this world. Likewise, the idea of commonwealth is out the window as well when we realize we are fallen creatures. It is because we are fallen that we must take property; I think you forget that God told us to subdue the earth, to have domain over it. This means that creation does not solely belong to God, but that make has a title in it as well. Though our claim to land is not absolute to the point we can outpower God, it is absolute in that we can hold private property. Furthermore, God holds people accountable for what they do with their private property (if they help the poor or not). He does not tell us to go into a collective but instead to deal wisely with what we have been given.

[David Giesen]

Why so Blind,

Your criticisms of government are just that, criticisms of government. I have proposed a change in public revenue source that conforms with a belief in Creation as a gift to all. I have not proposed a change in government process. Still a local, state and federal government here in the USA; still a body of elected officials carrying out the interests of the electorate. Only now, rather than heavy community taxation of business and labor through income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes and property tax on improvements, there would be a community collection of land/Creation rent.

People would still have the same security they have in land as today: pay its rent and use it, build upon it, sleep on it, establish business upon it. The change in effect, though, would include the elimination desire of those who own land to lobby government for government expenditures that enhance the value of their bit of Creation/earth in order to see land values rise for their private gain! Fire protection, paved roads and public schools enhance land values. Those enhanced land values belong to community rather than to the mere title-holder to Creation.

[David Giesen]

Apothanein kerdos,

The fall of man cannot alienate anyone from an equal moral right of access to Creation, only human legislation can do that. Throughout history different cultures have variously legislated who has right to land and upon what terms. That there is Creation which includes the material universe we know. How we as a people choose to determine access to Creation is a matter of public policy. I argue that a kind and just respect forthe humanity of all requires the socialization of Creation's rent and the putting of that revenue to purpose in satisfying community needs and wants such as fire and police protection, courts, streets, public health, education and transportation, etc.

[WayneB]

Moved to General Discussion.

[apothanein kerdos]

Apothanein kerdos,

The fall of man cannot alienate anyone from an equal moral right of access to Creation, only human legislation can do that. Throughout history different cultures have variously legislated who has right to land and upon what terms. That there is Creation which includes the material universe we know. How we as a people choose to determine access to Creation is a matter of public policy. I argue that a kind and just respect forthe humanity of all requires the socialization of Creation's rent and the putting of that revenue to purpose in satisfying community needs and wants such as fire and police protection, courts, streets, public health, education and transportation, etc.

Two things:

1) Why did God set up Israel as a seperate nation with private ownership within that nation if creation is available to all?

2) Why did God give personal items to David and others and not to the community as a whole?

3) Why do we not see your teaching in scripture?

You're mixing Marx with scripture, the two don't mix.

[David Giesen]

Apothanein Kerdos,

Israel for the Jews notwithstanding, what about North America? For whom? Whoever arrives with the standard of the Pope or the King or the East India compnay? That there was a patch of land left for your family and mine to buy was nice, but what about the child born today? Is she to be your or my Creation/land rent vassal if she can't find a piece of unclaimed Creation?

The theological question stands, "Is Creation the birthright of all people equally, or is Creation a special income-genreating commodity for some?"

I am a land rent/ Creation rent socialist. What sort of socailist are you? What portion of other people's labor and things made are you in favor of taxing for public purposes? And what portion of Creation's economic value are in favor of leaving with those who have title to Creation based upon nothing more than force of seizure or imperial declaration? Title to one's time and the product of one's labor is established by the exertion which brings service or product into being. Of land there can be no such assertion as, "I made it."

[apothanein kerdos]

Apothanein Kerdos,

Israel for the Jews notwithstanding, what about North America? For whom? Whoever arrives with the standard of the Pope or the King or the East India compnay? That there was a patch of land left for your family and mine to buy was nice, but what about the child born today? Is she to be your or my Creation/land rent vassal if she can't find a piece of unclaimed Creation?

The theological question stands, "Is Creation the birthright of all people equally, or is Creation a special income-genreating commodity for some?"

I am a land rent/ Creation rent socialist. What sort of socailist are you? What portion of other people's labor and things made are you in favor of taxing for public purposes? And what portion of Creation's economic value are in favor of leaving with those who have title to Creation based upon nothing more than force of seizure or imperial declaration? Title to one's time and the product of one's labor is established by the exertion which brings service or product into being. Of land there can be no such assertion as, "I made it."

You didn't respond to what I asked.

Answer my questions.

To add to this:

We were given dominion. Thus, I cannot say "I made it" with the land, but I can say, "I earned it" or "I toil over it" and therefore claim that piece of land as my own.

[David Giesen]

Apothanein Kerdos,

First I will address your questions, though I must say you seem to have brushed mine aside.

1) Yahweh does indeed inform the Hebrews that they are sojourners in the land. Indeed, he aportions the land of Israel to the Hebrews. We are in agreement there. But has God aportioned any other piece of the earth to other particular people? What are we to make of Europeans coming to America and displacing First Peoples? Did God mandate North America specially for some and not for others? And if so, where are the vestigal First Peoples to go? Where are people to properly live? Is it a Christian notion that some parts of the earth are off-limits to some people upon equal terms. Surely you don't deny the earth is the birthright of people born upon it? What do you propose?

The economic reason for attaching Hebrew people to the land via the Jubilee mechanism was, of course, to abolish the possibility of economic slavery. So long as people have access to land unobstructed by mere kingly interception of land rent, they have opportunity to make a just living. Slavery consists of having to surrender a portion of the fruits of one's labor not in exchange for a comparable value of the fruits of another's labor, but as the terms for merely being a human being. This is why, in the modern world, the payment to private parties of a portion of the fruits of one's labor for mere access to Creation is at once secular slavery and theological apostasy. We all are the family of God. The earth is our home. Private gain in permitting access to part of family to God's home traduces the equal interest all adults (and their children) have in occupying God's Creation.

2) I utterly defend private property right in things made by people. I suspect that in this regard I am more thorough than you. I asked you what you propose to tax in order to raise public revenue for streets, public health, public education, fire and police protection, etc. I would eliminate the tax on earned income. Would you? If not you are more the Marxist than me. I would eliminate the sales tax because it is a tax on the productions of human beings, a tax on property made by them. Would you eliminate this tax on private property? If not, you are more the Marxist than me.

3) In Scripture we see that every man will enjoy the fruit of his labors. He will not build and another occupy. Taxes upon the value of things and services made by people is equivalent to occupying what another has built. Land rent, in contrast, is not built by the owner of land. The value of land arises expressly out of the aggregate desire desire of community to use a piece of Creation. The market rent of land reflects society's market interest in Creation. Private ownership of socially-created land rent is privileged occupancy of the value created by another. The "another" in this case happemns to be community. Or would you argue that nothing is community's? Indeed, would you argue that community doesn't actually exist? God's family is a fiction? Christian fellowship is a mere ethereal pleasantry?