“. . . If we do not restore the Institution of Property, we cannot escape restoring the Institution of Slavery; there is no third course.” Hilaire Belloc – 1912
I have just about had it with intrusive governmental regulations (such as building permits, construction codes, city ordinances, impact fees, and the like) on private property.
When I say “private,” I mean a personal residence or land that is controlled by a person or family to which the general public has no open or invited access.
I understand that companies who own their buildings and the land upon which they sit can be private as well, but I am only referring to “non-public-none-of-your-business-what-I-build-or-what -I-do-on-my own-property,” private property.
This post is a simple but compelling introduction to one of the most private property-oriented writers of the 19th and 20th centuries, Hilaire Belloc.
Belloc has some very revealing things to say about property and the means of production. I have only included a selection from Section One, but it should be enough to arouse your concern if you will but compare what he says, to our current status as the dying bred called “property owners.”
Man, like every other organism, can only live by the transformation of his environment to his own use. He must transform his environment from a condition where it is less to a condition where it is more subservient to his needs.
That special, conscious, and intelligent transformation of his environment, which is peculiar to the peculiar intelligence and creative faculty of man, we call the Production of Wealth.
Wealth is matter, which has been consciously and intelligently transformed from a condition in which it is less to a condition in which it is more serviceable to a human need.
Without Wealth man cannot exist. The production of it is a necessity to him, and though it proceeds from the more to the less necessary, and even to those forms of production which we call luxuries, yet in any given human society there is a certain kind and a certain amount of wealth without which human life can not be lived: as, for instance, in England today, certain forms of cooked and elaborately prepared food, clothing, warmth, and habitation.
Therefore, to control the production of wealth is to control human life itself. To refuse man the opportunity for the production of wealth is to refuse him the opportunity for life; and, in general, the way in which the production of wealth is by law permitted is the only way in which the citizens can legally exist.
Wealth can only be produced by the application of human energy, mental and physical, to the forces of nature around us, and to the material, which those forces inform.
This human energy so applicable to the material world and its forces we will call Labour.
As for that material and those natural forces, we will call them for the sake of shortness, by the narrow, but conventionally accepted, term Land.
It would seem, therefore, that all problems connected with the production of wealth, and all discussions thereupon, involve but two principal original factors, to wit, Labour and Land.
But it so happens that the conscious, artificial, and intelligent action of man upon nature, corresponding to his peculiar character compared with other created beings, introduces a third factor of the utmost importance.
Man proceeds to create wealth by ingenious methods of varying and often increasing complexities, and aids himself by the construction of implements. These soon become in each new department of the production as truly necessary to that production as Labour and Land. Further, any process of production takes a certain time; during that time the producer must be fed, and clothed, and housed, and the rest of it.
There must therefore be an Accumulation of Wealth created in the past, and reserved with the object of maintaining labour during its effort to produce for the future.
Whether it be the making of an instrument or tool, or the setting aside of a store of provisions, labour applied to land for either purpose is not producing wealth for immediate consumption.
It is setting aside and reserving somewhat, and that somewhat is always necessary in varying proportions according to the simplicity or complexity of the economic society to the production of wealth.
To such wealth reserved and set aside for the purposes of future production, and not for immediate consumption, whether it be in the form of instruments and tools, or in the form of stores for the maintenance of labour during the process of production, we give the name of Capital.
There are thus three factors in the production of all human wealth, which we may conventionally term Land, Capital, and Labour.
When we talk of the means production we signify land and capital combined. Thus, when we say that a man is “dispossessed of the means of production,” or cannot produce wealth save by the leave of another who “possesses the means of production,” we mean that he is the master only of his labour and has no control, in any useful amount, over either capital, or land, or both combined.
A man politically free, that is, one who enjoys the right before the law to exercise his energies when he pleases (or not at all if he does not so please), but not possessed by legal right of control over any useful amount of the means of production, we call proletarian, and any considerable class composed of such men we call a proletariat.
Property is a term used for that arrangement in society whereby the control of land and of wealth made from land, including therefore all the means of production, is vested in some person or corporation.
Thus we may say of a building, including the land upon which it stands, that is the “property” of such and such a citizen, or family, or college, or of the state, meaning that those who “own” such property are guaranteed by the laws in the right to use it or withhold it from use.
Private property signifies such wealth (including the means of production) as may, by the arrangements of society, be in the control of persons or corporations other than the political bodies of which these persons or corporations are in another aspect members.
What distinguishes private property is not that the possessor thereof is less than the State, or is only a part of the State (for were that so we should talk of municipal property as private property), but rather that the owner may exercise his control over it to his own advantage, and not as a trustee for society, nor in the hierarchy of political institutions.
Thus Mr. Jones is a citizen of Manchester, but he does not own his private property as a citizen of Manchester, he owns it as Mr. Jones, whereas, if the house next to his own be owned by the Manchester municipality, they own it only because they are a political body standing for the whole community of the town. Mr. Jones might move to Glasgow and still own his property in Manchester, but the municipality of Manchester can only own its property in connection with the corporate political life of the town.
An ideal society in which the means of production should be in the hands of the political officers of the community we call Collectivist, or more generally Socialist.
A society in which private property in land and capital, that is, the ownership and therefore the control of the means of production, is confined to some number of free citizens not large enough to determine the social mass of the State, while the rest have not such property and are therefore proletarian, we call Capitalist; and the method by which wealth is produced in such a society can only be the application of labour, the determining mass of which must necessarily be proletarian, to land and capital, in such fashion that, of the total wealth produced, the Proletariat which labours shall only receive a portion.
The two marks, then, defining the Capitalist State are: (1) That the citizens thereof are politically free: i.e. can use or withhold at will their possessions or their labour, but are also (2) divided into capitalist and proletarian in such proportions that the State as a whole is not characterised by the institution of ownership among free citizens, but by the restriction of ownership to a section markedly less than the whole, or even to a small minority.
Such a Capitalist State is essentially divided into two classes of free citizens, the one capitalist or owning, the other property-less or proletarian.
My last definition concerns the Servile State itself, and since the idea is both somewhat novel and also the subject of this book, I will not only establish but expand its definition. The definition of the Servile State is as follows: “That arrangement of society in which so considerable a number of the families and individuals are constrained by positive law to labour for the advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp the whole community with the mark of such labour we call THE SERVILE STATE.”
[When he says “labor for the advantage of other families and persons,” he means being an employee. In other words, when the vast majority of the population works for someone else, that he is calling a “Servile State.” This is a topic of huge discussion at Monticello College and has a lot to do with our unique campus environment.]
11 Responses
When I moved to Danbury New Hampshire there were no permits required to build a home. We cut our own trees and eventualy constructed a log home. We did our own plumbing and it never leaked untill we got a professional to put in a shower, his work was the only pipes that leaked. Twent five years later we decided to add on to our home. The town required a blueprint of our addition before they would approve it. Things have changed in our little town. Counties are also using tax money to buy up old farms and land and then hoarding the land. Property tax is going through the roof. The elderly are losing their homes because they cannot pay the inflated tax. Socailism has spread like a wild fire thropughout the state of New Hampshire. It is so sad to see the elderly asking for more socialsim in order to combat the socialsitic
principles that have caused so much havoc.
Gene F. Danforth
Danbury, N.H.
Gene,
Nice to hear from you. If you haven’t read The Servile State, I highly recommend it. In fact, why don’t you get a group together read it in advance, invite them altogether and discuss it over dinner?
What an eye opening piece. Besides educating ourselves, our families and friends, how else do combat the rampant disappearance of true private property and the employee mentality? I’m not sure I’m ready to be Ghandi but it seems that that is what is it’s going to take to awaken people and shift the tide away from the servile state to the free state.
Eli,
Read the book, it will really open your eyes!
My family recently purchased a home with 5 acres of land. We were so excited to start working the land, putting in an orchard, garden and animal enclosures. We soon found out that in order to cut our trees on our private land we would need permits costing about $1000. As soon as the county found out we had enquired about our land use and permits, an agent was dispatched to our property to make sure nothing was done without approval. The county then decided that because we had a natural water source (pond) we could cut not a single tree of any type within 150 feet of the pond! What about select cutting of dead trees or improvements? Not allowed, we must let the trees grow, die and fall over naturally within the water source boundary! The county has since dispatched the same agent three times to tresspass on my private land to make certian we adhear to the laws. I wish we were not strangled by such ridiculous laws! I feel this article speaks to me as I wish to make my land productive and gain wealth thereby!
Anne,
I am so sorry. What a way to diminish a dream. As you know, I am very familiar with the area, so beautiful. And of course, everything grows back so fast…..really, what is the problem?
There is no problem, except that government thrives on control.
Where does Anne live? I haven’t run into that much regulation as a land owner and hope i never do. we farm and use our land to create wealth. Before that happens I intend to make sure that our county commissioners are aware of how i feel about rules and regs.
Anne lives in Washington State.
I struggle with this a bit. I certainly don’t want government interference when it comes to what I want to do with my land. However, I find I have less struggle with government restrictions when it comes to my neighbors. A lot of rules and regulations come into place because of the actions of short sighted individuals.
Doug,
I get it. I have had the neighbors with 9 cars (many of them junkers) parked on the lawn and piles of garbage everywhere. It was an eyesore, it smelled, and as it was considered a community nuisance, the city stepped in and force the people to clean it up or erect a fence. This impacted the community at large.
But if my neighbors house falls down or is unsafe, or if they cut trees down or build a pond or train dogs is not my immediate concern until it impacts my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Neither should it be the concern of the government.
I just can’t come to grips with a government that tells me what to do in own personal life. Ok, I may sell my house someday, but safe housing is still the responsibility of the individual.
I have owned 5 houses. I build one of those. In all 5 cases, I cared enough about the safety of my family that I had the home inspected and ensured that all was safe according to industry standards.
While building a home, I was there for virtually every phase of the construction. I did not blindly trust the contractor, but I did so much study regarding safe construction practices that I nearly got a contractors license to ensure that the house was built safe.
I believe that it is my responsibility to ensure that my family will be safe, not the government’s. And that the nature of government is to expand and grow. Are there things that the government can do better that I can? Yes, absolutely, but that is a short list and should rarely be added to.