There really is “nothing new under the sun” including the recent “Occupy” protests regarding the unequal distribution of wealth and property (grossly assuming their public agenda is the same as their hidden agenda). In 1844 George Henry Evans revived the agrarian movement by organizing a political party first called the Agrarian League and later the National Reform Association, and by bringing out again the Working Man’s Advocate, which had been discontinued in 1837. Newspapers generally ignored the new movement until the beginning of 1845, when an article in the January issue of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review provoked a hostile response: (Working Man’s Advocate, February 15, 1845)
“The French Revolution gave rise to singular doctrines. Animated by love of liberty and a hatred of tyranny, anxious to get rid of an effeminate monarchy and develop the true resources and energies of the country, the poorer and middling classes seized the reins of power and France became a republic, and the monarchy was overthrown. During the existence of that republic, France achieved great victories over its enemies and brought forward the most illustrious men the world ever saw; but, instead of profiting by the example of its newborn liberties, the Convention of France was filled with men of violent passions, licentiousness, and furious democracy, who not only desecrated by their cruelties a pure love of liberty but who were constantly bringing forward new and strange theories of government.
One was an agrarian law for an equal distribution of property, or what was then and has since been called “the natural rights of man to property”. We have in this country a class of philosophers of this character who have, from time to time, for many years, pressed their peculiar doctrines upon the people. While confined to mere essays, debates, and lectures, this new philosophy was harmless; but when mingled with the political discussions of the day, and made to assume the form of a principle, and urged as a sound one, it becomes dangerous to the institutions of the country, and men of all parties should unite to PUT DOWN doctrines which strike at the root of the social system because they involve reforms which cannot, without revolution and bloodshed, be carried into effect.
A partisan magazine belonging to this peculiar school, has, in a recent number, broached the doctrine of the natural rights of property in a very elaborate article, and attempts to show that the “conventional laws of property, counteracting the natural laws and the natural rights of man, are among the foremost of the causes of the ignorance, poverty, suffering, and sin which, in all ages, have degraded the masses of mankind”. To enable the writer to carry out this principle, he says, “There is a natural right of property (land), as a natural right of life and liberty – equally conferred by the Creator- belonging to man as man- equally necessary to enable him to accomplish the destiny assigned him* (italics mine). Whatever deprives men of a natural right is a robbery – whoever does it is a robber**. “The earth,” it says, “was created for the subsistence of man; *** by the law of nature **** it is the common patrimony of the race. If, by virtue of his creation as a son of God, every man has a natural essential right to life and liberty, by virtue of the same relation, every man must have a right to equal portion of the earth, or an equivalent, for his subsistence and use.”
This doctrine is based upon the principle of liberty and equality, but this school of philosophers, and they are as old as they are unsuccessful, forget that equality relates to political rights. There shall be no ranks (such as landlords and tenants), no titles, no hereditary principles, no exclusive privileges (some protected to a superfluity of land and others none at all); laws are made for the benefit of all and bind all equally.
This is the equality which is the twin sister of liberty. It is the equality of law, not of property. It is not because A owns a three-story house that B, having none of his own, claims to be proprietor of the adjoining building [or four square city blocks]. By “equality” it is not intended because I own a farm which I have acquired by hard labor that I must divide my farm with a person who probably has neither industry, temperance, nor enterprise to acquire one himself. This “equality” does not imply, as the philosophers imagine, that one man having a dollar must divide that dollar with his neighbor who has none. …
Political liberty is not the parent of equality in the social system, and for this simple reason: the moment man is free to pursue any occupation he pleases, his energy and his intellect are free, and such a man must acquire property, whereas the man without intellect or energy remains poor. Here both are politically equal, but not socially. Would you take from the intelligent and active to give to the indolent? If all men were intellectually endowed alike by nature then there would be something to this equality*****.
Suppose that we should [enact] laws in carrying out such doctrines, to prevent men bequeathing their property to whoever they please, and compel them to leave that property to the public to be equally divided, who would ever exert himself to acquire any property? Who would care for it beyond the wants of the day? This doctrine of “rights of property” is unnatural and unreasonable. It teaches man not to depend upon his own industry and energy but upon the energy and industry of others. Connected with our political discussions, it is wicked and mischievous.
The man without means is at war with himself and with all mankind; he is willing to take what he knows belongs to another, and to accomplish this he becomes radical and revolutionary. The “democracy” of large cities partake already of a portion of this spirit. Men become politicians who are unwilling to labor and, after shouting at the polls and at ward meetings, they demand to be paid in the offices of the people, which probably they have not character to claim nor capacity to fill We must avoid the errors of the French Revolution. Democracy does not mean vandalism.”
*”destiny assigned him” alludes to a philosophy of predestination. This idea directly contradicts God’s plan that his children have free will – the ability to choose for themselves. There is a difference between predestination and preordination. In the former there is no choice. In the latter one fulfills his calling – or doesn’t- according to choices he makes.
**” robber” – in ancient times there was (and still is) a distinct difference between a thief and a robber. A thief is one who steals secretly whereas a robber uses direct force. A thief may be punished by incarceration, remuneration, or having an appendage removed. A robber (to this day) may be killed on sight.
*** “the earth was created for the subsistence of man” – meh, wrong again. According to the Bible, the earth was created as a testing ground for his children to learn obedience and to perfect themselves in order to earn “His many mansions”. The subsistence part was a consequence of Adam & Eve’s transgression. The “subsistence” part was up to Adam! He had to earn his living by “the sweat of his (own) brow”. In fact, Cain, believing as the agrarians (and Occupy protesters) do, was cursed for killing his brother who had worked harder than he was willing to. This “natural right to property” concept should be called “The Cain Theory of Property – What’s Mine is Mine And What’s Yours Is Mine.”
**** “by the laws of nature” – this is where Master Mahan (the Father of All Lies) really excels – in dissembling. He masterfully substitutes the Founding Fathers’ definition of God-given “natural rights” with the Darwinian concept of nature (which has been debunked most intelligently by Darwin’s Doubt author Stephen C. Meyer).
***** “If all men were intellectually endowed alike”. This disparity among human beings has been expounded upon ad nauseam by the Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers.
