pelicanweblogo2010

Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 11, No. 3, March 2015
Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor
Home Page

motherpelicanlogo2012


Four Economic Rights:
Social Renewal Through Economic Justice for All


Carmine Gorga


Reprinted from The Distributist Review, 10 January 2008
Originally published in Social Justice Review, January/February 1994
REPRINTED WITH PERMISSION


New Introduction 2015

Hard to think that twenty-one years have gone by since the original publication of this essay. Problems that existed then have only become worse. And they could be incredibly ameliorated if the four economic rights called upon here were systematically implemented.

The fault does not lie with the occasional reader. The fault for lack of implementation of these rights lies with the writer.

Let me try to be more direct then. All economic problems arise from lack of economic justice or, more specifically, from lack of implementation of the following economic rights.

Allow me to put it another way, the converse way. If you want to solve any of the existing economic problems of the day, you have to systematically implement this set of universal unalienable rights that are essential to the life, liberty, and happiness of all citizens of a country.


To realize the importance of the four economic rights examined below, one has to place them in the context of the forces they have to oppose in order to assert themselves. The opponents of rights are not some vague and unidentifiable forces. The opponents of rights are the active forces of privilege. [1] The essential differentiation between rights and privileges is this: Rights unite; privileges divide.

A NATION DIVIDED BY PRIVILEGES

The dynamics of privilege become apparent in nearly every morning newspaper. We know the headlines by rote: this group wants a tax reduction; that group wants an increase in services. The dynamics are all there. Privileges, since they are not due to us, are always acquired to the detriment of other people. Hence the recurring struggle of wills. No issue is ever settled. No one is ever secure about anything.

Based upon such quicksand, there are never enough resources to satisfy the grab for privileges.

Hence, it takes force to extract privileges. But once the privilege is obtained, its use fosters passivity: there is nothing to do but to enjoy the privilege until the next challenger comes around. By then the will and the strength of the user of privilege has generally been so enfeebled that surrender is near. Yet the newly dispossessed will rise again.

A NATION UNITED BY RIGHTS

Rights unite us all. They make us all equal. [2] The magic of rights is this. Once a right is asserted in one particular case, it is asserted for all. (It is the extension of the application of rights that often is a horrendously slow process.) The opposing political will must be broken. The opposing will is more easily broken if the request is advanced in a reasonable fashion, hence the success of nonviolent political movements and if the request makes it absolutely clear that the privileged group is not going to be denied the exercise of the right that is proposed. The right must be universal. Once the opposing will is broken the right is exercised by all and it is exercised actively. As opposed to privileges it takes a continuous act of the will to exercise that right. The right then implies a duty.

FOUR ECONOMIC RIGHTS

As there are four factors of production, namely, land, financial capital, labor and physical capital, so there must be four specific rights of access to those factors otherwise, instead of being productive, as Pope John Paul II points out, we will be marginalized. [3] Rooted in the natural law, these rights can be formulated as follows:

  • the right to share in the bounties of nature,
  • the right to share in the bounties of national credit,
  • the right to own the fruits of one’s creation,
  • the right to protect the fruits of one’s creation.

These four rights, once exercised in full, will renew the very roots of our culture and our civilization. They will work from within existing structures and might allow us to transform the provision of goods and services from the brutal exercise it has lately become into a very spiritual enterprise, as it inherently is.[4]

THE RESOURCES OF THE NATION ARE POTENTIALLY INFINITE

The resources of the nation are potentially infinite. The evidence that this statement is true is overwhelming. [5] The issue therefore is not scarcity, but greed justified by social disorganization. No one knows today what is enough. Consequently one is compelled to accumulate more than one needs. When one does that, one deprives other people of their due because at any one moment resources are finite.

If the social organization is right, everyone knows what is enough. What is enough is what one needs today. If the social organization is right, one can assuredly implement the Gospel’s injunction: “Look at the birds of the air... Consider the lilies of the field... O men of little faith...” The issue then is one of social organization. If the resources of the nation are potentially infinite, everyone has the right of access to them. They are a common good.

But how can society enforce such a right? The issue is not only one of will but also one of reality. Some solutions work, some do not. Some solutions work in one society, at one time; some do not. [6] The solution that seems to be best applicable to the needs of the modern world lies in the use of taxes on land and natural resources. They have to be generally higher than they are today and taxes on buildings and other human activities have to be correspondingly lower.

Owners who do not want to, or think they cannot afford to, pay justly and fairly apportioned taxes on land and natural resources will not be dispossessed; they will simply sell their property and enjoy the fruits of interest on the money obtained in exchange for the transfer of their right of ownership to more capable hands who will make, for instance, the weeds and rubbish filled lots, in too many downtown areas today, bloom. These taxes are effective because they tend to eliminate hoarding, thus opening access to unused resources that ought to be used.

Let us briefly put the issue another way. We all have the duty to pay taxes on our property of land and natural resources. We all have this duty because most of the value of our land and natural resources comes first from God or Nature, if you will and from the community thereafter. A rock in Arizona is worth a pittance; a rock in Manhattan is worth lot. The difference lies in what the community brings to the rock: sewer lines and telephones lines, and on and on.

Correspondingly, we all have a right in this matter. We all have the right to enforce the payment by all of a fair assessment of taxes on land and natural resources because, if one does not pay his fair share of such taxes, all others will have to make up the balance.

THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO NATIONAL CREDIT

/ Either in a positive or negative way, we all contribute to the value of national credit. Therefore, national credit is a common good par excellence. It belongs to all of us.

National credit is a precious resource. From certain points of view it is more precious than natural resources: misuse of natural resources reduces their availability and increases their price. Misuse of national credit reduces the availability and in creases the price of all goods and services. National credit is mostly an untapped resource: what central banks tap is mostly bank credit. Bank credit is created by the savings of a limited number of people; national credit is created by us all.

The use of national credit constitutes one last frontier. We must not mishandle it as we have mishandled so many other frontiers in the past. Properly handled, the use of national credit will function like manna from heaven. It will fuel our creative engines to make us satisfy our immediate as well as our future needs. Properly used it will be just sufficient to our needs. We will always have enough of it.

In-depth consideration of the potential use of national credit leads to the formulation of three essential criteria for its proper use: 1) national credit must be used only to issue loans that are necessary for the creation of new wealth; 2) it must be issued at cost; 3 ) it must be issued to the benefit of all.

The rationale for the first criterion is best seen in the negative. National credit cannot be used to finance the purchase of consumer goods because these goods do not generate the income necessary to repay the loan. National credit cannot be used to finance the purchase of goods that are to be hoarded. National credit cannot be used to finance the purchase of government debt unless the debt is issued to create new wealth. The rationale for the second criterion is easily specified. Interest rates for credit to create new wealth must cover only the cost of administration of the loan instruments and insurance of default risks.

The rationale for the third criterion is more complex. Some people are inept at creating wealth; some do not care about it. We must all pursue our destinies. And we must not become slaves of the creators of wealth in the process. The application of this criterion, rather than a limitation, presents us with a tremendous opportunity. It means that entrepreneurs have to share the ownership of the wealth they create with all those who help them create it: Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and cooperatives are some of the ideal legal instruments that serve to achieve this aim. [7]

THE RIGHT TO OWN THE WEALTH ONE CREATES

If men and women have an indisputable right to own common goods as land and national credit, how much stronger is the right to own the wealth one creates? That is the fundamental premise on which ESOPs and cooperatives rest. They are legal instruments that allow a fair apportionment of the right of ownership over the wealth that employees create in cooperation, of course, with the owners of capital.

Employees are outside contractors. They offer their labor and receive wages. They have no right to the wealth created by the corporation wealth

which includes consumer goods, goods to be hoarded and capital goods. ESOPs and cooperatives change all that. Following an established set of rules and regulations, they transform employees from contractors into stockholders. From outsiders employees become insiders. Employees then become much more efficient workers. Provided ESOPs and cooperatives are not simply window dressing, legal arrangements to cajole the taxman, but in fact do respect the whole person of the employee, they are mostly successful. ESOPs multiplied during the Eighties.

The question is how can ESOPs and cooperatives be made tools of national policy? The answer lies in seeing them not as concessions from existing owners and managers to employees, but as means to give life to universal rights. Three procedures might speed up the tempo of the assertion of this right.

First, when the use of national credit is called upon to assist in the creation of new wealth, the use of ESOPs and cooperatives must be made mandatory. There will still be no compulsion in this practice because those who did not want to extend the right of ownership to their employees would be free to recur to existing, although more expensive, credit channels. The second procedure for a speedy assertion of this right is to link any grant of public money to the expansion of ownership of the resulting wealth to all employees of corporations creating that wealth. The third procedure is to link the vicissitudes of inflation and deflation to the exercise of this right. We all more or less agree that during inflationary periods asking for higher wages adds to the flames of inflation just as during periods of deflation imposing lower wages adds to the ravages of deflation. These negative spirals must be broken. They are generally broken through the exercise of force or the (generally vain) promise of future advantages. How much more reasonable is it to prevent the problems by the use of fundamental rights?

THE RIGHT TO PROTECT WHAT ONE OWNS

Included in the right of ownership of wealth is the right to protect it from outside incursions into its uses and enjoyment. As Pope Leo XIII maintained, the right of property is “sacred and inviolable.” [8] The consequences of this right have been mostly feared and resented by governments and reformers alike. But it is proper and unavoidable. All justification for that fear and resentment will be annihilated once the ownership of wealth becomes not a privilege reserved for the few but a common right for all. To this right corresponds a duty, the duty to respect other people’s property. This set of rights and duties can assume a hundred different manifestations, from trivial to momentous. Perhaps the application that is of utmost importance today regards the buying corporations as if they were “things” and not entities deeply affecting the lives of the people within and without their direct area of influence. This practice produces uncountable horrors.

The practice of corporate aggrandizement has deep roots in human nature. An old example is how hermits became monks and monks created institutions too large for their own good. So new religious orders were created. And the process started anew again and again. We have had more than a century of intense experience to prove that this practice creates havoc in the economic realm. It must be stopped.

Only if we put a stop to this practice, will we protect our civilization from the quick and the cunning. Thousands of years ago, we made a huge stride forward when we decided that the murder of another person was not a private affair. We will make a huge stride forward when we will realize that the buying and selling of corporations is akin to industrial murder. This practice cannot be tolerated. Captains of industry should not operate in a business environment in which the fruits of the labor of many can be gobbled up at the whim of any operator who, with the promise of quick results, gains command of untold financial resources. Our time horizon has to widen beyond the next accounting period; our horizon of concerns has to expand beyond the production of goods and services. What we affect, in the final analysis, is always the life of particular men and women. Since the practice of buying and selling corporations is so ingrained, we cannot hope to put an abrupt stop to it just as we cannot abruptly increase taxes on land and natural resources to the desired level. [9] We must start by imposing this prohibition on a limited number of the largest corporations and gradually extend it to the smaller ones until it reaches a level of reasonableness that is satisfactory to everyone, including lawyers and investment bankers. But industrial murder must be stopped.

AN ORGANIC POLICY

These four rights form the backbone of an organic economic policy that will gradually produce self-reinforcing benefits. The dissolution of the power of privilege that ensues will, of course, require constant vigilance, but it will proceed by its own internal dynamics and thus will direct the whole gamut of problems affecting our world today on the way to a proper solution. There are many ways of demonstrating the validity of this position. The simplest is to expand upon the set of distinctions between rights and privileges outlined at the outset of this discussion.

THE LARGER CONTEXT

In the beginning an attempt was made to place this discussion within the historico-political context. These issues can also be studied from the sociological, teleological and theological viewpoint. It is on this vast ground that we will find the ultimate justification for the suggested policy. Privileges are based on envy, use greed as the engine to set the social dynamics in motion, are extracted through violence or the threat of violence and foster sloth.

Rights are based on self-sufficiency, use self-reliance as the engine to set the social dynamics in motion, are exercised through mutual respect and foster the dignity of the person. What did God — or Nature, or at the limit, our own will — put us on this earth for?

NOTES

[1] The early colonists and those who freely followed them in an ever widening procession from every corner of the world were propelled upon these shores by the same desire: to escape from he iron clasp of privilege.

[2] To be equal does not mean to be identical. To be equal means that no one has privileges. To be equal means that everyone has the same rights.

[3] See, e.g., Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Centesimus Annus (1991) 33. The Welfare State is blind to this reality. Hence, it goes after the symptoms of poverty and compounds the difficulties by trying to establish rights via entitlements. All that is wrong with this shortcut becomes evident only if it is realized that entitlements are not rights. They are privileges masquerading under the cloak of rights.

[4] Is not growing wheat a glorious spiritual exercise? Is not making bread a glorious spiritual exercise? Is not sharing information a glorious spiritual exercise? No. Michelangelo, Rembrandt and Van Gough were not the only human beings blessed with the ability to give so much to all of us. The old lady who sweeps the floor gives us just as much every day. Without her services we would either be compelled to sweep the floor ourselves — God forbid — and so deprive ourselves of the enjoyment of Michelangelo, Rembrandt and Van Gough. Or we would be living in a pile of dirt.

[5] Not only is Einstein’s formula for the conversion of mass into energy assuring us that a grain of sand does indeed contain all he energy that we will ever need. Not only is the sun’s energy falling on a small patch of the Sahara desert capable of producing all the energy that we will ever need. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, as the few positive headlines of this exasperating century shout, are making the desert bloom. Saudi Arabia has become a net exporter of wheat!

[6] In ancient Israel, the solutions that gave access to natural resources to all were essentially two. For the short run, all the uncollected staples belonged to the poor. They had free access to them. For the long run, the institution of the Jubilee was supposed to take care of the fundamental issues: Ownership of the land was to be relinquished every 49 or 50 years and returned to the original owner. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church mostly enforced the rule that all “surplus” wealth legally belonged to the poor. Islamic banking institutions are still fighting against usury, in the face of enervating snickering from the international financial community. Modernity, the Age of Entitlements, has desperately and disastrously tried to enforce a different rule: redistribution of wealth. Some applications of this rule have assumed the form of “land reform”; as if that policy were not unfortunate enough, most have assumed the myriad forms of forced transfers.

[7] For those who are outside the work force and are not yet independently wealthy, traditional and nontraditional channels of charity must be used to achieve the substance — although not the form — of economic justice. This is not to say that the form and substance of economic justice cannot eventually be united in nontraditional policies that will eliminate the need for charily altogether.

[8] Pope Leo III, Encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) 35.

[9] The use of national credit and the expansion of ESOPs and cooperatives are inherently gradual processes, simply because the creation of new wealth is unavoidably a gradual process.

POSTCRIPT

Of course, I have written much more on these issues in the intervening years. And I am writing still more. See, for instance,

Somism: Beyond Individualism and Collectivism Toward a World of Peace and Justice, Mother Pelican, November 2014

Toward the Definition of Economic Rights, Mother Pelican, December 2014

Concordian Economics: Tools to Return Relevance to Economics, Mother Pelican, February 2015

The reader is invited to contribute to this ancient field. However, one thing ought to be clear. The writing project, perhaps, will never finish. It is the work of implementation that has to commence.

Piecemeal implementation has been going on here and there almost forever; it is systemic implementation that is sorely missing.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Carmine Gorga is a former Fulbright scholar and the recipient of a Council of Europe Scholarship for his dissertation on “The Political Thought of Louis D. Brandeis.” Dr. Gorga has transformed the linear world of economic theory into a relational discipline in which everything is related to everything else—internally as well as externally. He was assisted in this endeavor by many people, notably for twenty-seven years by Professor Franco Modigliani, a Nobel laureate in economics from MIT. The resulting work, The Economic Process: An Instantaneous Non-Newtonian Picture, was published in 2002. Dr. Gorga is president of Polis-tics, Inc., a consulting firm in Gloucester, MA, and during the last few years has concentrated his attention on the requirements for the unification of economic theory and policy. He is currently working on a book entitled A New Monetary Order: Based on Rights, not Privilege. For details, see www.carmine-gorga.us.


|Back to TITLE|

Page 1      Page 2      Page 3      Page 4      Page 5      Page 6      Page 7      Page 8      Page 9

Supplement 1      Supplement 2      Supplement 3      Supplement 4      Supplement 5      Supplement 6

PelicanWeb Home Page

Bookmark and Share

"Even if your mouth is crooked,
you must speak what's in your heart."


Korean proverb

GROUP COMMANDS AND WEBSITES

Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the PelicanWeb Home Page

CREATIVE
COMMONS
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
ISSN 2165-9672

Page 4      

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

[groups_small]

Subscribe to the
Mother Pelican Journal
via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: