18 Clark: apostle of two-factor economics - Part III: nineteenth-century Americas critics

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The,  Nov, 2003  by Kris Feder

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

   Priority of occupation give exclusive and perpetual title to the
   surface of
   a globe on which, in the order of nature, countless generations
   succeed
   each other! Had the men of the last generation any better right to
   the
   use of this world than we of this? or the men of a hundred years ago?
   or
   of a thousand years ago? Had the mound builders, or the cave
   dwellers,
   ... or the generations still further back, who, in dim aeons that we
   can
   think of only as geologic periods, followed each other on the earth
   we
   now tenant for our little day?...We arrive and we depart, guests at a
   banquet continually spread,... passengers from station to station, on
   an
   orb that whirls through space--our rights to take and possess
   cannot be
   exclusive; they must be bounded everywhere by the equal rights of
   others. (71)

As we have seen, in an artificial world with perfect foresight, Clark's model of the ideally efficient economy is equivalent to George's single-tax proposal if, but only if, the rental value of land is expended on behalf of the whole community. Clark denies, however, that individuals have any right to land or its rent except through purchase. "We leave out of account all land obtained by force or fraud," he said. "We limit our studies to the area where real estate is bought and sold like any commodity." (72) Since land cannot be produced, the state can come into possession only by first occupation, by evicting previous occupants, or by purchasing land from previous claimants. Even if the state originally acquired possession by force or fraud, said Clark, that is no reason to deny its present claim:

   In America the government originally held the land. Conceding to
   Indians
   a right of occupation, it extinguished that right by a series of
   treaties. If
   there was injustice in the manner in which this was done,--and there
   is
   no need of denying that there was,--the responsibility for it rests
   on the
   state as a whole, and would not be righted by further seizures by the
   government
   which was the offending party. (73)

Clark did not say or who or what "the state" is understood to be, or explain how competing claims are to be adjudicated, If multiple groups lay claim to the same territory, his theory gives no indication as to which represents the legitimate government. Although he insisted that democratic governments generally do act on behalf of the public interest, he imposes no requirement that they do so to earn legitimacy. Moreover, though the state is the "original" owner of land, it commits no injustice by giving land to privileged individuals. The state has the absolute right to sell or give exclusive land rights to whomsoever it pleases for any reason or whim. Whether the motive is to reward political allies or to promote the general welfare; whether the action is purposeful or capricious--all transfers of land to persons are permissible, perpetual, and irrevocable, in Clark's view. Whenever the state alienates land to a private owner, absolute rights are transferred, and the state is thereafter prohibited from infringing on the absolute right of the private landowner. The individual owner, of course, may in turn sell, give or bequeath his property to any other individual or to the state. (74)