Get the Jefferson T-Shirt Here!
by Tom Woods
Someone on my Facebook fan page asked about a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison on October 28, 1785. The person said his leftist friends were waving this letter around as evidence that Jefferson was some kind of semi-socialist wealth redistributionist. I contacted my friend Marco Bassani, professor at the University of Milan and author of the excellent book Liberty, State, and Union: The Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson. One of the major points in that book is that Jefferson was in fact a Lockean natural-rights thinker who conceived of property rights as natural, not conventional (i.e., government-granted).
Here’s the letter in question, and what follows is Professor Bassani’s reply.
First of all one has to understand that Thomas Jefferson was not Locke, Hobbes, or Marx: inconsistencies are to be found here and there, especially in private correspondence. His correspondence with Madison in particular is full of these things. The letter is TJ to James Madison, 28 Oct. 1785, Papers 8:681-82.
He is writing from Paris to his friend Madison, whom he believes to be too conservative.
He meets a poor woman and gives her some money for telling him directions. “This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe” [emphasis added]. He is not talking about the U.S., or speaking in general. He just sees the Revolution coming and speculates about wealth. Thus:
The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands…. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured.
Nothing socialist so far.
I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one.
This is the only measure he actually always and consistently favored.
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
Jefferson is stating a means, not saying he agrees with such an extreme measure. In fact, he always opposed it, having written that the tax system must “be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare [give] to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’ If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all [of his kin] in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it. (Thomas Jefferson, Note in Destutt de Tracy’s Political Economy, 1816.)
To continue with Jefferson’s letter to Madison:
Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
All this is a revisit of John Locke, especially the “Lockean proviso” we find in Locke’s Second Treatise. In the state of nature, Locke held, a stringent condition that must be met in order for the acquisition of previously unowned property to be considered just was that following the appropriation, there must be “at least…enough, and as good left in common for others.” Thus Locke:
As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property…. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth—i.e., improve it for the benefit of life and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that, in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled, and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him.
Taken at face value, the Lockean proviso would result in a complete prohibition of appropriation in the state of nature. As Murray Rothbard has pointed out, “Locke’s proviso may lead to the outlawry of all private ownership of land, since one can always say that the reduction of available land leaves everyone else, who could have appropriated the land, worse off.”
Jefferson’s assertions concerning land and the sovereignty of the present generation is nothing more than an extension of the limits on exploitation set by Locke. Putting property to good use (a prohibition against waste) and the Lockean proviso (appropriation of goods without causing a deterioration in the condition of others) are restrictions that hold in the relations between generations.
Generations stand facing one another, as do whole nations or individuals in the state of nature. Therefore, the law of nature regulates their relations. It is the duty of a generation to leave land “enough and as good” for the following generations. This is evidently an extension of the proviso, because the properties are the same. One’s own successors do not enjoy a generic right to unexplored lands, but to the specific property already owned by their parents. Just as the new generations have the right to get property that is not burdened with debts, so also the “others,” those who do not participate in that specific appropriation, have exactly the same right to enjoy land “enough and as good” in the Lockean state of nature. Similarly, property cannot be exploited and destroyed, jeopardizing the future of the coming generations. Waste is not countenanced by the law of nature.
The sovereignty of the present generation can thus be defined as the right to receive a world in which the present has not been mortgaged by the ancestors. Every nineteen years, according to Jefferson’s calculations (which were based on the mortality tables formulated by Georges Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon), a generation comes into the world. This generation has the right to a fresh start, whereas the one that preceded it had the duty not to destroy the world in which the present generation must live. It is a radical Lockean outlook, not a pseudosocialist one.
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., [visit his website] a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is the author of eleven books, most recently Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, as well as the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. He is also the editor of five other books, including the just-released Back on the Road to Serfdom.
Most unheard of RT @RonPaul_2012 Was Jefferson a Socialist? http://t.co/icqF2Svf #tbot #RonPaul
@RonPaul_2012 Was Hamilton a bastard, facist from revolutionary Europe?? [touting "DEBT CURRENCY"]
@_BobKampe royalist was probably a better term for Hamilton..
@RonPaul_2012 nope!!!!
Pls refudiate RT @IRCReport Was Jefferson a Socialist? http://t.co/G0c6sGAe
Socialism lite RT @10thComm Was Jefferson a Socialist? http://t.co/Kxedeevm
I think….perhaps you should qualify your term Socialist/Socialism. Then we can better see if T.J. fits your idea of what a socialist is. T.J. promoted Agrarianism and Sustainability..
Thomas Jefferson was the farthest individual from socialism by his contributions and examples alone, to refuse to acknowledge this is personal blindness.
No man in the history of men have ever contributed a better foundation by which to decide from in all of history. Some claim the bible is, but I have fully assured myself no better documented truths and statements were made so clearly as his original draft. In fact the truths removed were evidence our enemy lived well within our ranks then as they do today and the enemy has not changed and has created no different results. In fact in all of my life I have never met or read or heard of anyone with more passion in a man than Thomas Jefferson, a man, a life of genuine respect for self delivered to all others in all honesty without waiver on a foundation that was solid as a rock. He lived life as best he discovered it and passed it along for others to recognize it.
I recognized this because when I found myself and found the Declaration of Independence he was speaking directly to me. I knew full well he was being entirely honest and the light that turned on inside from that point on has not dimmed one iota, not one.
I can only hope as he did others will recognize what he showed us, but so few have but there is still hope isn’t there?
Life, learn to love it by answering the question of what he meant by life in this document because it truly is the answer and is the exact reason we have a Constitution at all.
Genuinely
William Schooler
A Producing American by such a choice.
I Agree with Mr. Tom Woods, in all the reading I have done by Thomas Jefferson all I have ever located was genuine observed truths that anybody could experience should they actually attempt. In fact in all truths I have read he pointed out I could verify which I found phenomenal. I got he was a great observer and one who was willing to experience many things around him to absorb this and use in his determinations.
For me his original writing of the Declaration of Independence and I do not care where he got his information from, was confirmed in his own mind by his own experiences as validation. He knew full well he was life and not above life and recognized no other was above life as well. He discovered this over 200 years ago and look at the population today and still we walk in blindness.
His whole basis is of his best experience as Life, living, experiencing and observing its effects and its causes. The Declaration of Independence is built entirely around the understanding of life, that life was capable of serving all other life should the decision be made or it would corrupt itself and end up where we are. In fact he stated the end before we got here, It has been personally hard that so few have got this from a good man who was good to him and shared nothing but is own goodness to others. A contributor to life itself with no high expectations but rather a hope good choice would be made by what he documented and presented to the world but mostly to Americans to learn to be such an example as the one in which he himself was. Again so few got it and here we are baring the weight of all his warnings because of it with no one to blame but ourselves.
No he was not a socialist. He was a slave owning plantation owner. It would be interesting to trace the land ownership of the early colonies back to Royal land grants and see how a landed gentry was empowered by unnatural government means.
This generation has the right to a fresh start, whereas the one that preceded it had the duty not to destroy the world in which the present generation must live. I’m gonna use this in my journey to give my generation a voice.
A LESSON IN POLITICS:
Big Gov’t = Socialism.
Crony Capitalism = Socialism.
ObamaCare = Socialism.
Stimlus Packages = Socialism.
Bailouts = Socialism.
Cap n Trade = Socialism.
“Green” Energy Gov’t Funds = Socialism.
Brudensome EPA Regulations = Socialism.
Targetted Tax Breaks = Socialism.
Mediaid = welfare = Socialism.
Net Neutrality = Socialism.
Dodd-Frank = Socialism.
Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants = Socialism.
Tax Breaks/Credits for Corporations = Socialism.
Too Big to Fail = Socialism.
Lobbying by Special Interests = Socialism.
Revolving Door for Politicos to K St = Socialism.
Massive $15 Trillion Debt = Socialism.
Elitests who think they can run and control our Lives = SOCIALISTs.
Any Questions?
Thomas Jefferson said that he was a “Christian”.
It was never in the park.
Of course those that claim to be socialist believe that, its because they don’t understand Jefferson and that is evident all over the place with people that try and adapt that of today to those times which are completely irrelevant in the misuse of words that have been miss interpreted all for political correctness.
@ justin.. latest figures in fed, state and local govt debt = 56 trillion..over three trillion in interest every 12 months.. way over what the GDP can p/o in ours, our children or our great grand childrens generation..let us not under-state the damage
Anarcho-syndicalism RT @politicalthhoo Was Jefferson a Socialist? – Tenth Amendment Center http://t.co/SmLx5qS0