[Campaignforrealdemocracy] Democracy, Justice, Community, Trust

[Dave Wetzel]

I'd welcome your comments.

Dave
Davewetzel42 at googlemail.com
Justice - or injustice?

*Dave Wetzel*

We all have our own personal interpretation of how “justice” can be
achieved.

Often “justice” is interpreted in a very narrow legal sense and only in
reference to the judicial system, which has been designed to protect the
status quo.

That isn’t to say we do not require a legal framework, which resolves
issues, such as:
· the international relationships of Governments
· the regulation of business and trade and the certainty needed in agreeing
contracts and commercial relationships
· the compliance with Government rules and regulations
· the safeguarding of civil liberties
· protection from criminals
· employment rights or
· the settlement of civil disputes.

Of course, all citizens (and subjects in the UK) need to know exactly what
are the legal boundaries within which their society operates.

But just suppose those original rules are unfair and unjust. Then the legal
framework, being used to perpetuate an injustice does not make that
injustice moral and proper even if within the rules of jurisprudence it is
“legal”.

Obvious examples of this dislocation between immoral laws and natural
justice is South Africa’s former policy of apartheid; the USA’s former
segregated schools and buses; discrimination based on race, religion,
disability or sex; slavery; the oppression of women; Victorian Britain’s use
of child labour and colonialism. All these policies were “lawful” according
to the legal framework of their day but that veneer of legality did not make
these policies righteous and just.

Any society built on a basis of injustice will be burdened down with its own
predisposition towards self-destruction.

Even the most suppressed people will one-day demand justice, rise up and
overthrow their oppressors.

Human survival demands justice. Wherever slavery or dictatorship has been
installed, history shows that eventually justice will triumph and a more
democratic and fairer system will replace it. It is therefore safe to
predict that wherever slavery or dictatorship exists today – it will be
superseded by a fairer and more just system.

If we know there is injustice, should we merely wait for a violent response?
Do we not have a duty to seek fairness, because it is right and because we
value justice and the freedom it brings?

Similarly, let’s consider our distribution of natural resources.

By definition, natural resources are not made by human effort. Our planet
offers every inhabitant a bounty – an amazing treasure chest of wealth that
can supply all our needs for food, shelter and every aspect for our
survival.

Surely, “justice” demands that this natural wealth should be equally
available to all and that nobody should starve, be homeless, unemployed,
exploited or suffer poverty simply because they are excluded from tapping in
to this enormous wealth that nature has provided.

It obviously would be totally impractical for every person to have complete
personal access to every part of the planet, to every mineral deposit, to
every fertile field, to every city centre office site or every desirable
residential location beside a river or an ocean. But as soon as two people
want to enjoy the benefits of the same part of the planet that only one can
enjoy – a system of distributing nature’s gifts has to be devised.

In the past, this has been resolved by the physically, mentally, militarily
strongest, the most cunning or the first settlers claiming possession. Much
of our current ownership of land and natural resources descends from this
obviously unjust method of distribution.

If our whole economy, with the private possession of land and other natural
resources is built upon an injustice – then can any of us really be
surprised that we live on a planet where wars continue to predominate,
intolerance is common, crime is rife and where poverty and starvation is the
norm for a huge percentage of earth’s population.

Is this inherited system really the best we can do?

There must be a method for fairly utilising the earth’s natural resources.

Referring to the rebuilding of Iraq in last month’s speech to the American
Congress, Tony Blair stated “We promised Iraq democratic Government. We will
deliver it. We promised them the chance to use their oil wealth to build
prosperity for all their citizens, not a corrupt elite. We will do so”.

Thus, Tony Blair recognises the difference between political justice in the
form of a democratic Government and economic justice in the form of sharing
natural resources.

We have not heard any dissenting voice from this promise to share Iraq’s
natural oil wealth for all the people of Iraq to enjoy the benefits. But if
it is so obviously right and proper for the Iraqi people to share their
natural wealth – why is it not the practice to do the same in all nations?

No landowner can create land values. They do not create the valuable
minerals that lie under the soil; neither do they create the land value that
arises from the natural fertility of the land, the value of sites with
beautiful views of countryside, rivers or oceans nor the site value in the
centre of busy cities.

If this were the case, then an entrepreneurial landowner in the Scottish
Highlands would be able to create more value than an indolent landowner in
the City of London.

No! Land values arise because of natural advantages (e.g. local climatic
conditions or approximity to natural harbours), they also rise because of
the efforts of the whole community - past and present investment by both the
public and private sectors, and the activities of individuals. Why do we not
assume as our birthright the sharing of these land values, which are as much
a gift of nature and probably in most western economies are worth much more
than Iraqi oil?

A solution exists. The introduction of a Land Value Tax would produce many
benefits. Each site would be valued, based on its optimum permitted use and
a levy applied – a similar method to Britain’s commercial rates on buildings
but based solely on the land value and ignoring improvements or the size and
condition of any existing building.

The effect of this policy would be to give all citizens a share in the
natural wealth of their own nation.

Gordon Brown was working on these lines when he auctioned the rental value
of the spectrum for third generation mobile phones for twenty years, and
raised £22.4billion for public funds, paid voluntarily by the phone
companies. This policy works on exactly the same principle as the Land value
tax and of course future generations will be able to raise fresh funds every
20 years as these spectrum leases come up again and again for regular
renewal.

If the Government extends this principle to all common resources by
introducing a Land value tax they could use this flow of income to abolish
all other property taxes on buildings (including commercial rates, stamp
duty and Council Tax). This additional revenue could also pay for the
building of new infrastructure which adds to the nation’s wealth (such as
railways) or more importantly to reduce those other taxes which most damage
our economy (such as vat) and are a burden to collect.

With a Land value tax, empty sites would be brought into use as landowners
sought an income from idle or underused land, the purchase price of land
(and hence homes and commercial premises) would become more affordable,
reduced interest rates would not create a housing boom and the property
cycle of booms and slumps would be evened out.

Because it’s based on land; an immovable property; the Land value tax would
be cheap to collect and impossible to avoid. With annual valuations it would
be fair for landowners (even automatically compensating those landowners
whose land, for some reason, has decreased in value), it would help reduce
the North/South divide; and, by encouraging better use of brownfield sites,
the propensity for urban sprawl would be diminished and thus our countryside
and invaluable urban green field spaces would be better protected.

It is an injustice that landowners can speculate on empty sites, denying or
delaying their use for jobs or homes.

It is an injustice that a factory owner can sack all their workers, smash
the roof of their building to let in the rain and be rewarded with
elimination of their rates bill.

It is an injustice that the poorest residents pay the highest share of their
incomes in Council Tax.

It is an injustice that housing tenants receive no share in the land value
appreciation that their very presence creates.

It is an injustice that most people are denied their legitimate share of the
earth’s resources.

The Land Value Tax is a simple way to start addressing one of the world’s
greatest injustices.

2009/6/9 Robin Smith <robinsmith3 at googlemail.com>

> Dear All,
>
> Thank you for introducing me to the meaning of real democracy last
> night, it was entirely rewarding. My parting questions still stand:
>
> "Is democracy without justice worth having ? Are democracy and justice
> mutually inclusive activities? Must democracy come before justice ?
> What would the people rather have, democracy or justice? Both are
> ideal but what is the reality ?". Am I being too deep here???
>
> The term "community" fascinated me too. Is the following text the
> language you might have been looking for when describing the term
> community ?
>
> "A primitive tribe may not produce much wealth, but all members are
> capable of an independent life. Each shares all the knowledge
> possessed by the tribe. They know the habits of animals, birds, and
> fishes. They can make their own shelter, clothing, and weapons. In
> short, they are all capable of supplying their own wants. The
> independence of all of the members makes them free contracting parties
> in their relations with the community."
>
> If these words inspire you the full chapter and entire book can be found
> here:
> http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp23.htm
>
> Isn't it true that we have all belonged to a community possessing
> ultimate democracy and justice? Our Family. This community does not
> have to create a debt risk to function. It works on trust using pure
> credit. No constitution is required. Is greater trust therefore the
> key to the re-establishment of a just and functioning democratic
> society ?
>
> Looking forward to meeting again soon.
>
> Brgds
> Robin.
>
> --
> Economics Comment
> http://gco2e.blogspot.com/
>
> Work
> http://www.systemicfiscalreform.org/
>
> About Me
> http://fon.gs/robinsmithme/
>



-- 
Best Wishes,

Dave

Dave Wetzel – CEO
"Transforming Communities".
Sustainable Transport Policies ▪ Public Finance with Social Inclusion ▪
Affordable Housing ▪ Economic Land Policies with Justice.

Tel: 0208 568 9004
Intl:+44 208 568 9004

Mobile/Cellphone: 07715 32 29 26
Intl: +44 7715 32 29 26

e-mail: davewetzel42 at googlemail.com

40 Adelaide Terrace. Great West Road.
Brentford. LONDON. TW8 9PQ. UK
Web: www.LabourLand.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/campaignforrealdemocracy/attachments/20090609/71361702/attachment-0001.htm>