Thomas Jefferson's observations October 28, 1785

[BanzaiBonnie]

DEAR SIR,

-- Seven o’clock, and retired to my fireside, I have determined to enter into conversation with you. This is a village of about 15,000 inhabitants when the court is not here, and 20,000 when they are, occupying a valley through which runs a brook and on each side of it a ridge of small mountains, most of which are naked rock. The King comes here, in the fall always, to hunt. His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps; but as this is not indispensably required and my finances do not admit the expense of a continued residence here, I propose to come occasionally to attend the King’s levees, returning again to Paris, distant forty miles. This being the first trip, I set out yesterday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, to the top of which was about a league.

As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. 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.


The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason 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 undisturbed only for the sake 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 labored. 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. 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 or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor 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.


http://www.per-fidem.org/mobile/bookshelf/tjwealth.html

[ashling]

1. Thomas Jefferson

socialist. :sarcasm: :shrug:

[truedelphi]

2. Thank you for posting this.

During the period leading up to the French Revolution, beginning in 1770 or so, some 350 millions of francs were looted and swindled by various economic maneuvers into the pockets of nobility and the Church.

Since we count our money by the Billions and trillions, due to inflation, it might not even seem worth mentioning.

But it was indeed, for those times, a grand heist of the wealth of the nation.

And eventually the entire nation could take no more. We call it a "revolution." But in many ways, the activities resulting were more along the lines of a Civil War.

First one faction gained power and went through an area, and executed one group of people. Then eighteen months to three years later another group would come into power and the other group of people would be executed.

Estimates of how many died are in the millions. There was no TV, of course, or radio, so the recordings of what went on were few and far between. In many people's minds today, it was all about "liberte, equalite and fraternite" but in reality it was total destruction of society.

Any one or any group who believes that there are no consequences to what is happening in American society today, or to the fact that this nation is now an oligarchy, with vast disparities in wealth, with huge amounts of money -with estimates being between nine to thirty trillions of dollars, looted and swindled away, that person(s) better be aware of history.

We know from Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, that any time the Milton Friedman theories of University of Chicago strategies for an economy, you end up with a junta, as we saw in Chile and Argentina, or else a Mafia-style government such as has prevailed in the old Soviet Union.

But this nation could go the way of the French revolution as well.

[BanzaiBonnie]

10. I really hope not

But the hand behind the curtain is amping up the hatred. I've been watching the pot being brought to a boil for about 20 years. I'm thinking the plans were in the making many years before that.

[truedelphi]

21. My old drama teacher, early seventies, she said that

"Great things are planned for this nation." She always said it with a sardonic inflection.

She was totally convinced that we were going to head intoa Chilean-junta style of government.

But I think Nixon resigning might have saved us from that.

So it has taken them (And I include the Bush crime family into that "them") a bit longer, but I do think they want total chaos here.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

3. Did you see the sign that said he and Ben Franklin were right wing extremists?

Whoever wrote that shit has never read a word this man has ever written.
I want to punch them in the face and pluck out their eye balls. They aren't using them anyway.
Duckie

[IndyPragmatist]

4. Jefferson would be a libertarian today

The only thing he says in that entire story that goes against the current libertarian platform was to have progressive taxation of land. However, he brings it completely back to his libertarian roots soon enough with his statement of earth as a common stock. Additionally, if you look at how the federal government was funded at the time, you realize that his statement about land tax isn't far still completely against libertarianism. There was no income tax, property taxes were one of the few sources of revenue.

Also, Liberalism of the 18th century (up to really the mid 20th century) is what we now call Libertarianism. Liberalism is freedom. Jefferson was very clear that he was a liberal. It's just that we don't use that word in nearly the same way as he did.

[mod mom]

12. Nice try, but read his words:

"Whenever there are 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 labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. "

doesn't sound anything like the libertarians I come in contact with.

[IndyPragmatist]

13. Sounds extremely libertarian to me

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on" That is classic libertarian (or liberal) philosophy. It may not sound like the individuals who claim to be Libertarians, but it is exactly Libertarian theory. Jefferson is saying that everyone should have equal access and rights to land. Very libertarian.

I got a minor in Political Theory. I've read most of Jefferson's works. I've read so much of Bentham, Hayek, Locke, Kant, Mill, Madison, Marx, Keynes, as well as the classics in Socrates and Plato. My favorite to read was Jefferson and Mill. Their writings were so enjoyable to read. I can assure you, Jefferson was a liberal, which would be a libertarian today.

But thank you for responding to my comment. I was amazed that nobody had said anything about it considering the other comments in the thread.

[mod mom]

14. "we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. "

That sounds libertarian?

[IndyPragmatist]

16. Yes it does

He is saying that we should not allow others to control the resources that should be available to all. If there is land that is not being used, then he believes that any man should have the right to farm that land to support himself (as long as they are white, of course). He did not like the government selling large parcels of land to those who would do nothing except hold onto it and charge others for its use.

[IndyPragmatist]

17. Here is a quote from Mill that is nearly identical

"The land is the original inheritance of mankind. The usual, and by far the best argument for its appropriation by individuals is that private ownership gives the strongest motive for making the so loyal yield the greatest possible produce. But this argument is only valid for leaving to the owner the full enjoyment of whatever value he adds to the land by his own exertions and expenditure." - John Stuart Mill

Maybe the way Jefferson worded it in his letter to Madison made it seem like he wasn't true to his classical liberalism roots, but he in fact was. One thing I have found, Jefferson was consistent on everything except for slavery.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Thomas Jefferson - owner of hundreds of slaves at that time.

So what he writes is meaningless.

[RevStPatrick]

6. That's just silly...

Under your standard, anything anyone writes would be meaningless, because we are all flawed.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Yet the OP suggestion

was that somehow this slave-owner had some sort of empathy for those lesser than himself as he supposedly (and paternalistically) "throws a bone" to a "disadvantaged" woman and bemoans her outcast state.

What is that clarion call catch-phrase endlessly touted on DU about "speeches" vs "actions" and intent? Apparently a free pass only applies to wealthy white land-owning slavers. :crazy:

[RevStPatrick]

8. I rail against the big banks all the time...

Yet, I have my checking account at the local Chase, mainly because it's the only bank nearby, and it costs me nothing. I know the people who work there, and they're all very nice and helpful and they are my neighbors. Yet, I know I am a hypocrite. I could put my money in the credit union 4 miles away, and pay ATM fees every time I need cash. But I don't.

What sort of major hypocrisy do you engage in?
Because we all do.

Jefferson lived in a different time, and can be forgiven his hypocrisy, because people didn't quite understand yet what they were doing regarding slavery. It was only beginning to be thought of as the horrible institution that it was. That's part of our social evolution.

In time, people will look back at your life and say something like "Can you BELIEVE that lady burned FOSSIL FUELS!?!? Now that we know it is the blood of organism earth, those vampires were just horrible people!!!"

Or some such...

[AverageJoe90]

18. Amen to all that. n/t

[AngkorWot]

15. owning slaves = forgivable every day flaw

Stay classy, Rev

[RevStPatrick]

19. It's not an everyday flaw in the 21st Century.

In the 18th Century, it was considered normal, even noble to own slaves.
We can't judge people from hundreds of years ago using ONLY our standards for judging people of today.

But you knew that, you just wanted something to bitch about.
There's a lot of that going around today...

[BanzaiBonnie]

11. Nice judgement

:sarcasm: :shrug:


We are in disagreement as to what he writes being meaningless.

I do not put him on a pedestal. He was not perfect, but I believe he tried to do the right thing. They were still not far from a time time when everyone was considered to be chattel to the king. All slavery is wrong in my book. Until you drop your harsh judgement of others you won't be able to see the splinter in your own eye. But I'm sure you do the best you can, as do I, as do we all.

[Zorra]

9. If you want to know who and what destroyed America, just read Jefferson.

The Dude is like the Prophet of American Democracy.

Amazingly accurate observation, insight, foresight, and extrapolation.

[WranglerRog]

20. Thomas Jefferson, a man who rarely lived up to his own ideals....

If you take a 16 year old girl as your concubine and she has no say in it. It's rape. I know there's some dispute about his relationship with Sally Hemming but I tend to believe it.

His oft quoted "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants" was written during Shay's Rebellion while he was safely ensconced in Paris. I daresay misters Washington and Adams had a different view.

He did not free his slaves upon his death like Washington, however he can be somewhat forgiven because by the time of his death Virginia had passed draconian laws making it extremely hard free slaves.

Although Jackson carried it out, Jefferson was the architect of Indian Removal. Oh, how he "admired" the native peoples. He just didn't think they could coexist with the avarice of their fellow Americans. One of the major ideas of the Louisiana Purchase was the removal of the natives west of the Mississippi. Of course that did not stop him from continuing to make treaties, he had no inclination to keep, with them.

I know I'll be accused of being harsh on Jefferson but I ask you to compare his life to that of the greatest American ever, Tecumseh. Read Tecumseh's prayer and his speech to William Henry Harrison. Why this man has no national monument is a mystery to me. Well maybe the fact that even though the embodied what Americans perceive as their greatest qualities he was, in the end, America's most implacable foe.

Seems I got a little wordy here but I'm just tired of "Jefferson" worship.

[RevStPatrick]

22. Yep, he was a hypocrite.

So am I.
You probably are too.
As are we all, to some degree.

Does that mean that his good ideas have any less validity?
Serious question...

[WranglerRog]

23. It's only my opinion and yes it's a lonely one

but I find it hard to point out when Jefferson did live up to his lofty ideals. A brilliant man? Yes. Morally courageous? No.

Hey, there's a lot of people I admire but the only two Americans I wholeheartedly admire are Tecumseh and Will Rogers. OK, maybe Robert Earl keen too.