Thomas Paine was an English-American political activist/theorist, p...
Paine waited one year before publishing Agrarian Justice, hoping fo...
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity is the French motto that was first co...
François Noël Babeuf, commonly known as Gracchus Babeuf was a Frenc...
The Social condition of France during the 18th century was very mis...
This distinction is central to Paine's overall point. Basically, we...
The origins of social security can be traced to this proposal. The ...
Distinct from welfare, the guaranteed minimum income is for everyone.
Although average life expectancy was about 40 in England at the tim...
He is referring to William Pitt the Younger, a British politician ...
*Fun fact:* 1.00£ in 1795 is equivalent to 121.00£ in 2016. For mor...
Curious fact: Life expectancy at birth rose was about 40 by the lat...
The author believes that society can only change as a whole. Thus t...
This is a core concept of Thomas Paine thought **"the earth, in its...
Thomas Paine Paine viewed private property as necessary. At the sam...
iii
AUTHOR'S INSCRIPTION
To the Legislature and the Executive Directory
of the French Republic.
THE plan contained in this work is not adapted for any particular
country alone: the principle on which it is based is general. But as
the rights of man are a new study in this world, and one needing
protection from priestly imposture, and the insolence of oppression
too long established, I have thought it right to place this little work
under your safeguard. When we reflect on the long and dense night
in which France and all Europe have remained plunged by their
governments and their priests, we must feel less surprise than grief at
the bewilderment caused by the first burst of light that dispels the
darkness. The eye accustomed to darkness can hardly bear at first the
broad daylight. It is by usage the eye learns to see, and it is the same
in passing from any situation to its opposite.
As we have not at one instant renounced all our errors, we cannot
at one stroke acquire knowledge of all our rights. France has had the
honour of adding to the word Liberty that of Equality; and this word
signifies essentially a principal that admits of no gradation in the
things to which it applies. But equality is often misunderstood, often
misapplied, and often violated.
Liberty and Property are words expressing all those of our
possessions which are not of an intellectual nature. There are two
kinds of property. Firstly, natural property, or that which comes to us
from the Creator of the universe,--such as the earth, air, water.
Secondly, artificial or acquired property,--the invention of men. In
the latter equality is impossible; for to distribute it equally it would
be necessary that all should have contributed in the same proportion,
which can never be the case; and this being the case, every individual
would hold on to his own property, as his right share. Equality of
natural property is the subject of this little essay. Every individual in
the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kind of
property, or its equivalent.
The right of voting for persons charged with the execution of the
laws that govern society is inherent in the word Liberty, and
constitutes the equality of personal rights. But even if that right (of
iv
voting) were inherent in property, which I deny, the right of suffrage
would still belong to all equally, because, as I have said, all
individuals have legitimate birthrights in a certain species of
property.
I have always considered the present Constitution of the French
Republic the best organized system the human mind has yet
produced. But I hope my former colleagues will not be offended if I
warn them of an error which has slipped into its principle. Equality
of the right of suffrage is not maintained. This right is in it connected
with a condition on which it ought not to depend; that is, with a
proportion of a certain tax called "direct." The dignity of suffrage is
thus lowered; and, in placing it in the scale with an inferior thing, the
enthusiasm that right is capable of inspiring is diminished. It is
impossible to find any equivalent counterpoise for the right of
suffrage, because it is alone worthy to be its own basis, and cannot
thrive as a graft, or an appendage.
Since the Constitution was established we have seen two con-
spiracies stranded,--that of Babeuf, and that of some obscure
personages who decorate themselves with the despicable name of
"royalists." The defect in principle of the Constitution was the origin
of Babeuf's conspiracy. He availed himself of the resentment caused
by this flaw, and instead of seeking a remedy by legitimate and
constitutional means, or proposing some measure useful to society,
the conspirators did their best to renew disorder and confusion, and
constituted themselves personally into a Directory, which is formally
destructive of election and representation. They were, in fine,
extravagant enough to suppose that society, occupied with its
domestic affairs, would blindly yield to them a directorship usurped
by violence.
The conspiracy of Babeuf was followed in a few months by that
of the royalists, who foolishly flattered themselves with the notion of
doing great things by feeble or foul means. They counted on all the
discontented, from whatever cause, and tried to rouse, in their turn,
the class of people who had been following the others. But these new
chiefs acted as if they thought society had nothing more at heart than
to maintain courtiers, pensioners, and all their train, under the con-
temptible title of royalty. My little essay will disabuse them, by
v
showing that society is aiming at a very different end,--maintaining
itself.
We all know or should know, that the time during which a revo-
lution is proceeding is not the time when its resulting advantages can
be enjoyed. But had Babeuf and his accomplices taken into
consideration the condition of France under this constitution, and
compared it with what it was under the tragical revolutionary
government, and during the execrable reign of Terror, the rapidity of
the alteration must have appeared to them very striking and astonish-
ing. Famine has been replaced by abundance, and by the
well-founded hope of a near and increasing prosperity.
As for the defect in the Constitution, I am fully convinced that it
will be rectified constitutionally, and that this step is indispensable;
for so long as it continues it will inspire the hopes and furnish the
means of conspirators; and for the rest, it is regrettable that a
Constitution so wisely organized should err so much in its principle.
This fault exposes it to other dangers which will make themselves
felt. Intriguing candidates will go about among those who have not
the means to pay the direct tax and pay it for them, on condition of
receiving their votes. Let us maintain inviolably equality in the
sacred right of suffrage: public security can never have a basis more
solid.
Salut et Fraternité.
Your former colleague,
THOMAS PAINE.
vi
AUTHOR'S ENGLISH PREFACE.
THE following little Piece was written in the winter of
1795 and 96; and, as I had not determined whether to
publish it during the present war, or to wait till the
commencement of a peace, it has lain by me, without
alteration or addition, from the time it was written.
What has determined me to publish it now is, a
sermon preached by Watson, Bishop of Llandaff. Some
of my Readers will recollect, that this Bishop wrote a
Book entitled An Apology for the Bible, in answer to my
Second Part of the Age of Reason. I procured a copy of
his Book, and he may depend upon hearing from me on
that subject.
At the end of the Bishop's Book is a List of the
Works he has written. Among which is the sermon
alluded to; it is entitled: "The Wisdom and Goodness of
God, in having made both Rich and Poor; with an
Appendix, containing Reflections on the Present State
of England and France."
The error contained in this sermon determined me to
publish my AGRARIAN JUSTICE. It is wrong to say
God made rich and poor; he made only male and
female; and he gave them the earth for their inheritance.
Instead of preaching to encourage one part of
mankind in insolence . . . it would be better that Priests
employed their time to render the general condition of
man less miserable than it is. Practical religion consists
in doing good: and the only way of serving God is, that
of endeavouring to make his creation happy. All
preaching that has not this for its object is nonsense and
hypocracy.
THOMAS PAINE.
7
AGRARIAN JUSTICE.
TO preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to
remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced ought to be
considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation.
Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called
civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness
of man, is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the
spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is
shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected.
The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be
found in the countries that are called civilized.
To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is
necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of
man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America.
There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery
which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and
streets in Europe. Poverty therefore, is a thing created by that which
is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other
hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from
agriculture, arts, science, and manufactures.
The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the
poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when
compared to the rich. Civilization therefore, or that which is so
called, has operated two ways to make one part of society more
affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot
of either in a natural state.
It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state,
but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state.
The reason is, that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting,
requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure
himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state,
where the earth is cultivated. When, therefore, a country becomes
populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art, and science, there
is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it
there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its
inhabitants. The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the
8
evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing
from the natural to that which is called the civilized state.
In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civili-
zation ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of
every person born into the world, after a state of civilization
commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before
that period. But the fact is, that the condition of millions, in every
country in Europe, is far worse than if they had been born before
civilization began, or had been born among the Indians of North-
America at the present day. I will shew how this fact has happened.
It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural
uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the
common property of the human race. In that state every man would
have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprie-
tor with the rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural
productions, vegetable and animal.
But the earth in its natural state, as before said, is capable of
supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it
is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as it is impossible to
separate the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself,
upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property
arose from that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true,
that it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself,
that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated
land, owes to the community a groundrent (for I know of no better
term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from
this groundrent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.
It is deducible, as well from the nature of the thing as from all the
histories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property
commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing as
landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of
man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of
shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the
history of the Bible may be credited in probable things, were owners
of land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated, in flocks
and herds, and they travelled with them from place to place. The
frequent contentions at that time, about the use of a well in the dry
9
country of Arabia, where those people lived, also shew that there was
no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as
property.
There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man
did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy
it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of
it; neither did the creator of the earth open a landoffice, from whence
the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of
landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the
idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of
separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself,
upon which that improvement was made. The value of the
improvement so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, at that
time, as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became
confounded into the cultivated right of the individual. But there are,
nevertheless, distinct species of rights, and will continue to be so
long as the earth endures.
It is only by tracing things to their origin that we can gain
rightful ideas of them, and it is by gaining such ideas that we
discover the boundary that divides right from wrong, and teaches
every man to know his own. I have entitled this tract Agrarian
Justice, to distinguish it from Agrarian Law. Nothing could be more
unjust than Agrarian Law in a country improved by cultivation; for
though every man, as an inhabitant of the earth, is a joint proprietor
of it in its natural state, it does not follow that he is a joint proprietor
of cultivated earth. The additional value made by cultivation, after
the system was admitted, became the property of those who did it, or
who inherited it from them, or who purchased it. It had originally no
owner. Whilst, therefore, I advocate the right, and interest myself in
the hard case of all those who have been thrown out of their natural
inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property, I
equally defend the right of the possessor to the part which is his.
Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements
ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold
value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the
greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of
every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them,
10
as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has
thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not
exist before.
In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a
right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of
right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward
afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the
system of government. Let us then do honour to revolutions by
justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.
Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall
now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,
To create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to
every person, when arrived at the age of twentyone years, the sum of
fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his
or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed
property:
And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every
person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they
shall arrive at that age.
Means by which the fund is to be created.
I have already established the principle, namely, that the earth, in
its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to
be, the common property of the human race, that in that state, every
person would have been born to property; and that the system of
landed property, by its inseparable connection with cultivation, and
with what is called civilized life, has absorbed the property of all
those whom it dispossessed, without providing, as ought to have
been done, an indemnification for that loss.
The fault, however, is not in the present possessors. No
complaint is intended, or ought to be alleged against them, unless
they adopt the crime by opposing justice. The fault is in the system,
and it has stolen imperceptibly upon the world, aided afterwards by
the agrarian law of the sword. But the fault can be made to reform
itself by successive generations; and without diminishing or
deranging the property of any of the present possessors, the operation
11
of the fund can yet commence, and be in full activity, the first year of
its establishment, or soon after, as I shall shew.
It is proposed that the payments, as already stated, be made to
every person, rich or poor. It is best to make it so, to prevent
invidious distinctions. It is also right it should be so, because it is in
lieu of the natural inheritance, which, as a right, belongs to every
man, over and above the property he may have created, or inherited
from those who did. Such persons as do not choose to receive it can
throw it into the common fund.
Taking it then for granted that no person ought to be in a worse
condition when born under what is called a state of civilization, than
he would have been had he been born in a state of nature, and that
civilization ought to have made, and ought still to make, provision
for that purpose, it can only be done by subtracting from property a
portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has absorbed.
Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that
which appears to be the best (not only because it will operate without
deranging any present possessors, or without interfering with the
collection of taxes or emprunts necessary for the purposes of
government and the revolution, but because it will be the least
troublesome and the most effectual, and also because the subtraction
will be made at a time that best admits it) is at the moment that
property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of
another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays
nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural
inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his
person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just
man will rejoice to see it abolished.
My state of health prevents my making sufficient inquiries with
respect to the doctrine of probabilities, whereon to found calculations
with such degrees of certainty as they are capable of. What,
therefore, I offer on this head is more the result of observation and
reflection than of received information; but I believe it will be found
to agree sufficiently with fact.
In the first place, taking twenty-one years as the epoch of
maturity, all the property of a nation, real and personal, is always in
the possession of persons above that age. It is then necessary to
12
know, as a datum of calculation, the average of years which persons
above that age will live. I take this average to be about thirty years,
for though many persons will live forty, fifty, or sixty years after the
age of twenty-one years, others will die much sooner, and some in
every year of that time.
Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time, it will give,
without any material variation one way or other, the average of time
in which the whole property or capital of a nation, or a sum equal
thereto, will have passed through one entire revolution in descent,
that is, will have gone by deaths to new possessors; for though, in
many instances, some parts of this capital will remain forty, fifty, or
sixty years in the possession of one person, other parts will have
revolved two or three times before those thirty years expire, which
will bring it to that average; for were one half the capital of a nation
to revolve twice in thirty years, it would produce the same fund as if
the whole revolved once.
Taking, then, thirty years as the average of time in which the
whole capital of a nation, or a sum equal thereto, will revolve once,
the thirtieth part thereof will be the sum that will revolve every year,
that is, will go by deaths to new possessors; and this last sum being
thus known, and the ratio per cent. to be subtracted from it deter-
mined, it will give the annual amount or income of the proposed
fund, to be applied as already mentioned.
In looking over the discourse of the English minister Pitt, in his
opening of what is called in England the budget, (the scheme of
finance for the year 1796,) I find an estimate of the national capital
of that country. As this estimate of a national capital is prepared
ready to my hand, I take it as a datum to act upon. When a
calculation is made upon the known capital of any nation, combined
with its population, it will serve as a scale for any other nation, in
proportion as its capital and population be more or less. I am the
more disposed to take this estimate of Mr. Pitt, for the purpose of
showing to that minister, upon his own calculation, how much better
money may be employed than in wasting it, as he has done, on the
wild project of setting up Bourbon kings. What, in the name of
heaven, are Bourbon kings to the people of England? It is better that
the people have bread.
13
Mr. Pitt states the national capital of England, real and personal,
to be one thousand three hundred millions sterling, which is about
one-fourth part of the national capital of France, including Belgia.
The event of the last harvest in each country proves that the soil of
France is more productive than that of England, and that it can better
support twenty-four or twenty-five millions of inhabitants than that
of England can seven or seven and a half millions.
The thirtieth part of this capital of 1,300,000,000£ is
43,333,333£ which is the part that will revolve every year by deaths
in that country to new possessors; and the sum that will annually
revolve in France in the proportion of four to one, will be about one
hundred and seventy-three million sterling. From this sum of
43,333,333£ annually revolving, is to be subtracted the value of the
natural inheritance absorbed in it, which, perhaps, in fair justice,
cannot be taken at less, and ought not to be taken for more, than a
tenth part.
It will always happen, that of the property thus revolving by
deaths every year a part will descend in a direct line to sons and
daughters, and the other part collaterally, and the proportion will be
found to be about three to one; that is, about thirty millions of the
above sum will descend to direct heirs, and the remaining sum of
13,333,333£ to more distant relations, and in part to strangers.
Considering, then, that man is always related to society, that
relationship will become comparatively greater in proportion as the
next of kin is more distant, it is therefore consistent with civilization
to say that where there are no direct heirs society shall be heir to a
part over and above the tenth part due to society. If this additional
part be from five to ten or twelve per cent., in proportion as the next
of kin be nearer or more remote, so as to average with the escheats
that may fall, which ought always to go to society and not to the
government (an addition of ten per cent. more), the produce from the
annual sum of 43,333,333£ will be:
From 30,000,000£ at ten per cent.........................3,000,000£
From 13,333,333£ at ten per cent. with the addition
of ten per cent. more
2,666,666£
From 43,333,333£ ..... ........................................5,666,666£
14
Having thus arrived at the annual amount of the proposed fund, I
come, in the next place, to speak of the population proportioned to
this fund, and to compare it with the uses to which the fund is to be
applied.
The population (I mean that of England) does not exceed seven
millions and a half, and the number of persons above the age of fifty
will in that case be about four hundred thousand. There would not,
however, be more than that number that would accept the proposed
ten pounds sterling per annum, though they would be entitled to it. I
have no idea it would be accepted by many persons who had a yearly
income of two or three hundred pounds sterling. But as we often see
instances of rich people falling into sudden poverty, even at the age
of sixty, they would always have the right of drawing all the arrears
due to them. Four millions, therefore, of the above annual sum of
5,666,666£ will be required for four hundred thousand aged persons,
at ten pounds sterling each.
I come now to speak of the persons annually arriving at twenty-
one years of age. If all the persons who died were above the age of
twenty-one years, the number of persons annually arriving at that
age, must be equal to the annual number of deaths, to keep the
population stationary. But the greater part die under the age of
twenty-one, and therefore the number of persons annually arriving at
twenty-one will be less than half the number of deaths. The whole
number of deaths upon a population of seven millions and an half
will be about 220,000 annually. The number arriving at twenty-one
years of age will be about 100,000. The whole number of these will
not receive the proposed fifteen pounds, for the reasons already
mentioned, though, as in the former case, they would be entitled to it.
Admitting then that a tenth part declined receiving it, the amount
would stand thus:
Fund annually
To 400,000 age@ persons at 10£ each ..................... 4,000,000£
To 90,000 persons of 21 years, 15£ ster. each .........1,350,000£
There are, in every country, a number of blind and lame persons,
totally incapable of earning a livelihood. But as it will always happen
that the greater number of blind persons will be among those who are
above the age of fifty years, they will be provided for in that class.
15
The remaining sum of 316,666£ will provide for the lame and blind
under that age, at the same rate of 10£ annually for each person.
Having now gone through all the necessary calculations, and
stated the particulars of the plan, I shall conclude with some
observations.
It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am
pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it is
unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be, and it is
necessary that a revolution should be made in it. The contrast of
affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the
eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as
little about riches, as any man, I am a friend to riches because they
are capable of good. I care not how affluent some may be, provided
that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to
enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, whilst
so much misery is mingled in the scene. The sight of the misery, and
the unpleasant sensations it suggests, which, though they may be
suffocated cannot be extinguished, are a greater drawback upon the
felicity of affluence than the proposed 10 per cent. upon property is
worth. He that would not give the one to get rid of the other has no
charity, even for himself.
There are, in every country, some magnificent charities, estab-
lished by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can
do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered.
He may satisfy his conscience but not his heart. He may give all that
he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing
civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pullies,
that the whole weight of misery can be removed.
The plan here proposed will reach the whole. It will immediately
relieve and take out of view three classes of wretchedness--the blind,
the lame, and the aged poor; and it will furnish the rising generation
with means to prevent their becoming poor; and it will do this
without deranging or interfering with any national measures. To
shew that this will be the case, it is sufficient to observe that the
operation and effect of the plan will, in all cases, be the same as if
every individual were voluntarily to make his will and dispose of his
property in the manner here proposed.
16
But it is justice, and not charity, that is the principle of the plan.
In all great cases it is necessary to have a principle more universally
active than charity; and, with respect to justice, it ought not to be left
to the choice of detached individuals whether they will do justice or
not. Considering then, the plan on the ground of justice, it ought to
be the act of the whole, growing spontaneously out of the principles
of the revolution, and the reputation of it ought to be national and not
individual.
A plan upon this principle would benefit the revolution by the
energy that springs from the consciousness of justice. It would
multiply also the national resources; for property like vegetation,
increases by offsets. When a young couple begin the world, the
difference is exceedingly great whether they begin with nothing or
with fifteen pounds a piece. With this aid they could buy a cow, and
implements to cultivate a few acres of land; and instead of becoming
burdens upon society, which is always the case where children are
produced faster than they can be fed, would be put in the way of
becoming useful and profitable citizens. The national domains also
would sell the better if pecuniary aids were provided to cultivate
them in small lots.
It is the practice of what has unjustly obtained the name of
civilization (and the practice merits not to be called either charity or
policy) to make some provision for persons becoming poor and
wretched only at the time they become so. Would it not, even as a
matter of economy, be far better to adopt means to prevent their
becoming poor? This can best be done by making every person when
arrived at the age of twenty-one years an inheritor of something to
begin with. The rugged face of society, chequered with the extremes
of affluence and want, proves that some extraordinary violence has
been committed upon it, and calls on justice for redress. The great
mass of the poor in all countries are become an hereditary race, and it
is next to impossible for them to get out of that state of themselves. It
ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all countries that
are called civilized. More persons fall annually into it than get out of
it.
Though in a plan of which justice and humanity are the
foundation-principles, interest ought not to be admitted into the
17
calculation, yet it is always of advantage to the establishment of any
plan to shew that it is beneficial as a matter of interest. The success
of any proposed plan submitted to public consideration must finally
depend on the numbers interested in supporting it, united with the
justice of its principles.
The plan here proposed will benefit all, without injuring any. It
will consolidate the interest of the Republic with that of the indivi-
dual. To the numerous class dispossessed of their natural inheritance
by the system of landed property it will be an act of national justice.
To persons dying possessed of moderate fortunes it will operate as a
tontine to their children, more beneficial than the sum of money paid
into the fund: and it will give to the accumulation of riches a degree
of security that none of the old governments of Europe, now tottering
on their foundations, can give.
I do not suppose that more than one family in ten, in any of the
countries of Europe, has, when the head of the family dies, a clear
property left of five hundred pounds sterling. To all such the plan is
advantageous. That property would pay fifty pounds into the fund,
and if there were only two children under age they would receive
fifteen pounds each, (thirty pounds,) on coming of age, and be
entitled to ten pounds a-year after fifty. It is from the overgrown
acquisition of property that the fund will support itself; and I know
that the possessors of such property in England though they would
eventually be benefited by the protection of nine-tenths of it, will
exclaim against the plan. But without entering into any inquiry how
they came by the property, let them recollect that they have been the
advocates of this war, and that Mr. Pitt has already laid on more new
taxes to be raised annually upon the people of England and that for
supporting the despotism of Austria and the Bourbons against the
liberties of France, than would pay annually all the sums proposed in
this plan.
I have made the calculations stated in this plan, upon what is
called personal, as well as upon landed property. The reason for
making it upon land is already explained and the reason for taking
personal property into the calculation is equally well founded though
on a different principle. Land, as before said, is the free gift of the
Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect
18
of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire
personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make
land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an
island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal
property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected
with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter
cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal
property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him
by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of
gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again
to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on
a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine
the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal
property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the
labour that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the
working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in
affluence. It is, perhaps, impossible to proportion exactly the price of
labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an
apology for the injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase
of wages daily he would not save it against old age, nor be much
better for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasure to guard it
for him in a common fund; for it is no reason that because he might
not make a good use of it for himself another should take it.
The state of civilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is
as unjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and it is the
consciousness of this, and the apprehension that such a state cannot
continue when once investigation begins in any country, that makes
the possessors of property dread every idea of a revolution. It is the
hazard and not the principle of revolutions that retards their progress.
This being the case, it is necessary as well for the protection of
property, as for the sake of justice and humanity, to form a system
that, whilst it preserves one part of society from wretchedness, shall
secure the other from depredation.
The superstitious awe, the enslaving reverence, that formerly
surrounded affluence, is passing away in all countries and leaving the
possessor of property to the convulsion of accidents. When wealth
and splendour, instead of fascinating the multitude, excite emotions
19
of disgust; when, instead of drawing forth admiration, it is beheld as
an insult upon wretchedness; when the ostentatious appearance it
make serves to call the right of it in question, the case of property
becomes critical, and it is only in a system of justice that the
possessor can contemplate security.
To remove the danger, it is necessary to remove the antipathies,
and this can only be done by making property productive of a
national blessing, extending to every individual. When the riches of
one man above another shall increase the national fund in the same
proportion; when it shall be seen that the prosperity of that fund
depends on the prosperity of individuals; when the more riches a
man acquires, the better it shall be for the general mass; it is then that
antipathies will cease, and property be placed on the permanent basis
of national interest and protection.
I have no property in France to become subject to the plan I
propose. What I have, which is not much, is in the United States of
America. But I will pay one hundred pound sterling towards this
fund in France, the instant it shall be established; and I will pay the
same sum in England, whenever a similar establishment shall take
place in that country.
A revolution in the state of civilization is the necessary
companion of revolutions in the system of government. If a
revolution in any country be from bad to good, or from good to bad,
the state of what is called civilization in that country, must be made
conformable thereto, to give that revolution effect. Despotic
government supports itself by abject civilization, in which
debasement of the human mind, and wretchedness in the mass of the
people, are the chief criterions. Such governments consider man
merely as an animal; that the exercise of intellectual faculty is not his
privilege; that he has nothing to do with the laws but to obey them;
1
and they politically depend more upon breaking the spirit of the
people by poverty, than they fear enraging it by desperation.
It is a revolution in the state of civilization that will give
perfection to the revolution of France. Already the conviction that
1
Expression of Horsley, an English bishop, in the English parliament.- Author.
20
government by representation is the true system of government is
spreading itself fast in the world. The reasonableness of it can be
seen by all. The justness of it makes itself felt even by its opposers.
But when a system of civilization, growing out of that system of
government shall be so organized that not a man or woman born in
the Republic but shall inherit some means of beginning the world,
and see before them the certainty of escaping the miseries that under
other governments accompany old age, the revolution of France will
have an advocate and an ally in the heart of all nations.
An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers
cannot; it will succeed where diplomatic management would fail: it
is neither the Rhine, the Channel, nor the Ocean that can arrest its
progress: it will march on the horizon of the world, and it will
conquer.
MEANS FOR CARRYING THE PROPOSED PLAN INTO EXECUTION, AND
TO RENDER IT AT THE SAME TIME CONDUCIVE TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
I. Each canton shall elect in its primary assemblies, three persons,
as commissioners for that canton, who shall take cognizance, and
keep a register of all matters happening in that canton, conformable
to the charter that shall be established by law for carrying this plan
into execution.
II. The law shall fix the manner in which the property of
deceased persons shall be ascertained.
III. When the amount of the property of any deceased person
shall be ascertained, the principal heir to that property, or the eldest
of the co-heirs, if of lawful age, or if under age the person authorized
by the will of the deceased to represent him or them, shall give bond
to the commissioners of the canton to pay the said tenth part thereof
in four equal quarterly payments, within the space of one year or
sooner, at the choice of the payers. One half of the whole property
shall remain as a security until the bond be paid off.
IV. The bond shall be registered in the office of the commis-
sioners of the canton, and the original bonds shall be deposited in the
national bank at Paris. The bank shall publish every quarter of a year
the amount of the bonds in its possession, and also the bonds that
shall have been paid off, or what parts thereof, since the last
quarterly publication.
V. The national bank shall issue bank notes upon the security of
the bonds in its possession. The notes so issued shall be applied to
pay the pensions of aged persons, and the compensations to persons
arriving at twenty-one year of age. It is both reasonable and generous
to suppose, that persons not under immediate necessity, will suspend
the right of drawing on the fund, until it acquire, as it will do, a
greater degree of ability. In this case, it is proposed, that an honorary
register be kept, in each canton, of the names of the persons thus
suspending that right, at least during the present war.
VI. As the inheritors of property must always take up their bonds
in four quarterly payments, or sooner if they choose, there will
always be numéraire [cash] arriving at the bank after the expiration
22
of the first quarter, to exchange for the bank notes that shall be
brought in.
VII. The bank notes being thus put in circulation, upon the best
of all possible security, that of actual property, to more than four
times the amount of the bonds upon which the notes are issued, and
with numéraire continually arriving at the bank to exchange or pay
them off whenever they shall be presented for that purpose, they will
acquire a permanent value in all parts of the Republic. They can
therefore be received in payment of taxes, or emprunts equal to
numéraire, because the government can always receive numéraire
for them at the bank.
VIII. It will be necessary that the payments of the ten per cent be
made in numéraire for the first year from the establishment of the
plan. But after the expiration of the first year, the inheritors of
property may pay ten per cent either in bank notes issued upon the
fund, or in numéraire. If the payments be in numéraire, it will lie as
a deposit at the bank, to be exchanged for a quantity of notes equal to
that amount; and if in notes issued upon the fund, it will cause a
demand upon the fund, equal thereto; and thus the operation of the
plan will create means to carry itself into execution.
THOMAS PAINE.
This is a core concept of Thomas Paine thought **"the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"** and thus if an individual acquires private property he can only do it because of the underlying society. This individual is then "in debt" towards the other non-private property holder in society.
Distinct from welfare, the guaranteed minimum income is for everyone.
Curious fact: Life expectancy at birth rose was about 40 by the late 18th century.
This distinction is central to Paine's overall point. Basically, we do not have a right to land because we did not make it; however, the value of cultivated land is in its "improvement" (i.e. making it agriculturally useful) rather than the physical tract itself. We can occupy and cultivate land, but we cannot own it. This is important to his notion of agrarian justice because, as he says on the previous page, those who have cultivated land "[owe] to the community a groundrent." This groundrent is best understood as a tax on the occupancy of cultivated land, redistributed to members of the community who, as a result of the land's cultivation, are denied access to their "common property."
The origins of social security can be traced to this proposal. The annual payment of 10 pounds per annum is 43% of the annual income of 23 pounds that able-bodied men made at the time. Also, for perspective, the average life expectancy in Europe was around 35 years of age at the time.
*Fun fact:* 1.00£ in 1795 is equivalent to 121.00£ in 2016. For more historical UK inflationrates visit: [Historical UK inflation](http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/)
The author believes that society can only change as a whole. Thus the plan that he proposes has to be applied to all individuals in society: **"the plan on the ground of justice, it ought to be the act of the whole, growing spontaneously out of the principles of the revolution, and the reputation of it ought to be national and not
individual."**
Thomas Paine Paine viewed private property as necessary. At the same time he thought that the basic needs of all humanity must be provided for by the people with property, the ones who have originally taken it from the general public given that **"the earth, in its natural uncultivated state... was the common property of the human race"**. This in some sense is their "payment" to non-property holders for the right to hold private property. Here he gives very specific guidelines on how to execute his plan in 8 simple points.
The Social condition of France during the 18th century was very miserable. The French Society was divided into three classes - the Clergy, Nobles and Common People. The Common People also are known as the Third Estate were the farmers, cobblers, sweepers and other lower classes belonged to this class. The condition of the farmers was very miserable. They paid the taxes like Taille, Tithe and Gable and in spite of this, the clergies and the nobles employed them in their fields.
Image depicting the French society during the 18th century
Paine waited one year before publishing Agrarian Justice, hoping for the ongoing War of the first coalition in France to finish. Paine was an extremely pro French revolution propagandist.
François Noël Babeuf, commonly known as Gracchus Babeuf was a French "révolutionnaire" born in 1760. He was best known for his advocacy for the poor and calling for a popular revolt against the government of France. He was a leading advocate for democracy, the abolition of private property and the equality and well beinf for all. Babeuf was executed ("guillotined") in 1797 for his role in the "Conjuration des égaux" an attempt to overthrow the French government.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity is the French motto that was first coined in December of 1790 by french lawyer and politician Maximilien Robespierre.
*"Elles porteront sur leur poitrine ces mots gravés : LE PEUPLE FRANÇAIS, & au-dessous : LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ. Les mêmes mots seront inscrits sur leurs drapeaux, qui porteront les trois couleurs de la nation."*- Maximilien Robespierre
Although average life expectancy was about 40 in England at the time, a high percentage of people died before adulthood (many before 5) and conditional on reaching 21, the chances of living into your 50s or 60s was high.
He is referring to William Pitt the Younger, a British politician who was prime minister at the time of writing. Pitt was left with a huge national debt (largely due to the American revolution) of 243 million pounds when he took office. Reducing the debt became a big issue during his office (that lasted from 1783-1981) and he instituted higher taxes.
Thomas Paine was an English-American political activist/theorist, philosopher, and revolutionary who was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He inspired the rebels to declare independence from Britain in 1776 with his pamphlet Common Sense. "Agrarian Justice, opposed to Agrarian Law, and to Agrarian Monopoly" was published in 1797 and was Paine's last published work. In Agrarian Justice, Paine makes the argument that land ownership separated the majority of people from their rightful, natural inheritance and means of independent survival; Paine also introduces the concept of guaranteed minimum income. The impact of Agrarian Justice can still be felt today, with the US Social Security Administration recognizing it as the first American proposal for an old-age pension and basic income.
