What do you think?
Rate this book
Agrarian Justice
The 18th century was a wealth of knowledge, exploration and rapidly growing technology and expanding record-keeping made possible by advances in the printing press. In its determination to preserve the century of revolution, Gale initiated a revolution of its own: digitization of epic proportions to preserve these invaluable works in the largest archive of its kind. Now for the first time these high-quality digital copies of original 18th century manuscripts are available in print, making them highly accessible to libraries, undergraduate students, and independent scholars.
Delve into what it was like to live during the eighteenth century by reading the first-hand accounts of everyday people, including city dwellers and farmers, businessmen and bankers, artisans and merchants, artists and their patrons, politicians and their constituents. Original texts make the American, French, and Industrial revolutions vividly contemporary.
++++
The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to insure edition identification:
++++
Source Library: British Library
ESTCID: T005799
Notes:
Imprint: [London] : Paris: printed by W. Adlard. London: re-printed and sold by the booksellers of London and Westminster, [1797?] Collation: 24p. ; 8°
26 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1796
19 people are currently reading
372 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Paine
1,474 books1,826 followersThomas Paine was an English-American political activist, author, political theorist and revolutionary. As the author of two highly influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution, he inspired the Patriots in 1776 to declare independence from Britain. His ideas reflected Enlightenment-era rhetoric of transnational human rights. He has been called "a corset maker by trade, a journalist by profession, and a propagandist by inclination".
Born in Thetford, England, in the county of Norfolk, Paine emigrated to the British American colonies in 1774 with the help of Benjamin Franklin, arriving just in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were the powerful, widely read pamphlet Common Sense (1776), the all-time best-selling American book that advocated colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and The American Crisis (1776–83), a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series. Common Sense was so influential that John Adams said, "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain."
Paine lived in France for most of the 1790s, becoming deeply involved in the French Revolution. He wrote the Rights of Man (1791), in part a defence of the French Revolution against its critics. His attacks on British writer Edmund Burke led to a trial and conviction in absentia in 1792 for the crime of seditious libel. In 1792, despite not being able to speak French, he was elected to the French National Convention. The Girondists regarded him as an ally. Consequently, the Montagnards, especially Robespierre, regarded him as an enemy.
In December 1793, he was arrested and imprisoned in Paris, then released in 1794. He became notorious because of his pamphlet The Age of Reason (1793–94), in which he advocated deism, promoted reason and freethinking, and argued against institutionalized religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular. He also wrote the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1795), discussing the origins of property, and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income. In 1802, he returned to America where he died on June 8, 1809. Only six people attended his funeral as he had been ostracized for his ridicule of Christianity.
Born in Thetford, England, in the county of Norfolk, Paine emigrated to the British American colonies in 1774 with the help of Benjamin Franklin, arriving just in time to participate in the American Revolution. His principal contributions were the powerful, widely read pamphlet Common Sense (1776), the all-time best-selling American book that advocated colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and The American Crisis (1776–83), a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series. Common Sense was so influential that John Adams said, "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain."
Paine lived in France for most of the 1790s, becoming deeply involved in the French Revolution. He wrote the Rights of Man (1791), in part a defence of the French Revolution against its critics. His attacks on British writer Edmund Burke led to a trial and conviction in absentia in 1792 for the crime of seditious libel. In 1792, despite not being able to speak French, he was elected to the French National Convention. The Girondists regarded him as an ally. Consequently, the Montagnards, especially Robespierre, regarded him as an enemy.
In December 1793, he was arrested and imprisoned in Paris, then released in 1794. He became notorious because of his pamphlet The Age of Reason (1793–94), in which he advocated deism, promoted reason and freethinking, and argued against institutionalized religion in general and Christian doctrine in particular. He also wrote the pamphlet Agrarian Justice (1795), discussing the origins of property, and introduced the concept of a guaranteed minimum income. In 1802, he returned to America where he died on June 8, 1809. Only six people attended his funeral as he had been ostracized for his ridicule of Christianity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
March 3, 2023
Agrarian Justice is the most radical, the most visionary of Tom Paine’s works. Paine writes,
”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..”
His central thesis here is that through the cultivation of land, and thus the invention of private property, a huge portion of mankind was disinherited from what previously had been their natural rights. He illustrated his point using the American Indians, still living as hunter gathers at the time. Paine writes:
”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 what 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.”
The purpose of his tract was to mitigate the harm caused to a majority of mankind by the invention of private property, to provide for them some compensation for the violence that it wrought to their natural rights.
Paine does not grudge the owners of private property their revenue from their improvements on the land they own. But he grants them only the increase from their improvements, and sees the land itself, once common property of all, as placing an obligation upon the land owner:
”Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land, owes the community a ground-rent for the land that he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.
What Paine goes on to purpose is both a large payment, upon reaching the age of 21, and an annual payment, upon reaching the age of 50, to be payed out from this fund, ”as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property.”
Paine’s proposal was absolutely radical in its time, and nearly as radical now, well over two centuries later. It anticipated Social Security by nearly 150 years, and indeed, Social Security, which begins far later in life and is largely paid for by the working class rather than the propertied class, is pale and weak compared to Paine’s robust idea. Paine’s proposal is far closer in intent to what we now call Universal Basic Income. And best of all, Paine firmly grounds his reasoning for his idea in the same Enlightenment theories from which the justifications for private property were established. We are still waiting to catch up to Paine’s brilliant and radical vision.
”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..”
His central thesis here is that through the cultivation of land, and thus the invention of private property, a huge portion of mankind was disinherited from what previously had been their natural rights. He illustrated his point using the American Indians, still living as hunter gathers at the time. Paine writes:
”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 what 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.”
The purpose of his tract was to mitigate the harm caused to a majority of mankind by the invention of private property, to provide for them some compensation for the violence that it wrought to their natural rights.
Paine does not grudge the owners of private property their revenue from their improvements on the land they own. But he grants them only the increase from their improvements, and sees the land itself, once common property of all, as placing an obligation upon the land owner:
”Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated land, owes the community a ground-rent for the land that he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.
What Paine goes on to purpose is both a large payment, upon reaching the age of 21, and an annual payment, upon reaching the age of 50, to be payed out from this fund, ”as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property.”
Paine’s proposal was absolutely radical in its time, and nearly as radical now, well over two centuries later. It anticipated Social Security by nearly 150 years, and indeed, Social Security, which begins far later in life and is largely paid for by the working class rather than the propertied class, is pale and weak compared to Paine’s robust idea. Paine’s proposal is far closer in intent to what we now call Universal Basic Income. And best of all, Paine firmly grounds his reasoning for his idea in the same Enlightenment theories from which the justifications for private property were established. We are still waiting to catch up to Paine’s brilliant and radical vision.
June 23, 2018
Thomas Paine does not get enough credit for being forward thinking. Sure everyone knows he has common sense, but working out a way to improve the daily life of man?
First off I cannot resist pointing out that Paine understood how good a life hunter gathers had:
"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 with 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 part more wretched than would have been the lot of either in a natural ſtate."
That paragraph is pure gold.
Second, Paine's concern for man allows him to come up with this in the next paragraph:
"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, arts, 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 evils, and preſerve the benefits that have ariſen to ſociety, by paſſing from the natural to that which is called the civilized ſtate."
Paine's remedy:
"Having thus in a few words opened the merits of the caſe, I 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 twenty-one 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. ’"
And finally how to do it is to utilize the budget of the English Minister Pitt and Paine goes through calculations and actuarial figures which are complete fun to read, so I will not reveal here.
More and more the Thomas I revere for writing is Paine, not Jefferson, but that is another story.
First off I cannot resist pointing out that Paine understood how good a life hunter gathers had:
"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 with 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 part more wretched than would have been the lot of either in a natural ſtate."
That paragraph is pure gold.
Second, Paine's concern for man allows him to come up with this in the next paragraph:
"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, arts, 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 evils, and preſerve the benefits that have ariſen to ſociety, by paſſing from the natural to that which is called the civilized ſtate."
Paine's remedy:
"Having thus in a few words opened the merits of the caſe, I 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 twenty-one 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. ’"
And finally how to do it is to utilize the budget of the English Minister Pitt and Paine goes through calculations and actuarial figures which are complete fun to read, so I will not reveal here.
More and more the Thomas I revere for writing is Paine, not Jefferson, but that is another story.
August 31, 2017
I have to say one of my favorite and one of his most underrated works of Thomas Paine. This book continues the standard of his radical thinking for the time (even to the present) and his universal writing style that is not difficult to read in modern times. The book main focus is to advocate for a welfare state to help fight against a large amount of inequality (as he explains come from private property) but also in its small, yet solid critiques about the inadequacy of philanthropy to fix this problem and on wage labor. I keep being surprised at how revolutionary he was and after 2 centuries how it still holds out.
September 3, 2022
კაი ჩემო ძმაო ;დ
January 30, 2020
This is by Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense. It was written while Paine was in France during the 1790's while the social dynamics following the French Revolution were still going on.
Paine argues that land property has two elements: the natural land which belongs equally to all, and the improvements made to it by humans over time. While Paine accepts land ownership based on human contributions, and that ownership can be passed down to heirs, he tells us that not all of the benefits should be kept by the owner, since it depends on the natural element of the land which belongs to all. He tells us that while modern society has added some good things to humanity, it has also made a vast gulf between poverty of the many and the luxurious lives of the few - a condition which he says did not exist in simpler human cultures such as Native Americans. (I don't know whether there was a total lack of poverty among native peoples as he seems to suggest, but certainly there wasn't as great inequality.)
Paine proposes that society use a tax on land inheritance in order to fight poverty and inequality. While Paine's proposal is sometimes described as a Universal Basic Income, it's not an amount every person gets every year. Rather, he says everyone should get a certain amount when they turn 21, helping them get started as independent adults. And also that the disabled and those 50 or older should get a yearly sum. He says these payments should be available regardless of a person's wealth, although he imagined that many affluent people would choose not to accept it.
Paine says the elimination of poverty and inequality should not be left to charities:
He also says:
(I would add to that: If we were to worry about the poor man making unwise use of his money, shouldn't we worry even more so about the rich man making unwise use of even larger sums?)
Paine argues that land property has two elements: the natural land which belongs equally to all, and the improvements made to it by humans over time. While Paine accepts land ownership based on human contributions, and that ownership can be passed down to heirs, he tells us that not all of the benefits should be kept by the owner, since it depends on the natural element of the land which belongs to all. He tells us that while modern society has added some good things to humanity, it has also made a vast gulf between poverty of the many and the luxurious lives of the few - a condition which he says did not exist in simpler human cultures such as Native Americans. (I don't know whether there was a total lack of poverty among native peoples as he seems to suggest, but certainly there wasn't as great inequality.)
Paine proposes that society use a tax on land inheritance in order to fight poverty and inequality. While Paine's proposal is sometimes described as a Universal Basic Income, it's not an amount every person gets every year. Rather, he says everyone should get a certain amount when they turn 21, helping them get started as independent adults. And also that the disabled and those 50 or older should get a yearly sum. He says these payments should be available regardless of a person's wealth, although he imagined that many affluent people would choose not to accept it.
Paine says the elimination of poverty and inequality should not be left to charities:
There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established 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."
He also says:
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 bet-ter for it in the interim. Make, then, society the treasurer 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.
(I would add to that: If we were to worry about the poor man making unwise use of his money, shouldn't we worry even more so about the rich man making unwise use of even larger sums?)
November 11, 2020
Thomas Paine, one of my favorite radicals, lays out the reasoning and justification for a Universal Basic income for both men and women and a grant of money on reaching their majority. UBI as a topic is enough to get any conservative today to froth at the mouth, two hundred years ago the thought that women would get it and exercise control over would have had most men screaming. Paine might have learned this from A Vindication of the Rights of WomanPaine had met Mary Wollstonecraft, I suspect that's why Thomas started adding women's rights into his writing. It's hard to say, though maybe through the miracle of the internet more of his personal letters may turn up.
He also makes the case for Social Security starting at age 50, which is probably why you can find a copy of this pamphlet on their website. His version is more radical than the current US scheme, everyone gets the same amount, regardless of how much you worked or earned. It's short and understandable, which anybody who has read works from this period, will know is rare.
He also makes the case for Social Security starting at age 50, which is probably why you can find a copy of this pamphlet on their website. His version is more radical than the current US scheme, everyone gets the same amount, regardless of how much you worked or earned. It's short and understandable, which anybody who has read works from this period, will know is rare.
July 18, 2018
Before the French revolution, American independence or Karl Marx, here's a 'founding father' postulating not on minimum wage, but a universal basic income for men and women. He reasoned why should some of the country be born on to cultivatable lands but not others? Man created the very construct of land ownership and government, why have the same constructs it not eased the cruelty inflicted by the gene pool lottery of life? No one should be born into the world less fortunate as a result of a system of government. Through land ownership in this otherwise open new world, he could see a trajectory of inevitable inequality ensuing through land ownership.
"not charity, but justice" "To create a national fund out of which there shall be paid every person.. for the loss of his or her natural inheritance"
"not charity, but justice" "To create a national fund out of which there shall be paid every person.. for the loss of his or her natural inheritance"
August 3, 2022
Agrarian Justice is a short pamphlet by Thomas Paine proposing a social safety net for all people. It was written around 11 years after the conclusion of the American Revolution and whilst Paine was in France.
His proposals are somewhat moderate. He desires for 15 pounds sterling to be delivered unto anyone who attains the age of 21 years (the age at which he considers one to have reached maturity), and a consistent payment of 10 pounds every year after attaining the age of 50. This would all be paid for by a 10% deduction from all inherited property. This provision, Paine argues, would do a lot to end poverty in so-called civilized society, where we are constantly inundated with the extremes of indigence and luxury. His argument as to how it would work is faulty to me. The provision for the elderly is perhaps valid, but the provision for the young seems not. Probably the main critique would be (and this applies to both) that the provision provided may not be used for the purposes which Paine desires. For example, the 15 pounds awarded at attaining 21 years of age are supposed to be given for the purpose of setting up in life; it affords an opportunity. He conceives the buying of a cow and some land as an example of this. There is, however, no assurance that such will be the use of the money, and, because it is only a single payment, any waste or misuse of it will be deleterious to the conditions of the recipient. This, therefore, does not solve the problem of poverty as stated, but only allows for more poor people to gain an upper hand than usual; there remains a need to address the main issue. His proposition, and all welfare propositions, seem fine in the main for doing what Paine wishes to do here, but I can't help but think that there needs to be more done.
When I use the term "moderate" above, this is in the context of a modern lens. At the time, Paine's proposals would have ruffled a few feathers. For example, he desires for this disposable income to be given to both males and females. At the time, this was at least somewhat radical.
As Paine remarks upon a similar critique: "make, then, society the treasurer 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." If this payment is not used well, than we can formulate different methods, using the same money, to invest in the community at large, allowing for assurance that it will go toward uplifting the conditions of the poor.
Paine's philosophy behind the program recommended goes something like this. All people are born into the world endowed by the Creator a share in the common property of the Earth. All private property, so-called, is property over the improvements upon the Earth. Generally, the value of this property will outweigh the value of the common property, but, nevertheless, the common property has been seized without proper payment for it. Hence, the owner of the improvements ought always to pay rent on the Earth they inhabit to the entire race of humanity; this is the "ground-rent" and argument by which the above social safety net is grounded as justice rather than as merely good policy. Similarly, most gross wealth is socially built; no man, alone, could make it; and, if so, there is a social debt to be paid for personal property, as well. This solves another large problem that Paine identifies. Once a society becomes too large for the world to revert back to a state of nature, that society cannot remove itself from civilization, and therefore the negative effects of civilization must be removed to the point that living under it is no different (in quality) than under the state of the nature. (The state of nature being conceived by Paine as neither having abject poverty or gross wealth; these two things are products of civilization.) There are some things to agree with and some to disagree with here. Paine probably makes a gross assumption in thinking that humans have universal ownership of the Earth. Why not animals, and, for that matter, why assume property at all? It is all very pretty. We all ought to pay up to make others happy and healthy. But his argument seems flawed. His argument for the taxation of private property is far stronger; after all, the proof that social forces (like the specialization of labor) are the cause behind the ability to have large amounts of wealth are patently obvious.
Throughout the work, Paine is keen on the idea of systemic change. He realizes that the property owners in the current day are not the ones which stole the land, and, therefore, are innocent, unless they oppose his plan (and therefore become complicit in the crime). His understanding that voluntary charity cannot create systemic change is correct. Like always, too, he phrases it prettily: "it is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."
He is very insistent that he is not writing for the sake of attaining charitable contributes to the poor. His basis is on moral right that all people ought to be provided for due to their having been provided for under the state of nature; we have changed things, and, therefore, we must ameliorate the problems that our system has created. Paine probably does charity wrong. If we view charity as a virtue, and that we all ought to be charitable, then, at this point, charity becomes a duty; charity that is voluntary becomes a form of charity distinct from the virtue of charity. Nevertheless, Paine is correct in assuming that private charity is incapable of solving our problems, and that we must do something to raise all that exist in society from indigence.
This last bit is a digression of little importance. If you do not care to read it, don't.
Another author of this period, William Belsham, believed that Paine's theory was foolish in consideration that those who receive the money would have no incentive to work at all. He conceived, therefore, that a minimum wage ought be established, and that all monetary matters should be placed upon the employer first of all, and, if not possible, at that point upon the government. This was because the employer was the one doing the harm, not the community, and therefore the harmful employer must be punished. Paine touches upon this topic slightly in this work. He considers that a lot of poverty may be the result of employers skimping on the employee, such that the employee dies in pain whilst the employer lives in luxury. Nevertheless, he considers it probably impossible to bring the same value of labor to the laborer. This does not touch Belsham's argument. Instead, the whole idea that Paine proposes refutes Belsham's way of thinking, because Paine is arduous in noting that there shall be only one payment at 21 years of age to start one off. It is not, in fact, a dissuasion from employment, and it cannot be, because, very soon after the payment, needs will need to be met once again. I wonder if Belsham was talking about a different form of universal basic income proposed by Paine. Nevertheless, Belsham was probably wrong in his assessment. His mind was too fixated on incentive without realizing that people almost certainly enjoy helping each other and that this could be used as an incentive for most jobs outside of the need for provide oneself with sustenance. Belsham is not wrong in stating that the employer should be harmed for doing harm, but I agree more with Paine's general idea than with Belsham's.
His proposals are somewhat moderate. He desires for 15 pounds sterling to be delivered unto anyone who attains the age of 21 years (the age at which he considers one to have reached maturity), and a consistent payment of 10 pounds every year after attaining the age of 50. This would all be paid for by a 10% deduction from all inherited property. This provision, Paine argues, would do a lot to end poverty in so-called civilized society, where we are constantly inundated with the extremes of indigence and luxury. His argument as to how it would work is faulty to me. The provision for the elderly is perhaps valid, but the provision for the young seems not. Probably the main critique would be (and this applies to both) that the provision provided may not be used for the purposes which Paine desires. For example, the 15 pounds awarded at attaining 21 years of age are supposed to be given for the purpose of setting up in life; it affords an opportunity. He conceives the buying of a cow and some land as an example of this. There is, however, no assurance that such will be the use of the money, and, because it is only a single payment, any waste or misuse of it will be deleterious to the conditions of the recipient. This, therefore, does not solve the problem of poverty as stated, but only allows for more poor people to gain an upper hand than usual; there remains a need to address the main issue. His proposition, and all welfare propositions, seem fine in the main for doing what Paine wishes to do here, but I can't help but think that there needs to be more done.
When I use the term "moderate" above, this is in the context of a modern lens. At the time, Paine's proposals would have ruffled a few feathers. For example, he desires for this disposable income to be given to both males and females. At the time, this was at least somewhat radical.
As Paine remarks upon a similar critique: "make, then, society the treasurer 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." If this payment is not used well, than we can formulate different methods, using the same money, to invest in the community at large, allowing for assurance that it will go toward uplifting the conditions of the poor.
Paine's philosophy behind the program recommended goes something like this. All people are born into the world endowed by the Creator a share in the common property of the Earth. All private property, so-called, is property over the improvements upon the Earth. Generally, the value of this property will outweigh the value of the common property, but, nevertheless, the common property has been seized without proper payment for it. Hence, the owner of the improvements ought always to pay rent on the Earth they inhabit to the entire race of humanity; this is the "ground-rent" and argument by which the above social safety net is grounded as justice rather than as merely good policy. Similarly, most gross wealth is socially built; no man, alone, could make it; and, if so, there is a social debt to be paid for personal property, as well. This solves another large problem that Paine identifies. Once a society becomes too large for the world to revert back to a state of nature, that society cannot remove itself from civilization, and therefore the negative effects of civilization must be removed to the point that living under it is no different (in quality) than under the state of the nature. (The state of nature being conceived by Paine as neither having abject poverty or gross wealth; these two things are products of civilization.) There are some things to agree with and some to disagree with here. Paine probably makes a gross assumption in thinking that humans have universal ownership of the Earth. Why not animals, and, for that matter, why assume property at all? It is all very pretty. We all ought to pay up to make others happy and healthy. But his argument seems flawed. His argument for the taxation of private property is far stronger; after all, the proof that social forces (like the specialization of labor) are the cause behind the ability to have large amounts of wealth are patently obvious.
Throughout the work, Paine is keen on the idea of systemic change. He realizes that the property owners in the current day are not the ones which stole the land, and, therefore, are innocent, unless they oppose his plan (and therefore become complicit in the crime). His understanding that voluntary charity cannot create systemic change is correct. Like always, too, he phrases it prettily: "it is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."
He is very insistent that he is not writing for the sake of attaining charitable contributes to the poor. His basis is on moral right that all people ought to be provided for due to their having been provided for under the state of nature; we have changed things, and, therefore, we must ameliorate the problems that our system has created. Paine probably does charity wrong. If we view charity as a virtue, and that we all ought to be charitable, then, at this point, charity becomes a duty; charity that is voluntary becomes a form of charity distinct from the virtue of charity. Nevertheless, Paine is correct in assuming that private charity is incapable of solving our problems, and that we must do something to raise all that exist in society from indigence.
This last bit is a digression of little importance. If you do not care to read it, don't.
Another author of this period, William Belsham, believed that Paine's theory was foolish in consideration that those who receive the money would have no incentive to work at all. He conceived, therefore, that a minimum wage ought be established, and that all monetary matters should be placed upon the employer first of all, and, if not possible, at that point upon the government. This was because the employer was the one doing the harm, not the community, and therefore the harmful employer must be punished. Paine touches upon this topic slightly in this work. He considers that a lot of poverty may be the result of employers skimping on the employee, such that the employee dies in pain whilst the employer lives in luxury. Nevertheless, he considers it probably impossible to bring the same value of labor to the laborer. This does not touch Belsham's argument. Instead, the whole idea that Paine proposes refutes Belsham's way of thinking, because Paine is arduous in noting that there shall be only one payment at 21 years of age to start one off. It is not, in fact, a dissuasion from employment, and it cannot be, because, very soon after the payment, needs will need to be met once again. I wonder if Belsham was talking about a different form of universal basic income proposed by Paine. Nevertheless, Belsham was probably wrong in his assessment. His mind was too fixated on incentive without realizing that people almost certainly enjoy helping each other and that this could be used as an incentive for most jobs outside of the need for provide oneself with sustenance. Belsham is not wrong in stating that the employer should be harmed for doing harm, but I agree more with Paine's general idea than with Belsham's.
January 31, 2021
The first modern welfare state was established in the Second Reich by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Before him, Karl Marx had in the Communist Manifesto advocated for free public education while Henry George had in Progress and Poverty advocated for a Land Value Tax which would be used to fund social services such as a Universal Basic Income.
But before Bismarck, and before Marx or George, there was Thomas Paine. A philosopher and political theorist whose works greatly inspired the Founding Fathers of the USA, Paine needs no introduction. He was undoubtedly one of the most foresighted radicals of the era of the bourgeois revolutions.
In Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine argues for an inheritance tax on land. This inheritance tax would be based on the same principle as Henry George's Land Value Tax, as Paine argues that land in its natural state is the common property of man, and so those who wish to possess land as their private property should pay a "ground rent". The funds collected from this tax would be used to pay for:
1) A universal pension for the elderly
2) A universal income for the blind and disabled
3) A universal inheritance, in the form of a lump sum, for all those who come of age.
While Agrarian Justice is an old work, it can hardly be called outdated. Sure, many countries by now have social security for the elderly and welfare programs for the disabled. However, for those like me who advocate for an expansion of the welfare state, Paine's philosophy which he uses to justify his arguments is still quite insightful.
But before Bismarck, and before Marx or George, there was Thomas Paine. A philosopher and political theorist whose works greatly inspired the Founding Fathers of the USA, Paine needs no introduction. He was undoubtedly one of the most foresighted radicals of the era of the bourgeois revolutions.
In Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine argues for an inheritance tax on land. This inheritance tax would be based on the same principle as Henry George's Land Value Tax, as Paine argues that land in its natural state is the common property of man, and so those who wish to possess land as their private property should pay a "ground rent". The funds collected from this tax would be used to pay for:
1) A universal pension for the elderly
2) A universal income for the blind and disabled
3) A universal inheritance, in the form of a lump sum, for all those who come of age.
While Agrarian Justice is an old work, it can hardly be called outdated. Sure, many countries by now have social security for the elderly and welfare programs for the disabled. However, for those like me who advocate for an expansion of the welfare state, Paine's philosophy which he uses to justify his arguments is still quite insightful.
December 23, 2015
I'm interested in seeing where the basic income movement goes. Agrarian Justice lays out some of the first guidelines for not only that but also Social Security. Paine's liberalism feels pretty contemporary. He supported an equal payout for women too!
July 7, 2024
I was not expecting this to be as quote dense as it is. There are so many great quotes that get to the heart of the issue and show how the solutions would benefit all in time. Also it is interesting to see the foundations of socialist tenents that predate Marx.
"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."
---
"There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established 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."
"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."
---
"There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established 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."
Read
November 12, 2020An easy read as political philosophy goes, however quite underwhelming. While the concept of universal basic income is wildly progressive (and had it went through, as Paine believed, we’d be living in a better world), Paine’s solution and explanation is underdeveloped and confused. Paine’s “proto-socialist” muses on inequality and liberty are incredible, but he gets way too bogged down in shoddy math and economics to formulate his ideas on UBI. While this essay/pamphlet holds a great amount of value in its influence on movements such as the Free-Soilers, if you are interested in UBI just watch a 5-minute Yang interview.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 6, 2025
The problem: Nobody has a right to the Earth, and giving that Earth to a few people is a grave injustice that leads to great suffering. But we need people to cultivate the earth.
The solution: Tax the value of the land and give it to the people.
The solution (concrete): A 10% tax on all inherited estates to go towards: 15£ for every person turning 21, a 10£/year ($2,000 in 2025 USD) pension for the elderly (over 50), and the same for the disabled.
I thought he was headed towards a Georgist land value tax, but he thought this was more practical.
The details aren't important, the ideas (both moral and practical) really are.
The solution: Tax the value of the land and give it to the people.
The solution (concrete): A 10% tax on all inherited estates to go towards: 15£ for every person turning 21, a 10£/year ($2,000 in 2025 USD) pension for the elderly (over 50), and the same for the disabled.
I thought he was headed towards a Georgist land value tax, but he thought this was more practical.
The details aren't important, the ideas (both moral and practical) really are.
June 5, 2021
220+ years old and still worth a visit
In brevity and in long composure he was artful in the use of language and rational. This is a short 30 minute read and worth it for a brief foray into the topic of universal income - in 1795 context. Math and future was not his best strength, but timeless regardless.
In brevity and in long composure he was artful in the use of language and rational. This is a short 30 minute read and worth it for a brief foray into the topic of universal income - in 1795 context. Math and future was not his best strength, but timeless regardless.
January 31, 2022
basically the first draft of the communist manifesto if you squint hard enough; instead, we got SALT
December 27, 2025
At no point did I expect Thomas Paine to precede Das Kapital with such accuracy, everything down to labor alienation to the gradual collective benefit of property.
March 2, 2015
In this twenty page pamphlet Paine lays out his personal plan for an estate tax, a social security, a very rudimentary basic wage, and he does it in a simple and heart felt way, using both logic and reason, and illustrating why it's morally justified to implement his estate tax.
At first I was thinking "taxes are bad" and I still have a problem with taxes, but Paine lays out a solid foundation for why requesting the taxation is acceptable, and it works.
It's a piece of brilliance, where when going into it, I felt that this would remove Paine from the belief that he was a libertarian in the modern standards, and while that's slightly so, at the same time, his reasoning behind the estate tax is well thought out and grounded in a logical formula that makes sense from both an environmental standpoint, a mathematical standpoint, an economic standpoint, and a moral standpoint.
His ideas on the use of that money as well is quite brilliant, and thought out.
I got this book as an add on to common sense, and to be honest, I found this to be a lot more solid than Common Sense. It made me appreciate Paine quite a bit more, where as Common sense tugs at the heart string to make his passionate argument, Agrarian Justice makes a mental perfect argument for an economic solution.
At first I was thinking "taxes are bad" and I still have a problem with taxes, but Paine lays out a solid foundation for why requesting the taxation is acceptable, and it works.
It's a piece of brilliance, where when going into it, I felt that this would remove Paine from the belief that he was a libertarian in the modern standards, and while that's slightly so, at the same time, his reasoning behind the estate tax is well thought out and grounded in a logical formula that makes sense from both an environmental standpoint, a mathematical standpoint, an economic standpoint, and a moral standpoint.
His ideas on the use of that money as well is quite brilliant, and thought out.
I got this book as an add on to common sense, and to be honest, I found this to be a lot more solid than Common Sense. It made me appreciate Paine quite a bit more, where as Common sense tugs at the heart string to make his passionate argument, Agrarian Justice makes a mental perfect argument for an economic solution.
April 10, 2016
Paine wanders into some socialist theories here suggesting communal ownership of land and the abolition of rights of inheritance. While I appreciate the great mind, spirit and contributions to humanity of Paine I think that he was likely influenced by Plato's Republic and other works of that kind. He didn't have the perspective we now do of the failures of socialism as it has failed everywhere it was tried.
One look at Colonial history and a cursory reading of Bradford's History of the Plymouth Settlement should be enough to prove the foolishness of any utopian social concept.
One look at Colonial history and a cursory reading of Bradford's History of the Plymouth Settlement should be enough to prove the foolishness of any utopian social concept.
December 26, 2024
This is so good. I don't understand how people don't see the common sense in UBI. The inequality gap is massive, and the top 1 percent of people self perpetuate these gains. We see this over and over again in the destruction of the commons. The plain simple argument of Thomas Paine is so good, and it's a very compelling. The "commons" or land, air, and water is something every living person has the right to own. However, only a few people profit off this by enclosing the land. Alaska's permanent fund has proven that a UBI model can work, but lobbyists work against the common person.
December 23, 2016
Paine outlines a plan for social aid, based on demographics available with the idea of allowing for ability to progress while acknowledging the lack of landed property (land originally being the gift of the creating deity for all to use--cultivation changing that to owned land with the advantages of civilization--read those how ye may).
February 9, 2021
A very good read for people interested in history and social science.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews