Continuando a responder ao Rui Botelho Rodrigues:
Aqui possivelmente o Rui terá razão, já que o meu conhecimento do georgismo não é em primeira mão, mas através de autores que privilegiam a variante "toda a gente tem igual direito aos recursos naturais" à variante "os recursos naturais pertencem à colectividade".2. Teoria Georgista.
«Parece-me que, à partida, a teoria georgista é tão compatível com cada pessoa possuir 1/6.800.000.000 de cada corpo como com cada pessoa possuir 100% de apenas um corpo.»
Se o objectivo do exercício presente é aplicar estas várias teorias sobre terra ou propriedade produtiva à propriedade sobre o próprio corpo, temos de lembrar que Henry George diz muito claramente que toda a terra devia ser propriedade colectiva, não que a terra deveria ser distribuída igualmente entre todos os indivíduos num determinado território. Assim, a única saída é a partilha colectiva de todos os corpos. O que é impossível de defender argumentativamente sem contradição performativa.
No entanto, esta critica de Henry George a Herbert Spencer parece indicar que mesmo George considerava o acesso à terra como um "direito igual de cada individuo" e não como um "direito da colectividade":
The fact is, that without noticing the change, Mr. Spencer has dropped the idea of equal rights to land, and taken up in its stead a different idea -- that of joint rights to land. That there is a difference may be seen at once. For joint rights may be and often are unequal rights.
The matter is an important one, as it is the source of a great deal of popular confusion. Let me, therefore, explain it fully.Mas de qualquer maneira, mesmo que o meu raciocinio não se aplique à "teoria georgista", continua a aplicar-se ao que poderiamos chamar a "teoria georgista modificada", isto é, à tal teoria (chamemos-lhe o que quisermos - "neo-georgismo", p.ex.) que acha que toda a gente tem igual direito ao usufruto dos recursos naturais.
When men have equal rights to a thing, as for instance, to the rooms and appurtenances of a club of which they are members, each has a right to use all or any part of the thing that no other one of them is using. It is only where there is use or some indication of use by one of the others that even politeness dictates such a phrase as "Allow me!" or "If you please!"
But where men have joint rights to a thing, as for instance, to a sum of money held to their joint credit, then the consent of all the others is required for the use of the thing or of any part of it, by any one of them.
Now, the rights of men to the use of land are not joint rights: they are equal rights.
Were there only one man on earth, he would have a right to the use of the whole earth or any part of the earth.
When there is more than one man on earth, the right to the use of land that any one of them would have, were he alone, is not abrogated: it is only limited. The right of each to the use of land is still a direct, original right, which he holds of himself, and not by the gift or consent of the others; but it has become limited by the similar rights of the others, and is therefore an equal right. His right to use the earth still continues; but it has become, by reason of this limitation, not an absolute right to use any part of the earth, but (1) an absolute right to use any part of the earth as to which his use does not conflict with the equal rights of others (i.e., which no one else wants to use at the same time), and (2) a coequal right to the use of any part of the earth which he and others may want to use at the same time.
It is, thus, only where two or more men want to use the same land at the same time that equal rights to the use of land come in conflict, and the adjustment of society becomes necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment