Wednesday, December 23, 2009

SECURING OUR AFRICAN RESOURCES FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT


Guest writer and partner in progress Mwarang’ethe responds to a recent article in the Daily Nation that was a reaction to the acceptance speech that President Obama gave in Oslo.
In summary, the article bemoaned the fact that the United States was aggressively waging wars in Iran and Afghanistan where their strategic, national security and commercial interests were at stake while ignoring the commerce- driven conflicts in Africa that are meant to sate the greed of western corporations.
Full article HERE
SOLUTION TO AFRICAN RESOURCE CURSE
LIES IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF PROPERTY
AND NOT IN OBAMA

By
Mwaniki Gachuba III 21st December, 2009 @ gachubah@yahoo.com
In a recent article Professor James Gathii, lamented that “Obama forgot resources wars that are the bane of Africa,” Daily Nation, on 21st December, 2009. In rejoinder, we assert that, the leadership to end African resource wars should come from Professor Gathii and other African lawyers versed with international law and not Mr Obama. This is so because Mr Obama is the head of the Western Empire which has practiced mercantilist acts against Africa and it people for centuries and cannot change how this Empire behaves towards Africa. The reasons are simple and obvious. Through the mercantilist acts this Empire has managed to keep itself rich while impoverishing and killing Africans. One of the most efficient methods this Empire has used against Africa is the deliberate and conscious efforts to ensure non – enforcement of well known property laws in international trade laws.
We therefore, suggest that, since Professor Gathii is well versed with International Economic Law than President Obama may be, he is in a better position to offer leadership on the African “resource curse” than President Obama. We will outline briefly how looting of African resources can be stopped using well known legal principles if Africans versed with international law like Professor Gathii were to offer the required, but, missing leadership.
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that: “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources ... based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” Taking for instance the example of Congo, it follows that the minerals under the soil in Congo belong to the people of Congo. From this, it must follow that, for there to be free and lawful disposal of these resources, such disposal must be for the ends of Congolese people. Thus, if there is any disposal that is not for their own ends, it amounts to deprivation of people of Congo of their own means of subsistence and therefore, in contravention of known human rights instruments.
In accordance with well known legal principles, if a robber armed with superior weapon takes anyone’s property, such a robber cannot in justice claim to have valid title to that property. It then, follows and must follow that, whoever buys this property, also, does not get a valid title although he may be in possession of the property. There exists no reason why this analogy does not hold true to the natural resources of Congo or of Africa in general. It therefore, follows that, for anyone to be able to dispose and pass over good title to Congolese minerals to foreigners, the people of Congo must have freely consented to such disposal.
However, when it comes to Africa, the above well known legal principle is forgotten. As a result, whoever controls a certain territory by force is wrongly
assumed to have the right to dispose the natural resources in that territory. In other words, might makes right when it comes to African natural resources. By allowing this dangerous principle to stand, the international community has refused to enforce the right of ownership of natural resources enshrined in international human rights instruments to the benefit of Africans.
By so doing, we have perpetuated resource conflicts because, every war lord knows that, all he needs is a few guns to capture and control a certain area and then he will be free to dispose the minerals thereof. More so, those who are excluded from the gravy do their best to retake the territory or if it is a whole nation like Equatorial Guinea, they seek to overthrow the sitting president so as to be able to also dispose these resources themselves. Thus, the failure to enforce rights to natural resources is the root cause of endless violence in Africa over the natural resources.
The reasons as to why the international community has turned a blind eye to this theft are not difficult to discern. Simply, the rich nations which President Obama leads are happy with these arrangements because this ensures access to cheap African minerals no matter who is in power and however he came to power. And, since these raw materials are the basis of the wealth and power of the rich nations, they will do nothing about it. It is from this perspective; we assert that, expecting President Obama to do anything about the resources wars in Africa is a pipe dream.
So, what can we do as African lawyers? A lot, we would say. What Africans lawyers need to do is to fight to bring the trade in African resources under proper market and legal principles of ownership and sale. Under these rules, African lawyers must assert that, the HUMAN RIGHTS of its people are violated when anyone takes by deception, manipulation or force the natural
resources of any African nation. This would mean that, for Africans to be deemed to have consented to sale of their resources, they must have civil liberties and political rights which can enable them to properly scrutinise the sale of their resources.
For instance, when President of Equatorial Guinea sells the oil from his country, it is impossible to assert that the people in this country have consented to such sales. It is so because these people do not know how these sales are conducted, and who gets what. They cannot protest these sales without torture, detention and such other acts.
This being the case, the question is, since the President of Equatorial Guinea sells this oil because he can, i.e. because he can threaten and kill them, does this give him the right to transfer the title to their oil to outsiders? We say no for in simple words, he is stealing the resources of the people of Equatorial Guinea and purporting to sell it for their benefit. Flowing from this, it must follow that he cannot pass a good title of this oil to the buyers. Thus, the buyers of oil from Equatorial Guinea are dealing with stolen goods. Therefore, those who buy and ship these resources while knowing they have been stolen are accomplices in violation of Equatorial Guinea’s people’s right to their natural resources.
Following the above principles, it seems that if African lawyers can organise themselves, they can easily act on behalf of Africans to enforce the property rights of the African people all over the world. The question is how Kenya, Western, Chinese would or Indian courts determine if a ruler or a warlord has the consent of his people to dispose their resources?
We would suggest that, among others, the Freedom House reports which rates both civil liberties and political rights can be brought to bear to demonstrate that these goods are stolen.
In accordance with Freedom House scoring sheet, states like Equatorial Guinea in 2008 was rated 6 on civil rights, 7 on political rights and the status was declared as Not Free.1 By rating Equatorial Guinea at 6 on civil liberties, it means that:
“People in countries and territories with a rating of 6 experience severely restricted rights of expression and association, and there are almost always political prisoners and other manifestations of political terror. These countries may be characterized by a few partial rights, such as some religious and social freedoms, some highly restricted private business activity, and relatively free private discussion.”2
By rating it at 7 on political rights, it means that:
“For countries and territories with a rating of 7, political rights are absent or virtually nonexistent as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime or severe oppression in combination with civil war. States and territories in this group may also be marked by extreme violence or warlord rule that dominates political power in the absence of an authoritative, functioning central government.”
Now, if these are the conditions in Equatorial Guinea, can one say in justice and equity that their natural resources have been disposed in accordance with Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Since it is possible to prove that much of the money from these resources end up in the
----------------------------------------
1 http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2008&country=7389. (21st December, 2009).
2 http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=341&year=2008. (21st December, 2009).
----------------------------------------
personal accounts of the President and his cronies, it seems that this is not a difficult case to prosecute successfully against companies trafficking stolen goods either in the West or in the African soil. The sums recovered from such buyers would be entrusted to an impartial body for disbursement for the sole benefit of the people of Guinea for instance. More importantly, this would deprive war lords and other petty dictators the means to buy weapons to enslave their own people.
When the Western economic interests were threatened, they entrusted their international lawyers like Louis B. Sohn and R. R. Baxter to work on the “Responsibility of States for Injuries to the Economic Interests of Aliens.” We ask, has the time not come for Professor Gathii to lead a team of African international lawyers in drafting, “Responsibility of Multinationals for Injuries to the Economic Interests of African People Due to Theft of Their Natural Resources?
As usual reader comments and suggestions are welcome. Those interested in joining a dynamic nationwide movement to retake Kenya are encouraged to register so we may start organising.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

THE MONEY QUESTION


Welcome. We are honored to have guest writer Mwarang'ethe who will discuss the money issue as pertains to the Draft Constitution. We welcome reader comments so please feel free to agree, disagree or offer suggestions.
THE MONEY QUESTION,
THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION
&
FREEDOM

By Mwarang’ethe
The strongly held belief in the 21st Century that bankers have a divine right to create money out of thin air, and thereafter charge interest/usury and thereby enslave those who honestly labor, will be looked at by the future generations as an obnoxious idea as we look today at the vicious idea pregnant with peril, of the bygone ages that, kings had divine right to rule.
The Prayer
The Kenyan total national debt is expected to reach Sh1.33 trillion by 2012. Such a monstrous debt that enslaves the current and the future generations without their consent arises from the entrenchment in our laws the DEBT BASED MONETARY system. Given this grim milestone, we beseech the Committee of Experts and the whole nation to embrace the CREDIT BASED MONETARY system in the New Constitution. Credit based monetary system is the only way of ending this debt servitude by providing debt free, stable and honest currency and thereby ensure just distribution of power and wealth. To achieve this, we urge Kenyans to preserve and entrench the fundamental and natural right to issue money
in the New Constitution. This must be so, for right to issue money is the basis of all other rights.
Fundamental Declarations:
1. The utilization of money as a medium of exchange does not depart from barter trade. Thus, the sole OBJECTIVE of money is to split barter into two halves. The receiver of money gives value thereof, but, receives only a promise of value. When this promise of value is handed to the subsequent seller, the original receiver of money requisitions his half of the barter transaction. All money does is to bring about time element into barter and thereby give the receiver of money the power to requisition his half from any other trader and in any commodity or service, at any time. This way, money expedites and multiplies exchange leading to greater variety of production and thereby raises the living standards.
2. Money being a liberator of exchange is also a vehicle of human trust and confidence. Its substance is the pledge that he who takes will also give. This pledge of faith is the sole basis of the power to issue money. Thus, he who issues money to cover his purchases must be prepared to redeem his pledge by selling on the tender of the monetary instrument from any person.
3. From above it follows therefore, that the SOURCE of money must be in tune with:
(a) The first cardinal truth of money that no one, whether the government or the individual can ISSUE/CREATE money without BUYING something.
(b) The second cardinal truth of money that sound money must be BACKED with something and the act of backing can only be the act of SELLING.
(c) From these two undeniable laws of money, it follows therefore, that; contrary to universal, but, ignorant opinion, commercial banks (excluding savings banks) do not issue or loan money. Banks do not lend their capital, surplus or depositors funds. They merely authorize the so – called borrowers to increase money supply i.e. issue money and the deposit so created is what is called a loan. This gives bankers who create nothing an unchecked and a dangerous monopoly. They use this monopoly to reject genuine requests to issue money for productive sectors of the economy and when they do, they demand a tribute for no services delivered from wealth creators. Thus, banking as constituted today greatly hampers commercial exchange and therefore, retards human progress.
4. The tap root of freedom is unrestricted exchange. All other freedoms are appendixes of this tap root. We are free to the degree we are able to enjoy social intercourse. The enjoyment of the social intercourse is measured by our mental and material wealth. Our mental and material wealth is dependent upon our productivity. Productivity is dependent on our exchange facility since we produce for ourselves indirectly through exchange with other men. Therefore, unhampered exchange is the neck of the bottle of freedom and happiness. If growth of freedom is dependent on freedom of exchange, whatever impedes exchange must be rejected while that promotes exchange and therefore, freedom of mankind should be welcomed.
5. Unrestricted exchange is dependent on the freedom to issue money which is rooted in natural law. Given its roots in natural law, any man made law that attempts to thwart it has no validity. This is so because to the extent this fundamental freedom is curtailed; all other freedoms, so loudly proclaimed in human rights instruments are equally curtailed for they are an offshoot of the freedom of exchange. More importantly, curtailment of this fundamental
right converts the government into a master and not a servant and thereby, renders the citizen a subject of his own creation.
6. So as to ensure unhampered exchange, and therefore, freedom that invention of money paper money promised, we urge the Kenyan people to abandon the current debt based monetary system for not only does it hamper exchange between wealth creators who are the majority and therefore their freedom at the behest of the few bankers who create nothing, but, also, perverts democracy because the source of money determine the social, economic and political outcomes. The current system makes money readily available to speculators who create financial bubbles while limiting and making it expensive to those who are in the productive sectors of the economy.
7. For money to be sound, stable and adequate, it must spring from where wealth springs from, namely, the wealth creators. Ability to create money must be matched by the ability to produce wealth. By so doing, we can be sure that money is backed by value and thereby prevent inflation so as to maintain stable prices. This will enable effective coordination between production and consumption. This requires adoption of a monetary system designed as a utility and responsive to the needs of mass distribution. The only monetary system that can meet the needs of the people is the credit monetary system which will enhance exchange while not perverting political democracy.
Money Question in the Harmonized Draft Constitution
Although not exhaustive, the following sections in the Harmonized Draft
Constitution is relevant to the vital question of money
1. S.253 empowers the national government to borrow money from any source.
2. S.254 (1) gives the devolved government powers to borrow money.
3. S.555 declares public debt of the Republic a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
4. S.269 establishes the Central Bank of Kenya and gives it monopoly to issue the currency of Kenya
5. S.270 requires the Central Bank of Kenya to:
(a) Promote and maintain the stability of the value of the currency of the Republic.
(b) Issue notes and coins.
(c) Promote balanced and sustainable economic growth.
(d) Promote efficient banking and credit system.
6. Chapter Seven which deals with Land and Property
The question is, has the Harmonized Draft Constitution come up with a sound law or framework for issuing stable bona fide money or medium of exchange that is necessary for a proper functioning of free enterprise economy which we must have so as to create sustainable economy for the new Republic?
Having gone through the above sections of the Draft Constitution, we are forced to conclude that, Kenyans are yet to appreciate the true cause of their miseries and tribulations. Consequently, they have not removed these causes, for they remain embedded in their new Constitutional dispensation. Simply, it is a case of old wine in new wine skin. As a result, there will be no change and the consequence will be more disillusionment and perhaps, total failure of the Kenya state in the near future.
Contrary to popular delusions and fantasy, the true causes of Kenyan miseries have not been President Kenyatta, Moi or Kibaki. They have been twofold.1 These are:
(a) The monopolization of land by a few.
(b) Monopolization of money by a few.
----------------------------------------------
1 Other factors include monopolization of media as well as external factors like neo – mercantilism dressed in the language of free trade by the rich nations. Through neo – mercantilism policies, the rich nations appropriate wealth of the poor nations and especially Africa. How Africa may counter these policies is a subject for another day.
----------------------------------------------
We have discussed how land should be dealt with as an inalienable birthright elsewhere. Here, we deal with money and how to link land and money creation powers.

This particular article then goes on to define what money is and tells of the Consequences of Money Creation Monopoly by Government and Bankers. It is a very enlightening but lengthy read to post here in its entirety so we urge the reader to email us for the full copy. Read it and comment and let’s get a discussion going

Monday, December 7, 2009

Land is an Inalienable Birthright





We are going to address the land question as mentioned in the Draft Constitution.
We welcome Guest writer Mwarang'ethe who will elucidate on what other eminent thinkers have said on this subject. We welcome comments and suggestions. In a later post we will bring to your attention to places where the Land Value Taxation system has worked or is working.
LAND IS AN INALIENABLE BIRTHRIGHT

Having examined CHAPTER SEVEN of the Draft Constitution entitled LAND AND PROPERTY, we have come to the conclusion that, although on appearance it looks a better deal than the current one, this Draft Constitution dwells on EQUALIZATION OF FORTUNE and entrenchment of MONOPOLIZATION OF LAND by a few. We believe that, this policy falls short of the objective of a well designed agrarian reform which is the EQUALIZATION OF RIGHTS of all citizens.
To ensure equalization of rights as opposed to chaos of equalization of fortune and continued monopolization of land, we propose the inclusion of the following maxims in the Draft Constitution:
(a) Acknowledging that, the Almighty and Eternal God, having created men free and equal in respect of their rights and having given the earth in common to all men, every Kenyan has a birthright that is original, inalienable and indefeasible by any act or determination of others to an EQUAL share of the property in the land/natural resources in its original state. This is a maxim of natural law.
(b) It is also a maxim of natural law, that everyone, by whose labour any portion of the soil has been rendered more fertile, has the right to the additional produce of that fertility, or to the value of it and may transmit this right freely to other men.
(c) LAND/NATURAL RESOURCES VALUE TAX (including landing slots, airwaves etc), POLLUTION and WASTE shall be the main source of revenue for running the affairs of the Kenyan state. There shall be no taxation of INCOME, CAPITAL & EXPENDITURE etc until the
WHOLE land value, pollution and waste tax has been collected and utilised productively.
Brief Explanation for these maxims
Having started well on the s.79, the Committee went adrift and ended up with a land law that is ambiguous and will cause unnecessary economic and political tension. Our considered view is that, you have ended here for you and the whole nation has been and is still labouring under a false and a very dangerous doctrine that, land/natural resources can be called a man's property.
If this Harmonised Draft was the product of the man in the street, the incorporation of private property in land in the Constitution in s. 81 would be understandable. Since you are lawyers, who are supposed to be learned, ingenious and friends of mankind, you have no liberty to find this inquiry useless or troublesome as common men would do. You must therefore, summon courage and perhaps a bit of divine wisdom to examine this absurd and pernicious right to absolute ownership of land.
However, one must appreciate the fact that due to the conditioning we receive as we grow up and in our so called law schools, it is not easy to see through this false and dangerous doctrine of absolute title in land that our law professors
have propagandised to their law students for centuries. In the words of Smith,1 while discussing the subtle monopolization of land, he notes that:
“If I were to avoid saying anything threatening to the reader I would leave out this chapter, but the subtle monopolization of social wealth started here. The powerful structured their superior rights into ownership of land hundreds of years ago. These excessive rights are now ingrained in law and custom.”
Smith, further explaining the injustice of one person having unrestricted ownership of another’s living space on this earth, says that:
“This practice is only customary; it is part of the social conditioning that we all receive while growing up. Being thoroughly conditioned, and having never experienced or imagined anything else, few ever realize that under the current structure of land ownership they may not have all their rights. Instead, the possibility of eventually owning one’s piece of land is viewed as evidence of full rights. Being conscious of the not –so-distant past when common people did not have even this privilege, citizen’s view and celebrate these limited rights as full rights.”2
------------------------------
1 J. W. Smith, Ph.D, The World’s Wasted Wealth 2 – Save Our Wealth, Save Our Environment. Cambria, California: The Institute For Economic Democracy, 1994 at 339.
2 J.W. Smith, The world’s Wasted Wealth 2 (n 2) at 339 – 340.
-------------------------------
Thus, by succumbing to this false but widespread doctrine of private land or property in land, you have engrained in our fundamental law as the powerful did centuries ago, the most dangerous monopoly every witnessed in human history. You have therefore, failed to heed the immortal words uttered by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his “A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,” that:“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself as saying “this is mine,” and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: “Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”3
----------------------------
3 J.J. Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses by Jean – Jacques Rousseau, translated with an Introduction by G.D.H. Cole.
This book is available at libertyfund.org
----------------------------
This dangerous monopoly you seek to entrench was described by an eminent Scottish philosopher who was a contemporary of Adam Smith, but whose work was “suppressed” in these words:
"All these untoward circumstances which take place ... may be traced up, as to THEIR CAUSE, to that EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to the IMPROVABLE value of soil which a few men, never in any country exceeding one hundredth part of the community, are permitted to engross - a most oppressive privilege, by the operation of which the HAPPINESS of mankind has been for ages more invaded and restrained, than by all the tyranny of kings, the imposture of priests, and the CHICANE OF LAWYERS taken together, though these are supposed to be the greatest evils that afflict the societies of human kind.
The silent but pervading energy of this oppression comes home to the bosoms and to the firesides of the LOWEST ORDERS OF MEN, who are thereby rendered MEAN - SPIRITED and SERVILE. It begets in them also, for their own defence, so much CUNNING, FRAUD, HYPOCRISY and MALIGNANT ENVY towards those who enjoy affluence, that by its wide and continual operation the virtue of mankind is MORE CORRUPTED, and their minds mode debased..."4
----------------------------
4 W. Ogilvie, Birthright in Land. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd, 1891 at 27. Words in capital letters are inserted by the present author to emphasize.
-----------------------------
Having noted the above, we can now state that all right of property is founded either on general right of occupancy or common occupancy and labour as discussed below.
In the Book of Genesis 1: 26, the Almighty Creator, tell us that having made man in His image, He said, “... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” There can never be any other basis for man’s dominion over the earth. Given this, it follows and must follow that the earth and all therein, are the general property of all mankind as a gift from their Creator. Thus, with the Almighty God having given the earth and all therein to mankind in common occupancy, each person born into this earth by nature has a title to an equal share of property in land.
The other method of acquiring title to land is through labour. It is through labour that the man, who owns more than his equal share of the land in his country of birth, has acquired the same. It is through his labour i.e. through purchase or the labor of those he might have succeeded, that he has acquired title to more than his share of land. However, such a right founded on labor cannot supersede the natural right of occupancy of other men in the original share of land.5
-----------------------
5 W. Ogilvie, Birthright in Land (n 6) at 11.
-----------------------
From the above, we are forced to admit that, since no man expended any labor in creating the earth, it is not possible for any man to call land his private
property. What a man can call his own private property is only which he has produced with his LABOR. Thus, since no man produced the land/earth, it is self evident that, it belongs to all men in common and therefore, is an inalienable, indefeasible birthright to all at all times.
The object of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. Since right to land is one of these natural rights of man,6
----------------------
6 Other natural rights of man are: the right to life, liberty, security and the right to resist oppression.
------------------------
it cannot be considered heresy to declare and we beseech and pray to you and to the Kenyan people, to have the following maxim declared in the Constitution that:
Acknowledging that, the Almighty and Eternal God, having created men free and equal in respect of their rights and having given the earth in common to all men, every Kenyan has a birthright that is original, inalienable and indefeasible by any act or determination of others to an EQUAL share of the property in the land/natural resources in its original state. This is a maxim of natural law.
Having made the above observation, we are also aware that it is declared in the Genesis 3: 19 by the Creator that, “In the sweat of your face you shall eat.” By this we understand it to mean that, what man has produced by his labour, it is his property and the objective of any political association must be to protect man’s property. Arising from this observation, if man has expended his labour, or those he has succeeded have expended any labour to improve the soil, then, that improvement and or the value thereof, is his property and he may freely transmit to other men. In other words, cultivation and improvement of land can only give title only to their results, not to the land itself. Flowing from this, we urge you and the Kenyan people to see it fit to be declared in the new Constitution that:
It is also a maxim of natural law, that everyone, by whose labour any portion of the soil has been rendered more fertile, has the right to the additional produce of that fertility, or to the value of it and may transmit this right freely to other men.7
--------------------------
7 W. Ogilvie, Birthright in Land (n 6) at 12.
--------------------------
From the above two declarations, it is obvious that, by declaring that all men are equally entitled to the use of land does not involve in any way socialism or communism and we need not tamper so much with the existing arrangements as the draft proposes. Also, it is not necessary that the state manages the land. To engage in these activities as the draft declares is to engage in equalization of fortune. This type agrarian reform did not work with Tiberius Gracchus of the Roman Empire and has not worked in Zimbabwe and is fatally failing with dreadful consequences in South Africa that we shall witness in the fullness of time.
Instead of equalization of fortune, which is a dangerous route, all we need instead is an arrangement whereby all the land rent that has been going into the pockets of the few, is taken via taxation to fund the common purposes. To do so, we must deny and utterly reject the vicious idea of “divine absolute land titles” and replace them with conditional form of private ownership of land. This will ensure security of possession and thereby retain use rights and ownership of land for homes, businesses and production will be both easier and cheaper.
This is so because, in the words of Ogilvie, on the first maxim (men have equal right to land) depend the FREEDOM and PROSPERITY of the common people and on the second maxim (man has right to property in the improvements of land) depend the perfection of the art of agriculture, improvement of the common stock and the wealth of the community.8
Since not every Kenyan will be able to acquire an equal physical piece of land, in terms of what this draft proposes, we would not have attained freedom, equality and prosperity of the common people. More so, nor could an equitable division of land with the consent of all, even if it were not impossible that such a division could be made, give valid title to private property in land. This is so because, the equal right to the use of land would attach to all those thereafter born, irrespective of any agreement made by their predecessors.
However, reconciling these two maxims is not difficult as it seems in a free market economy. The first thing we need to acknowledge is that in a free market economy is that in accordance with Ricardo’s law of rent that all incomes above that is necessary to maintain labour will accrue to the owners of land without the expenditure of their labour.9 Seen this way, if we can adopt Ogilvie’s view10 for explanatory purposes, we can see that land has three prices:
(a) The ORIGINAL value of the soil prior to any improvement.
(b) The IMPROVED value of the soil which is bestowed by the owner and his successors.
(c) The CONTINGENT or the CAPITALISED value of land.11
--------------------------
8 W. Ogilvie, Birthright in Land (n 6) at 12.
9 F. Harrison, Ricardo’ Law House Prices and the Great Tax Clawback Scam. London: Shepheard – Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd, 2006). See also, F. Harrison, Wheels of Fortune. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs, 2006; F. Harrison, The Power In the Land – Unemployment, the Profits Crisis and the Land Speculator. London: Shepheard – Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd, 1983.
10 W. Ogilvie, Birthright in Land (n 6) at 13.
11 J.W. Smith, The world’s Wasted Wealth 2 (n 2) at 348 He accurately predicted that the massive capitalization of land values would eventually cripple the Japanese economy.
----------------------------
In accordance with dictates of self evident essential demands of justice and equity, the land owner can only claim the IMPROVED value of the land as his property for he has expended labour on that portion. However, to the ORIGINAL and the CONTINGENT/CAPITALIZED value he has no right. These two values must reside in the community at large. In the words of Smith:
“It is land held in unrestricted private ownership that creates high capitalized land values. True free enterprise requires breaking that monopoly through restricted ownership; society should collect the rent. Distribution of land by capitalized value (price) would then be replaced by distribution of land by rental value paid to the society. ... Thus those who use it for production or distribution will, almost universally, have secure ownership of the land. The land rent would go to the society, the interest to the owners of capital (improvement, livestock, or inventory), and wages to the farmer, businessperson or entrepreneur.”12
----------------------------
12 J.W. Smith, The world’s Wasted Wealth 2 (n 2) at 348.
----------------------------
Recalling God’s law that “In the sweat of your face you shall eat,” the refusal to collect this rent violates rules of equity and justice in the eyes of men and God the Almighty for it is robbery by a few against the majority. This is in violation of the law that, thou shall not steal. By refusing to acknowledge this basic Biblical economic truth, we have stifled the development free market economy and thereby delayed an increase in social efficiency equal to the invention of money and printing. Flowing from the above, we believe and it is well documented that, the best way to restore birthright to all Kenyans is to tax ALL land rents and fund common services like defense, police, courts and infrastructure just to name a few. To do so, we urge an enactment of this maxim in the new Constitution:
LAND/NATURAL RESOURCES (including landing slots, airwaves etc) VALUE TAX, POLLUTION and WASTE shall be the main source of revenue for running the affairs of the Kenyan state. There shall be no taxation of INCOME, CAPITAL & EXPENDITURE etc until the WHOLE land value, pollution and waste tax has been collected and utilised productively.
The appropriateness of land rent as the best means of funding the affairs of state is widely acknowledged by the greatest economists and thinkers of all ages. For instance, Adam Smith observed that:
“Land is a fund of a more stable and permanent nature; and the rent of public lands, accordingly, has been the principal source of the public revenue of many a great nation that was much advanced beyond the shepherd state. From the produce or rent of the public lands, the ancient republics of Greece and Italy derived, for a long time, the greater part of that revenue which defrayed the necessary expenses of the commonwealth. The rent of the crown lands constituted for a long time the greater part of the revenue of the ancient sovereigns of Europe.”13
----------------------------------
13 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, CHAPTER II: OF THE SOURCES OF THE GENERAL OR PUBLIC REVENUE OF THE SOCIETY. Accessed from libertyfund.org/title/119/212385 on 2009-11-22.
------------------------------------
He further added that: Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labor of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land, are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.
Ground-rents seem, in this respect, a more proper subject of peculiar taxation than even the ordinary rent of land. The ordinary rent of land is, in many cases, owing partly at least to the attention and good management of the landlord. A very heavy tax might discourage too much this attention and good management. Ground-rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign, which, by protecting the industry either of the whole people, or of the inhabitants of some particular place, enables them to pay so much more than its real value for the ground which they build their houses upon; or to make to its owner so much more than compensation for the loss which he might sustain by this use of it. Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state, should be taxed peculiarly, or
should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.”14
----------------------
14 A. Smith, an Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (n 18).
----------------------
We find the same sentiments expressed by Alfred Marshall, a great economist who straddled the classical and the post – classical period of economics for he wrote:
“Looking forward rather than backwards, and not concerning ourselves with the equity and the proper limits of the present private property in land, we see that part of the national dividend which goes as earnings of land is a surplus in a sense in which the earnings from other agents are not surplus... there is this difference between land and other agents of production, that from a social point of view land yields a permanent surplus, while perishables made by man do not.”15
--------------------------
15 A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, 4th edn., 1898. VI. Ch. II, Para.13 as quoted in N. Tideman (ed) Land and Taxation. London: Shepheard – Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd, 1994 at 23.
--------------------------
Given the limited time and scope of this proposal, it is not possible to deal with all great thinkers who have written on the subject of land and land taxation and the benefit it would bring to humanity if well implemented.
For instance, by collecting rent from its natural resources, in particularly, oil, Alaska was able to give its citizens a dividend of $ 1, 143, 172, 725 in the year 2000 which amounted to an individual dividend of $1963 per person.16
---------------------
16 A. Hartzok, “The Alaska Model of Governance – Resource Rents for Public Investment and Citizen Dividends” (Spring 2002), No. 02(1) Geophilos at 60.
----------------------
There is no reason why for instance, Angola and Nigeria could not have adopted such a scheme. Instead, they allow foreign companies to book their reserves into their books and thereby, capitalize the same in foreign stock exchanges so as to enrich foreigners, even as their citizens sink into poverty.
Should the Committee of Experts desire to educate itself more on this question, we stand ready to provide materials in our possession. We also stand ready to assist the Committee to get in touch with some of the leading thinkers on the land question that are in a position to design a land policy conducive to equal rights. However, should the Committee and the nation at large ignore this opportunity; it will go down in history as having squandered an historical opportunity to remove the entrenched fiscal folly that characterises the modern state whereby, the annual public value of the land is monopolised or privatised by a few while taxing the majority poor to increase the value of this land. This fiscal folly is in direct violation of the word of God that, “The profit of the earth is for all; the King is served by the field.”17
---------------------
17 Ecclesiastes 5: 9. King James Bible. Available at http://kingjbible.com/ecclesiastes/5.htm. (21st November, 2009).
----------------------
In this, there no doubt the Bible is referring to the rent thereof, and if we replace word King with state, we can start to see how Solomon made Israel very prosperous having prayed for divine guidance on how to govern.
Furthermore, by taxing the poor to increase the land value to be appropriated by a few is in direct violation of the following maxim:
"They shall build houses, and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build and another inhabits; they shall not plant and another eats; they shall not labour in vain nor bring forth for trouble."18
-------------------
18 Isaiah 65:21.
-------------------
To try and hide the fact that the cause of modern poverty is taxation of the majority poor to enrich the few as Prophet Isaiah clearly denounced above, we have come up with the so called welfare state. However, this has not worked and will not work for poverty is institutionalised in the structure of the modern state.
One may ask, is there any evidence of the fact that the poor “plant and another eat” whereby, we tax the poor to enrich the landed interest? Yes, we can give three examples. On 8th October, 2009, the East African Standard reported that: “Thika Road Expansion to Increase Property Value”19
------------------------
19 J. Okoth, Thika Road Expansion to Increase Property Value. Available at http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/InsidePage.php?id=1144025878&cid=464. (21st November, 2009).
-------------------------
Here, we see a clear example of land appreciating value not due to expenditure of labour by the owners of the land, but, as a result of infrastructure built by the tax payers. Also, on 5th September, 2009, the E.A. Standard reported that: “Land grabbers threaten economic stimulus plan.”20 Also, on 24th July, 2009, the “Nation” reported that: “Investors scramble for Lamu prime land.”21
-------------------------
20 M. Aron, Land Grabbers Threaten Economic Stimulus Plan. Available at http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144023200&cid=14&j=&m=&d. (21st November, 2009).
21 M. Mwajefa, Investors scramble for Lamu prime land. Available at http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/629304/-/ul2en8/-/index.html. (21st November, 2009).
-------------------------
Here, we see a few foreigners have bought land in anticipation that tax collected from a Turkana who will never perhaps even visit Lamu in his lifetime will be used to fund infrastructure which will raise the value of the land. The question is, will the draft Constitution smash this naked robbery of the poor? Sadly, we venture to say, with bitter disappointment, no.
Thus, it seems to us that, on the one hand in the words of Fred Harrison the outcome of the confused arrangements of this draft will be nothing but a state with divided loyalties. It will proclaim to represent the welfare of all citizens, but, in reality, it will be protecting the rent – seeking interest of the privileged few.22
----------------------
22 F. Harrison, Ricardo’ Law House Prices and the Great Tax Clawback Scam (n 12). See also, F. Harrison, Wheels of Fortune (n 12).
-----------------------
On the other hand, if the Kenyan government tries to repossess already privatized land, it will fail spectacularly as South Africa has failed and in the worst scenario, it will bring chaos as we have seen in Zimbabwe.
Given these unpleasant outcomes, it seem to us that, the only way is to look forward and not backwards as Marshall informed us and collect the land rent or what he called annual public revenue and fund common expenses. By doing this, we would have ensured every Kenyan’s right to earth’s bounty without laying claim to anyone’s equity. Your draft must come out clearly and unambiguously on this proposition. May the God Almighty give you the courage, wisdom and the fortitude necessary to carry out this sacred obligation so as to restore our God given birthright which a few robbers have dared to rob mankind for so long.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

The qualities lacking in our MPs

We are halfway through the election cycle and I believe it is time we issued a report card on the performance of our MPs. This post was triggered by the virulent response by our “honorable” members of Parliament to the request by the Finance Ministry to return their gas guzzlers in exchange for more fuel efficient vehicles. As we all know, some complied while others delayed and others were openly defiant. One MP claimed that small cars are for teenagers and thus he cannot be seen driving in one. This will certainly not endear him to the youth come election time. Another MP quipped thus, “The newly mandated small cars would not be able to take me to my constituency”. We say: develop your constituency sir! Build a road or two, then you will be able to visit regularly and your constituents will enjoy smooth roads to drive on when they finally get around to affording a car.
The point of this article is try and point out the value system of these leaders and where we sit on their priority list. Do I want an MP who will chase me down the street while hurling rocks in the general vicinity of my cranium? This inglorious episode is documented on NTV. Do I want my MPs to take a taxpayer sponsored sojourn to the Coast while I sit in darkness trying to conjure up Ugali into my empty bowl? Do I want my MP to be traversing the country trying to launch the “tujipange” express train to state house while I walk many miles to work or to find work?
Anyway I would like to ask the reader some questions to ponder.
-Have you ever met your MP in person? Has anyone you know met him or her?
-Does he or she have any contact information? Is there an official phone line, Email or a website to forward inquiries or leave feedback? If there is a line of communication, how timely, if at all, is the response time?
-How often do they travel back to their home towns to give you a progress report and partake in afternoon tea?
-Are there any public projects they have initiated that have touched your life personally? Examples would be paved roads, increased security, schools with adequate teachers and supplies or a well serviced hospital or clinic. Has he or she even planted one miserable stringy tree?
The overriding question would be: Has your life taken a turn for better or worse since he or she has been in office? One would argue that it is up to the individual to advance themselves but at the moment we Kenyans are obsessed with the political elite, acting on their noxious utterances with no regard to self or neighbor as happened after the bungled 2007 Elections.
We will offer some suggestions that may be tweaked to become solutions.
Approach that member of your community who has devoted themselves to the service of the public without regard to their personal safety and with no expectation of a reward and request them to run for office. Many examples abound that are peculiar to their particular communities. We will highlight a few. There is this gentleman Peter Kithene who started a clinic in his home town Muhuru Bay by the shores of Lake Victoria through funding he acquired abroad. This is a man who chose to invest in a public project in his home town that will outlive him and benefit many. There is this lady Mary Njeri Kamau who started the Kihara Feeding Program making lunches for needy school children. Olympic gold medalist, Kipchoge Kieno now teaches children and tends to orphans among the other things he is doing to improve his community. There are others and we invite you to share their stories here.
In a later post we will try to construct a road map for community based aspirants seeking public office. Feel free to offer suggestions.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Intoduction

Greetings to all fellow Kenyans at home and abroad. Welcome to our Blog. We invite reform minded Kenyans to join us to agitate for and partake in meaning full change for all Kenyans regardless of their background or political affiliation. Please feel free to register and contribute ideas on how we can move our country forward. We will try not to engage in politics but we will discuss political issues as pertains to their effects on policies imposed on Kenyans. We will also focus on how to implement community based ventures for our youth in rural and urban areas. We will also have a lighter side discussing social issues.