 Welcome to George H. Smith's Excursions into Libertarian Thon, a production of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. Jean Messlié on Property In the penultimate chapter of his testament, the atheist priest Jean Messlié wrote this, You and your descendants will always be miserable and unhappy, as long as there is such a great and enormous disproportion of states and conditions, as long as you do not possess and enjoy in common the goods of the earth, as long as the good and bad and the pains of life are so badly shared among you, since it is not at all just that some bear all the pains and labor and all the discomforts of life, while others enjoy alone without pain or labor all the goods and comforts of life. Messlié's belief that people should possess and enjoy in common the goods of the earth raises the question of whether he advocated a type of communism, as Michel en Frey and other interpreters have maintained. When I wrote the previous chapter, I believe that although there may be some justification for ascribing communistic ideas to Messlié, I think it would be incorrect to identify Messlié's ideas about property as communistic. Now, having re-read Messlié's remarks about property, this time with more care, I feel I must revise that conclusion. Messlié's ideas may indeed be described as communistic, but only in the older meaning of the term. That revision raises two issues. First, Messlié's comments about property are fragmentary and at times inconsistent. They certainly don't qualify as a theory of property, so it is difficult to reach a definitive conclusion. Second, labeling his comments about property communistic will almost certainly mislead those readers who associate communism with a strong authoritarian state. Although, as I explained previously, Messlié was no anarchist. Neither was he a cheerleader for strong, expensive central government. His criticisms of taxes and tax collectors were unrelenting, as were his assaults on the French bureaucracy and other state functionaries who enforced the will of the sovereign. Again and again, Messlié attacked the predatory class of French officials, including the clergy, who lived off the labor of the working class while producing nothing themselves. Nevertheless, Messlié's position on property may be described as communistic in the same way that this label has been applied to early Christian communities in the Roman Empire. The ideal of common property, in contrast to private property, was advocated for many centuries by leading Catholic theologians. The eminent historian Ernest Baker wrote the following in his introduction to the social and political ideas of some great medieval thinkers, edited Hernshaw 1923. It had been a general doctrine in the church since the days of St. Augustine that communism was the ideal condition of society. And the great canonist Gratian is following tradition when he writes, By the law of nature, all things are the common property of all men, a principle followed by the primitive church in Jerusalem and taught by Plato. According to Messlié, in all appearances, the Christian religion in the beginning wanted its followers to restore this way of living in common, as if it were the best and most suitable for men. Messlié then quoted one of the two passages in the Acts of the Apostles, two 44-45 RSV, that were frequently cited by advocates of Christian communism. After the Apostle Peter had baptized around 3,000 people and formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem, all who believed were together and had all things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all as any had need. A similar passage occurs a little later in Acts 4, 32, and 34-37. Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which they possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the Apostle's feet, and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was surnamed by the Apostles Barnabas, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the Apostle's feet. Messlié believed that this arrangement did not last so long among Christians because greed slipped into their hearts and soon broke up this common union of goods and set division among them as it was before. Nevertheless, the idea of common property survived in monasteries, and this is why monks are always kept in such a thriving condition that they lack nothing and never feel the miseries or discomforts of poverty, which makes most men so unhappy in life. Indeed, if monks ever stopped possessing their goods in common and began sharing them so that each of them enjoyed their share separately as seemed good to them, they would soon be like the others, exposed and reduced to all the miseries and discomforts of life. The monastic practice of holding all goods in common should serve as a model for French society in general. It would certainly be the same with all the parishes if the people there wanted to agree to live peaceably together in common, to all work usefully in common, and to enjoy equally in common each in their district, the goods and the land and the fruits of their labor. They could, if they wanted, in this way of living in common, obtain everywhere an abundance of all goods and thus protect themselves from all the miseries and discomforts of poverty, which would empower them all to live happily and contently instead of enjoying separately as they do, all the goods of the land and commodities of life and being exposed to and dragged into all kinds of evils and miseries. So, it is clearly an abuse, and a very great abuse in them to possess separately as they each do, the goods and commodities of life and to enjoy them separately since they are deprived of so many great benefits and are exposed to and dragged into so many great evils and miseries. Although the passages from Acts, quoted above, were frequently cited by later proponents of Christian communism and socialism, it is important to note that they describe a voluntary pooling of resources among the members of a relatively small community. No coercion, and certainly no coercion by a government, was recommended or sanctioned, nor is private property, per se, attacked in those passages. On the contrary, the reference to Joseph Barnabas says that he sold a field which belonged to him, suggesting that he had legitimate title of that land. A number of church fathers noted the voluntary activities of early Christian communities. For example, Tertullian, circle 155 to 240, observed that all institutions of the Roman government, even its charities, were based on coercion. Among Christians in contrast, everything is voluntary. The church did not rely on coercive taxation. Christians contributed voluntarily to support the destitute and to pay for their burial expenses, to supply the needs of boys and girls lacking money and power, and of old people confined to the home. Christians did not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. Early Christians with wealth often sold their personal property and donated the proceeds to a common fund that was distributed to other Christians according to need. There was no suggestion that such donors did not justly own the property they decided to sell, or that private property itself is the product of exploitation. Did Messlie's ideal society, like that of the early Christians, involve a voluntary system of communal property? It is difficult to answer that question with certainty. Throughout the testament, Messlie insisted that the worker who produced a good should have the right to dispose of that good for his own benefit and decried the grave injustice of expropriating the fruits of his labor. In that context, Messlie appeared to advocate a purely voluntary system of communal property, a system in which private goods are voluntarily converted into common goods because of the supposed economic advantages of the latter system, as when a destitute person may draw from a common stock of resources rather than starve. But matters become considerably more cloudy to learn the details of Messlie's ideal society. In Chapter 48 of the testament, Messlie expressly condemned the individual appropriation of property, a position that is difficult to reconcile with other statements in his book. Instead of individual appropriation, people should possess property in common and enjoy that property in common. Messlie proposed a decentralized system of common ownership, one centered in local communities, the same city, town, village, or parish. The inhabitants of these communities may be regarded as members of the same family, as brothers and sisters who have the same or similar food and being all equally well-clothed, well-housed, well-bedded, and well-heated, and applying themselves also equally to the labor, i.e., to the work, or to some honest and useful job. Everyone pursuing his profession or what would be the most necessary and most appropriate according to the time and season and the possible need for certain things. These communities would not be under the leadership of those who may want to dominate hotly and tyrannically over the others, but under the leadership and direction of those who are the wisest and have the best intentions for the advancement and maintenance of the public good. These communities would form alliances with other communities for the sake of peace and to provide mutual aid in time of need. As we dig deeper into Messlie's scheme for an ideal society, it becomes evident that coercion would be necessary to implement his utopia, and it is perfectly correct to describe Messlie's social plan as utopian, especially given his repeated assertions that all misery, want, and exploitation would disappear if only people, suitably educated, would adopt reason as their guide, instead of succumbing to the false and absurd claims of religion. I dare say that Messlie could have learned some important things about human nature and avoided making some bone-headed claims if he had taken more seriously the insights of the better Christian philosophers and theologians. Messlie's call for a communistic utopia was nothing new. Similar ideas are found in the writings of Plato, Thomas More, and others. The main difference between Messlie's utopia and those proposed by earlier writers lies in Messlie's rejection of a centralized authority that plans and directs the activities and institutions of an entire society. Messlie proposed instead a federation of smaller communities, but this was a distinction without a difference so far as the need to coerce unwilling participants is concerned. Consider one of the most disturbing passages in the testament. Despite his praise of the common property found in monasteries, Messlie detested monks, especially those mendicants who begged for their food and other necessities. Now we might think that soliciting voluntary contributions would, in principle, be unobjectionable for a philosopher with libertarian proclivities. But monks, according to Messlie, produced nothing of social value so he would have forbidden this practice and forced monks to do what he deemed honest labor. The profession of priests and particularly of monks is nothing but a profession of errors, superstitions, and imposters, and consequently, far from being a profession considered useful and necessary in a good and wise republic. It should, on the contrary, be regarded as harmful and pernicious. And so, instead of rewarding the people of such a profession, we should rather absolutely forbid all the superstitious and abusive functions of their ministry and absolutely force them to do some honest and useful work like others. Something is clearly out of whack in Messlie's version of a free and enlightened society.