The Gleaner Principle

Some people need more than capital. Some people need income. Sometimes this is readily apparent: the blind, the lame, the orphan, the destitute widow, and the very retarded obviously need help. Programs, either public or private, to help such people are the obvious solution.

The more tricky case is that of the somewhat mentally ill – such as those who you find begging for money in many downtown areas. Some of these people cannot help their behavior. Others could work for a living if they were given a good kick in the pants to sober up, get a haircut and get their act together. These present a pair of problems:

1. How do we tell the difference between these two groups? Indeed, this is really tricky when we consider that there is a continuum between being mentally ill and being naturally shiftless and lazy.
2. And just what should be the penalty for being a lazy hippie anyway? Some poverty, yes. But death by starvation?

It is better to feed some lazy bums who could work but don’t than it is to starve those who lack the capability to have the discipline to hold a job. But to be too generous hardens the hearts of those who do work and/or encourages more people to become lazy bums.

The Bible answers this problem nicely: it provided nearly free food in a way that minimizes the extra effort for the farmers. Anyone was allowed to go onto any farm to get food under the following conditions:

1. After a grain field was harvested, anyone could get the leftovers – the gleanings. Farmers were to harvest just the easily harvested sheaves. The corners were to be left unharvested by the farmer, and anything dropped was to be left on the ground [Leviticus 19:9, 23:22, Deuteronomy 24:19].
2. A farmer could make only one pass through a vineyard or olive orchard. Any fruit not yet ripe was to be left for the poor [Leviticus 19:10, Deuteronomy 24:20-22].
3. Before harvest, anyone could walk into a vineyard and pluck grapes for eating on the spot. Bringing in a basket was not allowed, however [Deuteronomy 23:24].
4. Before harvest, anyone would walk into a grain field and pluck ears by hand. Using a sickle or other tool was not allowed [Deuteronomy 23:25].
5. On Sabbath years (every seventh year), the land was to be left fallow. Volunteer growth was for the benefit of gleaners – no plowing, planting or harvesting was allowed on those years [Exodus 23:10-12, Leviticus 25:1-12].

By this mechanism, the poor were provided for by the landowners working less. The landowners were entitled to the easily harvested portions of the fields they had planted. The harder to get to items were left for the needy.

Gleaning a field is tedious and time-consuming. Those with decent jobs would not be tempted to abuse this privilege. There is no need to ration this privilege to those deemed needy; the needy will select themselves. Having a few pilgrims and hippies taking advantage of gleaning rights does not break the system. (Jesus and his disciples took advantage of these rights on at least one occasion [Matthew 12:1, Mark 2:23, Luke 6:1].)

But while this labor is time-consuming, it is doable by those with limited mental capability or discipline. There is instant gratification between work and hunger fulfillment. This is within the capability of those you see standing on street corners begging for change.

Thus, the Bible provided an affordable means of getting largesse to the borderline needy, a means that did not discourage productive and moral behavior. Yes, it could be used by those who were lazy or spiritual, but this is not always a bad thing. Also, it could be used by the able-bodied who were between jobs or were suffering temporary hard times.

Some conservatives and libertarians might argue that forcing farmers to allow gleaners is a violation of the farmers’ natural rights. Once again, we invoke the principle that “the land belongs to God.” Without farming, land does produce food on its own. In a state of nature, there would be scattered bits of edible food available for gathering. Allowing the poor to glean fields simulates the status they would have in a state of nature. This weakening of private property rights allows preservation of another natural right. [See my essay “Really Natural Rights” at www.holisticpolitics.org.]

Modern Applications

We no longer live in a world of small farms within walking distance of the poor – who mostly live in cities these days. (However, we might move back toward that status if we were to implement some of the ideas in this essay and the others on my web site.) That said, the principles described do have application in our modern society. I see two important patterns:

1. Instead of the prosperous trying to extract every bit of income from their holdings, the prosperous should leave the scraps for the poor to pick up.
2. Natural resources in the commons could be left up for anyone to harvest if the harvesting technology was sufficiently restricted.

The first pattern is followed when grocery stores donate dented cans and ugly fruits and vegetables to food banks instead of trying to sell them. Another implementation is that of people donating used items to a thrift store instead of holding a garage sale. While the prosperous forgo small amounts of income by doing these things, they save time, thus maximizing the charity/cost ratio. True, not all such donations go to the truly needy; when I was in college I made many trips to the Salvation Army thrift store in my pickup truck for friends who wanted a couch for their dorm room. But when the cost of this type of charity is so low, such use by the not-so-needy is not really a problem.

Another application is the “bottle bill.” The government mandates a deposit on bottles and cans. The amount of the deposit is chump change for the prosperous, but good, easy money for the very poor. Scouts can raise money by picking up and sorting recyclables. Bums can pay for their beer by cleaning up the litter on the sides of roads. We get neater streets, happier bums and happier environmentalists.

The second pattern can be found in hunting laws that allow for a longer season for those who hunt with a bow and fishing laws that require a license for a net but not for hook and line. The pattern can be extended to preserve traditional ways of life. Eskimos could be allowed to hunt whales as long as they use traditional technology. Cowboys could graze their cattle on open range as long as they use horses and no trucks. Fisheries could be restricted to boats and nets of a certain size – no giant drift nets. National forest harvesting could be limited to labor intensive selective cutting techniques.

Such an approach to natural resource harvesting is intentionally inefficient. Economists in the audience may find this objectionable. Such an approach is inefficient if we measure harvest per unit of labor. On the other hand, this approach does a better job of maximizing satisfaction per unit of natural resource. Having better harvesting technology for a fixed resource does not increase the harvest in the long run; it only reduces the number of harvesters. It generally leads to the income from the harvest going from a large number of laborers to a small number of owners of expensive equipment.

If labor is needed elsewhere, then what I propose is harmful to the economy. On the other hand, if better extraction technology results in once independent harvesters becoming burger flippers, Progress is not such a good thing.

If the joy and satisfaction of being an independent fisherman, cowboy, or lumberman is outweighed by the hardships and lost income, then this method of rationing fixed resources should be at least partially replaced by putting resources up for bid. We can tell when this is needed by noting when the harvest becomes less than optimal.

Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next

Copyright 2004, Carl S. Milsted, Jr. All rights reserved.