New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-07-03

guarantee oil muNiNuhl property. OnlVefSal Hcc-
dom depends on universal ownership. But the
right property is based on the right Of the indi-
yidua to the products Of his labor Ii there is an
intutiye principle in the science OF society, it is
this. Just in proportion, as this natural right is
set aside the individual loses one of the most i'm
portant elements of sovereignty. We do not say
that an individual, or a society Of individuals may
not waive their exercise of this right, for the sake
Of another order of considerations. For instance
yield the rigid application of the principle, in be-
half of social charity. 1 assent to the arrange
ment by which portion Of the products Of my
labor is assigned TO the child, the sick, the in6rm,
the aged but this is voluntary act in obedience
to my conviction, that the strong ought to share
the burden of the weak. 1t is not enforced by the
law Unnatural Just ice in the distribution ofproducts
but adopted as the dictate Of benevolent senti-
ment Or may belong to an industrial associa-
ton, consisting of various branches OF Industry,
ard organized on the plan Of dividing the aggre-
gate product Of labor, according to the amount
performed, instead of allowing each individual to
enjoy the actual specif product Of his labor. But
this again, is voluntary abdcatiOn Of a natural
right in the interests ofsOcia unity Ii is prompted
by the sentiment of friendship, desire for an
equality surprising that onatdre, or by other mo
ti,es, no matter what. No one can pretend that
it is the result Of a scentc analysis of the meth
DDS of industrial reparttion. In like manner, can
conceive of a society founded on the principle of
Cost the Limit of Price, as laid down in this
volume: and though should rot be sangune of
It's success in producing integral harmony, it might
be attended with advantages so far superior to the
present order, as to justly challenge fair trial for
the experiment. But this admission does not
countenance the scientific accuracy OF the princi-
pie for which We find no valid reason set forth by
the author, and which, in our opinion, is at war
with the natural right of the individual to the pro-
ducts Of HE labor.
Ii follows from this right that my title to the
products of my labor is good against the world.
No man gave it to me, and no man can take 1t
from me. Ii is not the result Of any legislation Of
monarch parliament, or congress, not determined
bv the vote of any majority, but the enactment OF
the supreme, ard divine law inherent in the organ
ization of my nature. But If the product of my
labor is my own, no enc can decide the terms on
which shall part with it but myself. The right
Of exchanging it at pleasure i. involved in the right
ofcwnership. The attempt to establish COM
pulsory law for this purpose is gross violation Of
my acknowledged sovereignty. This view, we
think, is fatal to the theory in question, apart
from the practical inconvenience that would arise
from its application.
We have admitted that the right of the ndiyid-
ual to the products of his labor may be set aside
or suspended by arrangements to which he gives
his voluntary assent. But this does not initiate
with the scientific validity of the principle In
Communism-of which MIR. Warrcn's system s
one form, in spite of its pretensions to exclusive
individuals NIT is renounced in favor of equal
distribution, for the sake of absolute equality.
migrating the society as one man, Communism
distributes the aggregate products to the aggre-
gate mass. In AssOciatiOn-whch, be 1t well un-
derstood is heayen-wide from COmmunism-the
principle is waived in favor of graduated distri-
button of products, for the sake Of integral har-
mony, processing from graduated inequality. In
the system of Mr.. Warren, which makes Cost
the Limit of Price, the principle is renounced i'll
favor of an arbitrary arrangement, which, as far az
we can see, has no founda Won but in the fancy Of
Gle which has ten times the yalue-measured by
it's adaptation to supply human wants-of one pro-
duccd in the same time by Il, the parties are
bound to exchange them, if exchanged at all, on
perfectly equal terms. The absolute ownership
of the article is thus destroyed, by an arbitrary
restriction on the process Of exchange. Could
there be a more fragrant violation ofthe sovereignty
Of the individual
Mr.. Warren argues that making value the
limit of price is identical with the maxim Of trade,
that thing is worth what it will bring and that,
hence, it is productive Of all the evils due to the
"system of civilized cannibalism by which the
masses Of human beings are mercilessly ground to
powder for the accumulation Of the wealth Of the
few" But this is a falacy, arising from losing
sight of the distinction between mercantile value
and absolute value. The mercantile value of a
commodity is quite different thing from its abso-
lutte value. The former is determined by several
external elements; the latter, by intrinsic quail
ties. The mercantile value, or the market price OF
an article depends on the law of demand and sup
ply, on the prevalence of speculation, on the plen-
ty or scarcity of money, and numerous other con-
ditOns irrespective of its absolute value This IS
decided by the adaptation of the article to the sat
isfacton of human wants. Setting aside the mer-
camille value, then, fictitious, we contend that
the adjustment of price, according to absolute
value, as one element in the problem, is necessary
to the maintenance of individual sovereignty. The
product being the property Of the producer, and
its value dependent on its intrinsic qualities his
natural right is defeated by limiting its price to the
cost of production. This must be enc element, it
is true but another, and one equally essential is
its absolute value. From these elements, the
price must be decided by the agreement OF tho
parties. A basket Of strawberries and vase OF
anners nny be produced BY tho same amount o.