Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-09

/ civilization we must look within, instead OF
without
| 1t is not, then, upon any natural right that
the argument against private ownership in
land can be made to rest, and Mr.. George,
in common with many other thinkers, has
| fallen into mistake here. If, however, the
fallscy of private ownership in land can be
demonstrated upon other grounds, the result
reached will be the same, and of the posi-
bility of that demonstration none who have
examined the subject with any care can en-
terrain a doubt. We know of no work in
| which the various arguments which have been
advanced on this head are better or more
clearly summarized than in the concluding
chapter of NJ. de Laveleye's Primitive Prop
erty." Whoever desires to work out the
question for himself should consult that book
1t is true, also, that Mr.. Herbert Spencer
has discussed this subject quite deliberately in
his Social Statics." With some of the latter
thinkers premises we cannot agree, aud
we believe that he himself has modified several
| of the ideas which he laid down in that-his
first printed work. We think, however
that the case against the equity of private
ownership in land may be regarded as made,
and we will proceed to other considerations.
Granting that equity requires the abolition
of private ownership in land, we must separate
| from Mr.. George at the point where he
proposes to resume the land by confscation.
1t does not signify how this confscation is
effected, whether by taxation or by decree
1t remains the fact that it is confscation,
and we deny altogether the soundness and
| force of the argument by which Mr.. George
attempts to justify the proposed wholesale
robbery.
| His argument is that inasmuch as the
institution of private property in land
was originally wrong, no amount of pre-
soription can make it right. In this he only
follows Herbert Spencer, but we think
it possible to show however audacious such
an attempt may seem) that they are both
wrong. Ia the first place the assumption
that all private ownership in land arose out
of violence and robbery is far too sweeping
1t is an assertion quite incapable of proof,
yet it is an assertion the proof of which is
absolutely necessary to the vindication Of
Mr.. Georges argument. In the second place
it appears to us that he confuses what Is with
what ought to be. For example, he says
Either the land Of Ireland rightfully be-
Longs to the Irish landlords, or it rightfully
belongs to the Irish people there can be
''no middle ground" Now it seems to us
that there is here exhibited a quite curious
confusion of thought. Mr.. George appears
to be trying to measure a condition of things
which is the result of artificial law, by
principles which are based upon quite
different reasonings. If we say THE
Gland of Ireland at present belongs to
"the landlords, but it ought to belong to the
"whole people, we express a state of things
which accords with the facts, and we in
dictate method by which the demands of
equity may eventually be complied with
Mr. George contends that because the first
assertion of private ownership to the land
was Legitimate, therefore no subsequent
change of ownership can have given the
present owners a valid title. But it is not
true that in any such sense as he uses the
words, the first establishment of private
ownership was Legitimate Land was con-
ferred for State services, and was long held
on condition of rendering such services. Nor
is it true that no subsequent changes can
have given the present owners valid title
If any wrong was done at first in establishing
private ownership of land, it was done, not
to individuals, but to the community. But
in the course of time, as land passed from
1 hand to hand, it was repeatedly bought with
the earnings of productive industry, and
those earnings being invested in it established
a distinct and undeniable property right in it.
| Herbert Spencer's reasoning on this head
is emphatically sophistical, and Mr.. George
very much more so. All over the world to-
day enormous masses of capital are invested
in land capital which was honestly created
or earned by its possessors; which in no
sense could be said to belong to the State,
and which cannot be confiscated under any
pretext without the preparation of naked
robbery. We may retaliate upon Mr.. George
with his own argument here. We may say
that since the capital with which the land
| has been purchased did not in the beginning
belong to the State; since it was the I'M
| doubted product Of individual energy, skill,
labor, perseverance it never can become
other than the property of the owners, and
the State can by no means create a right to
it. Again, if the land belongs to the whole
people, it certainly belongs as much to those
who hold it as to any others. But Mr..
Georges plan would ignore their proprietary
interest altogether, and would not only con-
tscate the capital they have invested. but
deny them their share in the common estate
Herbert Spencer has not gone so far as
this. He denies the right of private owner
ship in land, but he suggests no mode of re-
form into which the principle of compensa.
ton shall not enter. Thus he observes
| (''Social States y " No doubt great difficult
6 ties must attend the resumption, by man
kind at large, of their right to the soil.
"The question of compensation to existing
"proprietors is complicated one-one that
perhaps cannot be settled in a strictly equi-
"table manner. Had we to deal with the
"parties who originally robbed the human
trace Of its heritage, we might make short
'work of the matter. But, unfortunately,
"most of our present landowners are men
"who have, either mediately or immediate
"ly-either by their own acts, or by the acts
of their ancestors given for their estates
equivalents of honestly-earned wealth, be-
lieving that they were investing their saw
"ings in legitimate manner. To justly
estimate and Equidate the claims of such,
sis one of the most intricate problems society
Twill one day have to solve" 1t appears to
US that there can be no reasonable doubt as
to the soundness of this proposition, and we
are compelled to regard Mr.. Georges labo.
rious Captain Kidd argument as both irrele-