Iron County register., 1891-11-26
Herbert Spencer Superficial.

In Herbert SpencerS latest book
Justice" notice that the advocacy of
state ownership of land is discounte-
nanced for various reasons, which were
overlooked when Mr.. Spencer wrote
Social States" While many single
takers are of the opinion that Mr.. Spen.
Ger is lending his great ability to aid
and apologize for the crimes of land.
lordism, it appears to me that the con-
clusions arrived at in Justice" are un.
sound owing to lack OF careful analy.
sis of the cause and nature of so import.
ant an element as land values; for in
none of his writings, so far as have
been able to discover, has this element
received the attention it deserves. Jus
tice" is unscientifc and its conclusions
superficial.
In Appendix B, Mr.. Spencer says: "n
suffices to remember the inferiority of
state to private administration" This
is as true as to say that gravitation
causes everything to fall to the earth.
We know that gravitation forces a bal
loon up; but when the nature Of the
balloon is understood and also its rela-
ton to the air, we find no exception to
the law in this phenomenon. Now, Mr..
Spencer has made the error of predict
ing the same effect of a universal law
on different clements
In Chicago, near the board of trade, are
two lots of land the one subject to pub
lie administration, the other to private.
The one owned by the city is improved
by private capital, the improvement
consisting of one of the most magnif-
cent Office structures in the country
the peer Of its kind! the public receiv-
ing $33, 900 per annum for the use of the
ground on which it stands. The one
subject to the force of private admins
tration contains nothing but an assort-
ment of old tin cans and other rubbish.
Still it can not be bought for less than
81, 600 per front foot. Now from these
data we notice precisely the opposite
effect of public administrative force
when applied to land to that which re-
suits when it is applied to enterprise.
Mr. Spencer may claim the INSULT
cheney of this data. But the condition
of the school lands Of Chicago as COM
pared with the rest of the city furnishes
data under similar conditions that re-
duce Mr.. Spencer's statement to alb
surdity.
Let us return to the two lots men,
toned and examine the cause of their
value. The vacant one can not be
bought for $1,000 per foot, and yet
there is nothing on it that scavenger
would take. Surely this value can not
be the result of accumulated labor of
ages past, as Mr.. Spencer suggests. It
is not in any way mixed up with the
inscriptions violence of dead barbar-
ians, but is prospective claim on
future labor that in equity can not
stand, unless we concede to remote
savages the liberty to dictate how un-
born generations shall distribute the
products of their own labor. Again, as
.and value consists of all the advan-
tages that may be had in future in
given locality, and as the advantage Of
good government Is one of the ele-
ments, to tax the products of labor is
to take wealth from the laborer to con-
fer benefits on landlords, and for these
very benefits laborers are compelled to
pay an increased rental. There there
is fresh robbery having no relation to
the past.
It is not necessary to show that land.
lords have no function In the economy
of the industrial ages. The clashing
of other great interests that are now
coming upon the stage of human activ-
ity, and the light of increasing knowl-
edge, will send the mere landlord down
the track of the pirate and the slave
owner. Clarence Moeller, in the Stand
ay,1