The Louisiana Democrat., 1891-09-09
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
THE RIGHT TO THE USE or THE
EARTH.

1 HE RIGHT TO THE USE OF The
EARTH.
/ Ey Herbert Spencer.
REPORT OF Chapter TX. of Social Statics.'D
CoNTINUED FROM LAST WEEK.
5. Itdoes indeed ut first sight seem pos
sible for the earth to become the exclrv
sive possession of individuals by some
process of equitable distribution,
why" it may be asked should not
men agree to fair subdivision? If all
IRE co-heirs, why may not the estate be
equally apportioned, and each be after
ward perfect master of his own share7"
To this question it may in the first
place be replied that such d division is
vetoed by the difficulty of Ak.
ing Che value of respective tracts Of
land Variations in productiveness, diff
ferert degrees of accessibility, advan-
tages of climate, proximity to the GEN.
ters of civilization-these, and other
such considerations, remove the prob
lem out of the sphere of mere mensura-
ton into the region of impossibility.
But, waving this let us inquire who
are to be the allotees. Shall adult males
and all who have reached twenty-one
on a specified day be the fortunate in
| diriduals? II 50, what is TO be done
with those who come Of age on to-mor-
row? Is 1t proposed that each man,
woman and child shall have section?
| II SO, what is to become of those who
are to le born next year? And what
will be the fate of those whose fathers
sell their estates and squander the pro-
ceeds? These portionless ones, must
constitute class already described as
having no right to resting place on
earth-as living by the sufferance of
their fellow men--as being practically
serfs And the existence of such class
is wholly Mt variance with the law of
equal freedom.
Until, therefore, we can produce a
valid commission authorizing us to
make this distribution--until it can be
proved that God has given one charter of
privileges to one generation and anoth-
cr to the next-until we can demon.
strate that men born after certain
date are doomed to slavery, we must
consider that no such allotment Is per-
missible.
&. Probably some will regard the diff
ficulties inseparable from individual
ownership of the soil, Us caused by
pushing to excess doctrine applicable
only within rational limits. This is a
very favorite style of thinking with
some. There are people who hate any.
thing in the shape of exact conclusions;
and these are of them. According to
such the right is never in either ex-
treme, but always half way between
the extremes They are continually
trying to reconcile yes and no. Ifs and
butts and excepts are their delight,
They have SO great faith in 'thc ju-
dicious mean" that they would scarcely
believe an oracle if it uttered FULL
length principle. We're you to inquire
of them whether the earth turns on its
axis from east to west or from west to
east, you might almost expect the re-
ply: "A little of both," or Not exact
| ly either" 1t is doubtful whether they
would assent to the axiom that the
whole is greater than its part, without
making some qualification. They have
a passion for compromises. To meet
their taste, truth must always be spiced
with little error. They can not con-
ccive of pure, definite, entire and un-
limited law. And hence, in discussions
| like the present, they are constantly
petitioning for limitations always
wishing to abatc, and modify, and mod
erate--ever protesting against doctrines
being pursued to their ultimate conse.
quences.
But it behooves such to recollect that
ethicals truth is Us exact and as per-
emptory as physical truth; and that in
this matter of land tenure the verdict
of morality must be distinctly yea or
nay. Either men have right to make
the soil private property or they have
not There is no medium. We must
choose one Of the two positions. There
can be no half-and-half opinion. In the
nature of things the fact must be either
one way or the other.
If men have not such right, we are
ut once delivered from the severe pre-"
dicaments already pointed out. If they
have such right, then is that right abb
solutely sacred, not on any pretense to
he violated. If they have such q
right then is his grace of Leeds
justified in warning off tourists
from Ben Mac Duhi, the duke of Atholl
in closing Glen Tilt, the duke of Buc-
cleugh in denying sites to the Free
church and the duke of Sutherland in
banishing the Highlanders to make
room for sheep walks. II they have
such right, then it would be proper
for the sole proprietor of any kingdom
"a Jersey or Guernsey, for example
to impose just what regulations he
| might choose on It's inhabjtants-to tell
them that they should not live on his
property unless they professed certain
religion, spoke G particular language,
and paid him specified reverence,
adopted an authorized dress and con-
formed to all other conditions he might
see fit to make. If they have such a
right, then is there truth in that tenet
of the ultra tory school, that the land
\ owners are the only legitimate rulers
of country that the people at large
remain in It only by the land owners
permission, and ought consequently to
submit to the land owners rule, and
respect whatever institutions the land
owners set up There is no escape
from these inferences They are neces-
sary corollaries to the theory that the
earth can become individual property.
Aud they can only be repudiated by de-
| nuino flof fhoory