The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1898-03-30
COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP
A Defense of Private Ownership-
Walter Thomas Mills in New Time.

A Defense of Private Ownership-
Walter Thomas Mills in New Time.
That every man has a right to his
life is no longer disputed. 1t would
seem that such a proposition would be
so simple that it never could have been
disputed. But whatever power the mas
ter may have had over the life of his
slave, whatever arbitrary authority aris-
toeratic lords have exercised over their
serfs, including the right to slay them
at will, it is no longer disputed any
where that each man has right to his
life.
Now all property is the creation of la
Dor, and labor involves an expenditure
Of life's energies Inasmuch as every
man has an inherent right to life, he
the products of the expenditure of his
lifes energies. Thus the right to prop
erty becomes as sacred as is the right
to life itself The right to own carries
produced, the right to own ones prod
ucts must necessarily follow; but if the
right to ownership is to be based upon
the fact Of production, then he who is
able bodied and produces nothing can
be entitled to own nothing.
But production is no longer carried on
by single-handed enterprises. Produc-
tion is carried on by great organizations
with extensive equipments which no in
dividual single-handed could own or op-
crate. Association in production is in
evitable. The right to the opportunity
to produce involves ones right to place
in associated production.
A child begins his life the owner of
everything. He appropriates everything
within his reach. So far as he is able
to make use of all the earth, all the
earth is his. He raises no question as
to the propriety of his taking anything.
He takes everything within his reach.
He begins life's struggle with an effort
to get possession of his hands and feet.
If he does not use them no one else can.
His Individual proprietorship In his
own hands and feet no one questions;
but when he undertakes to appropriate
things beyond himself others may use
these as well as he, and the dispute for
possession at once arises. If he does
not use his own hands they go unused.
If he does not use a biscuit for his
dinner some one seated on the other
side of the table may use the biscuit
II he does not. 1t is the possibility Of
common use which results in the
struggle for possession. When the
thing under consideration is the ma
chinery, the organization, the process of
production, there Is not only the pos
sibility that another may use, but there
is the absolute necessity that the many
must use these things together.
Who ought to own these great plants
necessarily involved in associated pro-
duction? Here it seems to me Is the
doctrine of collective and private prop
erty. The core of all ownership is in
the right to use. That which one may
use separately he may own separately;
but that which men use together they
ought to own together. Private owner
ship Of that which absolutely pertains
to myself, and myself alone, can harm
no other There is no reason why my
clothing should not be my own as alb
solutely as are my hands and feet. 1t is
as necessary for my comfort, it is really
a part of my personality. The old Lon
don sweat shops, where the employer
owned the clothing which his victims
wore while engaged at his tasks, in
volved a wrong against which Kingsley
wrote, and about which Tom Hood sang
with a matchless pathos. 1t involved a
wrong that the English-speaking race
rebelled against. All property which
is for my individual, exclusive, personal
use l may own alone, l ought to own
alone. My right to it is as genuine and
as sacred as is my right to my life
provided always that 1t is directly or
indirectly the product of the expenditure
Of my life's energies, not the result OF
the exploitation of the toll of others.
But the great plants involved in assoc1-
ated production 1 cannot use by myself.
I cannot use their products by myself.
I cannot operate them by myself AS
sociation Is necessary, Is inevitable.
Private ownership of these great indus
trial plants involves a great wrong. 1t
places the tools necessary for one mans
employment in the exclusive possession
of another. 1t places the workman in a
position where the only way by which
he can produce his livelihood Is to obtain