Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1898-05-13
SOCIALISM.

following question is asked and discussed: Gin
the current discussions between those who de-
fend the rights of private property and those
who insist in holding all things in common, is
there any reasonable middle ground?" The
answer is eyes; and both parties are gradually
discovering that ground, The title to private
property is always qualified to public rights.
A man can call absolutely nothing his own.
He holds everything, including his life, as a
trust. He cannot live among men without be-
ing related to them He cannot hold property
in the community without regard to the require
ments and necessities of the community. The
power to levy taxes rests OH the claim of socle-
ty upon the private property of its members.
In extreme emergencies, as for public defense,
this power of taxation is limited only by the
citizens ability to pay. Under the right OF
eminent domain the state may take whatever
it needs-iust compensation being made-so
that the burden may be equally borne by all the
members of the community. In time OF ut
ternost peril, the citizen offers his own life to
save the life of the nation"
"The middle ground suggested by the COM
panion is that of "trusteeship." The toiego-
ing is radical enough for the most advanced
thinkers, and ''trusteeship" might, under radi-
cal administration, form the basis of extreme
collectiveism AS is set forth, we have already
reached collectivism is some cases, and without
such collectveism, society would tall into an
archv. AS the worlds history demonstrates,
civilization is impossible without some collec.
t;veism, and we reason that if some collective
ism is good, why not have more collectiveism?
Having advanced SO far and found by expert
ence that collectiveism is benlhclal, is there
anv good reason why we should stop where we
are now? Do we not to-day, occupy the ground
that is on the dividing line between perfect
health and a relapse into the illness OF other
nations and former times? What degree of
".rusteeship'' is safe "middle ground?"
The Companion says that "the title to private
property is always qualified by public rights"
Suppose that we should find, in the course OF
Investigation, that the right to have bread and
shelter as sacred as the right to breathe; and
we should also find that the large holdings OF
wealth by few men deprived a large number
Of the members of society of bread and shelter
rights. What then? Will we let the hungry
and naked perish, or will we tax property to
feed paupers? The advocates of individuallsm
express themselves as being in favor of taking
care of paupers, but they take good care to
DODGE all the taxation possible; and when 1t
comes to voluntary benevolence, it is not the
millionaires who support charitable institutions.
II NAV seem radical, but it is right view that
the individuals that constitute the publ1c-each
and every one-have the same natural rights as
Vanderbilt or Joseph Letter. 1t may also
he assumed that the public has no right TO make
paupers and criminals; and if the conditions IN
the community are such that the making OF
paupers cannot be avoided, clearly, there should
be change, and that change, of necessity,
must be in the direction of larger colectiveism
in order to produce cure
IF cannot be denied that paupers, tramps and
criminals are largely the outcropplng OF lndi-
v;dualism, either direct or indirect. We do
not mean to say that there are no other causes,
hit what we mean to say is that if society treat
"A all its members as the careful farmer treats
~. farm animals, worthessness, shiftlessness
I'D immortality could be abated, and, III the
course of time, could, to very large extent, be
removed. In other words, it could be bred out,
&c the farmer has bed out the razor-back hog.
Nothing further than has been accomplished
-, I've accomplished under ndividualism If
soc;ety is to make further advances, the hrst