The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1901-10-17
Public Ownership Of All Those
Things Used Collectively
Leads To The Private Owner
ship Of Those Things Used
Individually.
WALTER THOMAS MILLS.


disputed. But whatever power the mas
ter may have had over the life of his
slave, whatever arbitrary authority aris-
tocratic 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
labor. and labor involves an expenditure
of life's energies. Inasmuch as every
man has an inherent right to life, he also
has. and by necessity, right to the
products of the expenditure of his life's
energies. Thus the right to property be-
comes as sacred as is the right to life
itself. The right to own carries with il
the right to produce. Having produced
the right to own ones products 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 en-
titled to own nothing.
But production is no longer carried on
by single handed enterprises. Produc-
ton is carried on by great organizations
with extensive equipments which no in
'dividual single handed could own or
Operate. Association in production is
inevitable The right to the opportunity
to produce involves ones right to a 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.
His right to use these no one disputes
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 we'll 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 biscuit for his dinner
some one seated on the other side of
the table may use the biscuit if he does
not. 1t is the possibility of use by
either which results in the struggle for
possession. When the thing under con-
sideration is the machinery, the organi-
cation, the process of production, there
is not only the possibility that another
may use, but there is the absolute neces-
siy 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 to myself alone, can harm
no other. There is no reason why nv
clothing should not be my own as alb
solutely as are my hands and feet. It
IS as necessary for my comfort, it is
really a part of my personality. The
old London sweat-shops, where the en-
ployer owned the clothing which his
victims wore, while engaged at his tasks,
involved wrong against which Kingsley
wrote. and about which Tom Hood sang
with matchless pathos 1t involved
wrong that the English speaking race
rebelled against. All property which is
Tor my individual, exclusive, personal
use | 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 it is directly or
indirectly the products of the ex-
penditure of my life's energies, not the
result of the exploitation of the toll of
others. But the great plants involved
in associated production l cannot use
by myself. l cannot use their products
by myself. I cannot operate them by
myself. Association is necessary, is in
evitable. Private ownership of these
great industrial 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 liveli-
hood is to obtain the consent of some
one else to use the tools of his own in
dustry. 1t makes him absolutely de-
pendent, not upon himself, but upon an
other. The toolless workman is help
less. The owner of the tools which l
must use or starve is the master of my
life.
The right to life is inalienable. If so,
the right to earn a livelihood is also
inalienable. I not only believe in the
right of private property, but l believe
that my individual right in the property