The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1901-10-26

VI OIneTS WHOM ne mas Ouly p&AAO--ll
10 all the same thing. If we grant that
a man has a sacred right to the pro-
duct Of his own labor, this house 10 his
property. All Of it. To deprive him
Of any portion Of it is the same in
principle as to deprive him Of it alto
gether. TO impose q tax on the house
is in effect to deprive him of some por-
ton Of its value; and the principle
which would Justify such tax would
equally justify one which would take
the whole value. This would be sim
to shelter. If his product happened to
be In the form Of food or clothing,
the same principle would justify the
taxing Of these away. But to tax away
his food and clothing, as we'll as his
shelter, would be to deprive him of
life, and thus to deny his primary
natural right. It may clearly, then, be
laid down that the taxation of labor
products Is In principle and essence
an interference with-and If carried to
to its extreme logical conclusion, a de-
NAL of-the right to life.
In the second case, let us suppose
the legal possession in question to
be city lot. Looked at primarily a
lot Is simply a part Of the surface Of
the globe section of nature, in the
same category as the air, sunlight,
and other elements Of creation. If it
be granted that all men have an equal
natural right to all land, this lot can
only be the private property of spe-
cif1c individual by permission of his
fellow men; that is, they consent to
the withdrawal Of their equal natural
right to the occupancy of this portion
OF the common heritage in his favor.
In other words, by form Of law, society
confers on the individual in question
privilege, namely. that of exclusive
ly enjoying access to the specific piece
OF land In question. And although it Is
necessary to the existence Of society
that many individuals should aus be
granted legal right to the exclusive
possession of specific portions of land
this being the only conditions under
which land can be put to use-yet in
the case of no individual can the right
be more than legal one, granted by
the consent expressed or implied Of his
fellow men. This is clearly seen in the
fact that every government reserves
to itself the right of eminent domain
the authirity, namely, to dispossess any
individual of ownership when the inter-
ests of the people as a whole require
such action. And, be it observed, the
legal right of man to use a specific
portion of land. is quite separate from
h 10 not, r3erH, te ~ 80 I.S<s
own industry thereon. His title to his
own product is, as have shown, based
ultimately on his right to life; where
as his title to: produce wealth upon
this particular piece of land, to the
exclusion of all other men, is based
upon compact made with society and
ratified by law In the form Of deed
or other instrument. It is to be noted
that the legal right to land is not con-
ditional on the holder using the
land. He is at liberty to do so, if he
person to use it, or he may keep it
cut Of use altogether. But the law
has always considered his legal right
as a fit subject Of taxation, and q re-
fusal to pay the taxes imposed upon
it will, at certain point, extinguish
this right. In plain terms, the land
will be taken out Of his possession.
Now, to see that every legal right is
in reality specific privilege, is to see
that it is essentially different from a
natural right. To- ask men to pay
taxes for the enjoyment of rights
which they have by nature shocks the
sense Of Justice; but to ask them to
pay the full value of special privi-
leges accords with reason and fairness.
Surely men ought to be willing to pay
for special privileges, for when such
payment Is made, they are merely plac-
ed on level with those who do not
enjoy special privileges. Having paid
for their privileges, they still have their
natural rights intact. The legal right
of a man, then, to own city lot, being
a privilege which he enjoys to the ex-
clusion of every other resident of the
city, is a thing eminently suited for
taxation.
This would be true even If the tax
he was called upon to pay came out
Of his own earnings. But as matter
of fact, it does not. To see this clear
ly, take a case: A owns a lot in the
business section, upon which he has
permitted B to build a store. A does
not own the store, but simply the
land. B holds the land on a lease.
The city, besides taxing the building,
put a tax of say $500 on the land. Does
this tax come out of AS earnings? No.
Either B pays it to the city treasury,
or he pays it to A, along with his rent
for the lot, which is, let US suppose,
1880 altogether. A has manifestly
nothing to do with this tax but to re-
ceive it and hand it over to the city
treasury. Certainly he would $500 rich
er If he were not required to hand it to
the treasurer, but still he cannot allege
that in taking it the city deprives him
Of anything he has earned. Nor could
he make such a complaint justly II the
| whole $500 were thus taken by the
city treasury. To be sure A would
| regard this with much disfavor; in
deed, he might even declare that If all
the rent he got for his lot was to be
| taken in taxation his legal right In the
ownership of 1t was worthless. And
so it would be from the purely land
lord standpoint-there would be no
financial profit in it for him: his only
satisfaction would be the purely al
| trniafin mo NJ narmiffinp u IN o~1o,,