The independent., 1903-05-14

economy, from which the deductions
Ok socialism are drawn, merely ex-
presses what is true under conditions
| which are the consequence of vicious
| legal enactments, what becomes of 1t
when the restrictions which give rise
to these conditions are removed? Is
must give way?
If it can be shown that the dimin
| ishing returns to labor result from
the power which ownership of land
gives, of appropriating a gradually
| increasing share of what labor pro-
duces, it is not evident that under a
| condition in which land owners are
| deprived of that power, that the iron
law" Of wages will no longer hold
good.
When we make clear that this law
is true only under a condition that
permits of the private appropriation
OF rent, We shatter the foundation
upon which the whole structure of SO
cialism rests, and when we show how,
by a method both simple and feasible,
economic rent may be restored to la
Dor, thus giving to it the full unim-
paired product of its exertion, the last
vestige of the scientific basis of So
cialism is swept away.
The gist OF the whole question lies
In meeting this law of wages, and
we claim that the single tax is
simpler, easier and more natural So
luton Of the problem than the social
istic plan; that competition, under
the conditions of real freedom estab-
lished by the single tax, would become
natural and mutually beneficen,
form Of cooperation.
Instead of competition being the
demon which has its hand upon the
throat of labor. as the socialists would
have us believe, it is the private ap-
preparation Ct rent, which, following
in the wake of advancing production,
swallows up all the increase in wealth
which springs from the increase.
skill and efficiency of labor, and the
invention of labor saving machinery
1t is true there is competition
merciless competition among the dis
inherited, but it has no basis in ma
ture. It springs from the restrictions
which men have laid upon the bOun-
ties of nature, from the existence OF
social laws that rob humanity of it,
birthright, and send the masses OF
men forth into the world disinherited,
and dependent upon the few for the
privilege of toll.
But, says the socialist, why should
the value of land be singled out for
collective appropriation, and capital,
machinery, the artificial factors of
production, be allowed to remain in
the hands of individuals? We. an
swer, property in things which are
the product of labor, and property in
land, rest upon widely different prin-
ciples.. That sacredness which at
taches to property in the products OF
human labor, the fruits of human ex-
ertion, has never attached to property
in land. We claim that what man
produces is Justly his own, that his
right to it springs from his owner
ship of himself. Man is bundle OF
wants and desires, he is also a bundle
of muscles, and nerves, adapted in
their organization to produce the
things necessary to supply those
wants and desires. That which he
draws forth, or produces from the
storehouse of nature, through the in
strumentality of the one, he has a
right to apply to the satisfaction OF
the other. His right to 1t springs
from his right to himself, and IL
should be his against all the world.
But no man made the land-it is
the free gift of God, or nature, as you
Wilt was intended for man-not
some men, or a few men, but for all
men. 1t is the reservoir from which
all wealth is drawn. Man himself
springs from it, is nurtured by it.
must live upon it, and without it can
not live at all. The right to land is
as sacred as the right to existence it
self. 1t is common, equal and in
alienable right, and cannot be bar
tered away by princes or parlia-
mentS. E- .
Not only have all men an equal
right to land, but it is also true that
the value which attaches to land in
civilized communities and which
makes city lots worth thousands of
dollars a front foot, attaches to it by
reason of the growth of the commun-
ity. 1t is value which reflects the
productiveness of aggregated labor. 1t
is created by the community, and not