Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-08-22

fOOlhardy to ueny. Nno Soh cogitate any system that IS abso- lutely perfect and to which some one will not object. But the difficulties that the private ownership system gives rise to needs not the rad ical cure of socialism. They could easily be remedied by the proper leg-i islation. That such legislation IS not forthcoming is in some great measure the fault of the workingman who VIII allow himself to be owned body, and brooches by demagogue poilu. clans, who, unmindful of his oath or citizenship and forswearing his per sonal independence, will wear the collar of a political machine and pc
 whipped into line to do its bidding despite his own personal convictlons.
 When the body of workingmen
 throughout the country will learn 10
 be independent voters and will teach the professional politicians the lesson
 which they sadly need, they will be
 in a position to get laws enacted
 that will serve the justice that IS
 theirs. Until such time they must
 abide by disabilities of their own
 making. At any rate it is better for
 them to bear patiently the evils they i have than to fly to those they wot
 not of.
 It is sometimes argued, as does
 Layeleye, that the original manner
 of possession was, communistic, ana
 that only in process of time indlvia- ual possession came into vogue. It IS true that among the Ruthenians, the
 ancient Germans and some other
 tribes this collective form of posses
 sion held. But it by no means fol- lows that such was the ordinary way. In the pastoral age when agriculture was carried on only to the extent
 necessary to furnish food for men and cattle, in days when there was
 no cornering of wheat markets, no
 gambling in "options" and in "fu- tures," the land was held in common
 by the tribe itself, but by mutual con-
 sent, not in the sense of our modern
 socialists. There was a necessity or
 banding together for mutual protec-
 tion but as it is evident from the ex-
 ample of Abraham and Lot the con-
 munistic dominion lasted only as long as the private parties to the covenant
 wished, it. Laveleye therefore has
 been guilty of the fallacy that is first
 brought to the attention of the tyro
 in dialectics; he makes his conclusion
 more sweeping and comprehensive than his premises warrant. Among the more antique nations the Egyp-
 tians. the Chaldeans and the Assyr- Hans collectivism did not flourish. Some interesting facts on the subject
 may be read in the works of Lener- , mant, Sayce, Therl and Leroy-Beau- lieu. Karl Marx must have thought
 most men except himself thieves, at least he did not seem to think it pos sible that a man could be capitalist ! and as such be honest. However, he asserts that ethically individual pos
 session is wrong because the gains , of the capitalist arises from theft in- ! asmuch as he retains for himself a part of the salary due to the work
 man. In that case the workman him.
 self would be a thief every time he made any gain on his money. This
 objection is of course built on the as. sumption that labor alone is the only
 standard of value and therefore the U only source of salary. A gratuitous assertion since 1t leaves out of con :. lsideration the capital invested, tho risk taken and the intellectual exer :, tion necessary which in times likt :, these of keen competition is an ele a ment not to be lightly considered. l Marks words were true one might ex pect to see most capitalists increasing their wealth by leaps and bounds :, But those who like Leroy-Beaulieu :. have made a special study of the sub !. ject, tell us that scarcely one-thir' o or one-quarter of the capitalist made any great gains, the rest eithe become failures or barely eke out If living.
 Although the doctrine of Henr, ,S George is now not much heard of, ye in it might be interesting to note som ,e of the principal objections agains "a private dominion. Assuming tha d. labor is the only rightful source c :. possession he concludes that onl s those things that we possess by labo r' are legitimately acquired. But ther n- are other modes of acquiring; eml Do tion, prescription and occupatio ad where there is no known owner. II ba deed these last George admitted hin It self in regard to goods like birds an ;t fishes which are not the result of ou rv labor. He must likewise have pra' ha tically admitted emption, for 1t l ,s not likely that all that he used WI ro the fruit of his own labor. He insis ho ed that the equal right of all to liN ,d was granted in vain unless there VI ,is a community of goods, that priya ss. occupation of lands was therefore ul "a just. But here, too, the premises be not warrant the conclusion, for tl ra- ownership of lands is not and nev, ,is has been necessary to prosecute Il sas right of living. Perhaps George ,s- most famous argument was tn av known as the "unearned increment in. value that came to land from CO ,Id tingent, incidental and fortuito fin circumstances, such as railroads, i m- crease of population, etc, which va ,ca uation not being the work of t 1n- owner was unearned and not to md held in honesty by the individual, b he belonged to the state. The, argume
 is fallaeious in that 1t is not ity general application, for many Ian sm deteriorate In value. On the oth an- hand the unearned increment does D
 of always go in the entirety to the ov mic CT. The state may and does get
 to share by increased taxation. Mol