The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1913-01-18
Continued from page ~
THE TITLE TO WEALTH.

tween land and existing social insti-
tutions. This change is the objective
factor in the situation, the proper
cause of the increase in value, and the
element by which we must ascertain
the moral claims of social action as a
producer of land values. AS result
of the growth of city, piece of land
that was formerly useful only for agri-
culture becomes desirable for factory
or a store. Men want it for such pur-
poses now, whereas they wanted it
heretofore only for crop raising. It's
utility and it's value have increased,
but the increase is not due to any
change in the form or quality of the
land like to that which takes place in
leather which is converted into shoes.
The new utility consists in the fact
that previously latent uses of the land
have become actual; and the cause of
this conversion of potential into actual
utility is the nearer approach of the
city, and the consequent establishment
of new relations between that piece of
land and urban life and institutions.
But these new relations have been
established and created by society, in
it's corporate capacity through civil in
situations and activities, and in it's
non-corporate capacity through the eco
nomic and social activities of groups
and individuals. In this sense, then,
society has created the increased land
values. Has it, therefore, strict right
to the increase? a right so rigorous
and exact that private appropriation of
the socially created value is unjust?
society's Right to the Increase 1t
Creates.
CAS- we have just seen, men do not
admit that mere production of value
constitutes a title of ownership.
Neither the monopolist who increases
the value of cotton by restricting the
supply, nor the pacemakers of fashion
who increase the value of, say, a GER
tain style of millinery, are regarded as
possessing moral right to the in
creased value. But the shoemaker is
thought to have a just claim to the
value which he adds to raw material
when he makes a pair of shoes
Whence the difference? What is the
precise basis of the shoemaker's right
1t cannot be labor, for the cotton
monopolist has labored in getting his
corner on cotton. 1t is not even the
fact that the labor of the former is
socially useful, for this is merely a
reason why men are wise in paying for
something useful which they could not
get otherwise. For the same reason
they are equally wise when they pay
the cotton monopolist for the artificial
The fundamental question is: why is
it reasonable for the shoemaker to re
quire, why has he a right to require
payment for the utilities that he pro
duces? To which the fundamental an
swer is: because he is morally and
want to use his products; because he
has the same right as they of access on
reasonable terms to the earth and the
earth's possibilities; and because, be-
ing thus equal, he is not obliged to sub
ordinate himself to his fellows by be-
coming a mere instrument for their
pleasure and welfare. To assume that
he is obliged to produce socially use
full things without remuneration, is tC
assume that all these propositions are
false, that his life and personality and
personal development are of no in
trinsic Importance, and that the ma
terial means to these ends may be
denied him, except in so far as they
are necessary to maintain him as ar
instrument of production. More briefly
and summarily, the ultimate basis Of
the producers right to his product OF
it's value, is the fact that this is the
only reasonable method of effecting &
proper distribution of the earth's
goods, of safeguarding the rights o.
the individual thereto, and of provid
ing him with the means of life ant
personal development. The right does
not rest upon the mere fact of value
production or utility production.
The Producers Right to His Product
"When the community, whether as g
civil unit or as an aggregate of group:
and individuals, produces land values
it is not on the same moral ground as
the shoemaker It's production of lanC
values is indirect and incidental to its
main activities and purposes. Lane
values are a by-product which does moi
require the community to devote 6
single moment of time or single
ounce of effort exclusively to theil
production. The activities whereof
the land values are by-product are
already remunerated in the price paiC
to the wage Garner for his labor, the
physician for his services, the manu-
facturer and the merchant for theil
wares, and the municipal corporation
in the form of taxes. On what ground
can the community set up claim il
strict justice to the increased lanG
values? It's members are not denied
the means of living and self develop
ment on reasonable terms; nor are
they treated as mere instruments tt
the welfare of the private owners who
actually get the socially created lane
values, for they expend neither time
nor labor in the interest of the latter
directly. Their labor is precisely what
it would be if land value did not in
crease at ALL Finally, community ap
Il Of tho social ua111o 0f 1onf