The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1914-07-11
SPECIALIZATION OF LAND.
BY Fred Moves.

SPECIALIZATION OF LAND.
BY Fred Noyes.
A study of the collective owner
ship Of land. as it prevailed in a
limited extent in the past, may as
sist US in determining for ourselves
whether or not we want anything of
the sort. Collective ownership of
land once existed among several
races. In some Mohammedan coun-
tries there exists even now the col
lective ownership of land through
the sovereign, the supreme owner for
the people. AS ruler owns the
land for the people in a collective
way the condition of people is thus
merely one of tenants, the former
levying tax or rent upon the land.
Furthermore, as owner he expects
compulsory labor from his subjects.
1t is because of such collectivism
that there is practically a complete
absence of the personal initiative
which we find in most Mohammedan
countries. There is lack of individu-
al energy, and such nations progress
very slowly If at all.
Sir Stanford Raffles. who perhaps,
knows more about these conditions
than anyone else, and who has a
splendid knowledge of conditions in
Java, shows that by collectivism as
related to land, there results lack
of individual enterprise and the
worst social conditions, and that in
stead of improving the condition of
the country proletariat it appears to
transform the country proletariat in
to nation of paupers.
However, there is always the
worldly tendency to develop collect
i've land ownership into private
ownership. and worldly progress in
evitably eliminates such isolated
cases of social ownership. Among
certain barbaric races the land was
held in common. Agriculture al
ways carried with it the system of
individual ownership. The history
of the human race shows sponta-
neous desire for a separate establish
ment home and land for the indie
pendent family.
Private property in the dwelling
and the land surrounding it which
was cultivated by the family, and
perhaps reclaimed from the swamp,
or the forest, was evolved in Asia as
we'll as in Europe. with the establish
ment of the agricultural system.
And this private ownership Of land
evolved likewise the private owner
ship of personal property such as
tools and all instruments of labor In
the earlier times as in the present,
the most thrifty members of +he
community would secure large
share of the wealth and thus was
established the first inequality in
property, and we began to have rich.
and poor classes in society. Thus
began centuries ago this inequality
of wealth. One feature common to
all history was that whenever the
system of collective ownership of
land was established, restriction of
liberty was the consequence.
Socialists wish to return to that
old system of collective ownership in
which liberty and progress was i'm
possible. Under the system of col
lective ownership of land progress
was indeed slow if not altogether
checked. Even the great anarchist,
Phoudhon, acknowledges the factor
of individuality in his "Contradic-
tions of Economies" when he says:
II observe that social life mani
tests itself in a double way-by can
servation and development. The de-
velopment is effected through the
agency of the individual energy; the
mass is by nature unfruitful. passive.
and refractory to innovation. It is.
If I may venture upon the COMPARE
son, the matrix, sterile in itself,
wherein are deposited the germs (of
Improvement springing from the in
dividual initiative which represents
the male element of hermaphro-
dite society,""
Even in the far past, collective
ownership was the exception, and
private ownership the rule. The
races that had private ownership
progressed, while those that held the
land in common remained in state
Of stagnation. Yet socialists would
have us go back to the system Of
collective ownership which would
mean relapse of civilization to
barbarism.
One hundred and eighty-five dol
lars were turned over a few days
ago to Commissioner of Finance Clair