The Detroit times., 1915-11-29
A TWENTIETH
CENTURY PROBLEM
6Y Or. FRANK CRANE
Copyright. 1915, by Frank Crane)

What can a man own?
There are two extreme answers to this
question. One group of thinkers tend
toward the view that the individual
should be allowed to own as little as pos
sible. The state, the community should
own; the people should work for the
state, all drawing wages.
In the direction of this opinion there
are convictions in varying degrees. Sim
gle-taXers would have all land practically
state owned, by making the tax approx
innate the rental value. Many believe
that limit should be set by law to all
fortunes. Others would prohibit, or at
least regulate, inheritance; governments,
by the inheritance tax, partly adopt this
theory. In fact, all taxes imply the right
of the state 10 limit private ownership.
Tax Is essentially confiscation. Social
lists insist upon communal ownership TO
greater or less extent.
Opposite to these more or less socialis-
tic ideas are the opinions of the individ-
ualists. including most property owners
and those persons whose living and pros
perity depend upon property owners.
They constantly resist all "socialistic"
tendencies.
The latter group are I'm accord with our
Anglo-SaXon traits. 1t is bred in our
bone that government is to interfere
with private concerns as little as possi-
ble We don't want TO be taken care Of
by government, but TO be let alone. The
state is merely the umpire in the great
competitive game of getting on.
The practical economic truth will be
found in neither one of these extremes.
Our people are not yet ready to turn all
property over to the state and go to work
for labor certificates. And, on the other
hand, we are realizing that the desire for
private property must not go unchecked.
Modern politics Is continuous expert
ment to find the golden mean.
In an earlier day we were so anxious
for the development" of the country
that we gave away recklessly our natu-
raj resources. Millions of acres were
presented to railroads. Water rights
we're handed out freely TO those who
asked Street car franchises were dis
Itributed lavishly and without restrain
ing clauses. School lands in city centers
were sold cheap. afterward rising to fab
ulous values, to enrich the spectators.
The Bodenreform. a Berlin magazine,
tcitcs-t -the-ease- of t4fe- village of -Ne!sig-
The town owned a magnificent lake from
which it drew a considerable revenue.
"On the opposite shore lies an estate
that belonged TO member OF family
of millionaire farmers. The owner OF
the estate liked the lake and bought it
Of the community for the low price of
? 100 marks. Then he rented out the
fishing privilege for 5000 marks year.
Neighboring inhabitants whose land
reaches to the shore are not allowed to
90 boat riding or TO battle in the lake.
They cannot even buy fish at retail from
the tenant, since he sends his entire sup
ply to the Berlin markets"
This furnishes a vivid example OF the
dangers that lie in private ownership OF
public utilities.
The fear that eve are drifting toward
socialism" is well founded. 1t may be
stated in better way. We are awaken
ing to the truth that THERE CAN BE
NO COMMON PROSPERITY WITHOUT
A COMMUNAL CONSCIOUSNESS. I'm
curbed competition results in the strong
gobbling up the weak.
The state cannot thrive under condl-
tions of a free fight and devil take the
Ibindmost. It can bring general welfare
TO its people only when they learn that
the high word that should govern hu-
man activities is not competition but CO.
operation.
The permanency of democracy de-
pends upon the power of its citizens TO
cooperate.