The Union daily times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1918-current, 1922-08-22
TUESDAY, AUGUST %, 1922.

In the general unrest of the day Il
has come about that the Fundamental
question of property ownership ha:
been somewhat confused There ha,
been so much criticism of the pluto
crat," such TRADES against corpora
t'o,.s and such malicious hate toward
any nd everybody who has succeed
cd in the accumulation of prop.ri.
that the public mind is bit confused
As z matter of fact it would not D.
worth much to live in country i,
which there was not respect for prop
erty rights, both public and private
We have a country OF free speech, al
least ir theory, and any and every
body, with brains and without brain
may shout and speak and write and
bray to his hearts content. Tn,
shouting, writing, braying and teach.
ing has brought forth the fruit-ha.
tired towards all things that appear
prosperous and all men who own !.
considerable amount of property. 1t
is true the point of attack made upon
Such individuals is usually case
Nhor2 they have investments in pun
lie utilities corporations, like rail
ways. street cars, gas companies and
electric power companies. Next in
order of severity in criticism come
:arge manufacturing plants, and or.
Sanizatons that function in the pro.
duction of some commodity that the
public needs. Next comes the mev.
chant, banker and business man in
general who receives a less degree of
censure, yet an antagonism is mani
tested that is Just as real. The truth
is the man who has nothing finds It
quite difficult to feel very friendly
towards the man who has much. The
braying of nnlitical asses .has-.acnai-
GRATED this antagonism, and that, toe
without offering any real solution or
reaching correct diagnosis of the
situation. And so it comes about that
the less fortunate continues to rail at
the more fortunate. The man with
out property continues to nurture his
animosity towards the man who has
property.
But when the cobwebs are wiped
from the mind, it appears a very
clearly marked fact that if YOU do
away with the private ownership of
property you would not only destroy
the whole fabric of civilization. brt
You would take away about the only
motive leading to endeavor. This IS
cne of the strong arguments against
socialism - it destroys individual
ownership, lodges all ownership in
the state and, so, kills the handspring
Of action. Socialism would reach out
IL; its final development and take over
the farms Of the country and operate
tEem. If you destroy the right to
own land you break about the last
link .hat binds a man to endeavor.
To have, to own, to possess, to be
reasonably free in TIE use of prop
erty, whether it be money or lands o,
whatever other thing Of value-cre
ate in man a strong desire to strive
for these things. And it is rigat
that there should be the surrender to
the desire to own. Men desire gold
they 90 out and dig for it, If the gold
had no value, if when possessed the
ownership resulted in no power to
buy to own, to use IS one wills, there
would be no more digging. If the
state owned all the private property,
all the land, all the cattle-everq
thing Of value, it would be but short
while before these values would
shrink. There is much foolish talk
going on IN the world today. 1t IS
just as well ID get down to founda-
tion facts. a world in which there
vas no protection for the property
rights of men would be place unit
TO live in, and humanity would drop
into sea of stagnation that wou d
cause it to rot.
There is this, further, to say: Nose
Of the railers at ownership, could
they exchange places with those they
row hate, would be the most daspis-
able faunters Of their newly acquired
wealth. They would show less syn,-