Economic Rent

If it is unearned, certainly his neighbors did not earn it. The advent of Liberty will reduce all unearned increments to a harmless minimum. I have never maintained that judgment and skill are less important than labor; I have only maintained that neither judgment nor skill can be charged for in equity except so far as they have been acquired. Even then the payment is not for the judgment or skill, but for the labor of acquiring; and, in estimating the price, one hour of labor in acquiring judg ment is to be considered equ~l,-not, as now, to one day, or week, or perhaps year of manual toil,-but to one hour of manual toil. The claim for judgment and skill is usually a mere pretext made to deceive the people into paying exorbitant prices, and will not bear analysis for a moment On the contrary, the employee, the one who ooes the work, is naturally and ethically the appraiser of work, and all that the employer has to say is whether he will pay the price or not. Into his answer enters the estimate of the value of the result. Under the present system he offers less than cost, and the employee is forced to accept. But Liberty and com petition. will create such an enormous market for labor that no workman will be forced by his incompetency to work for less than cost, as he will always be in a position to resort to some simpler work for which he is competent and can ob tain adequate pay.

ECONOMIC RENT Mr. Steven T. Byington, who at that time was a sup porter of the Single Tax, asked the editor of Liberty to explain some phases of economic rent, especially as to I ND I V I D U ALL I BERT Y 187 the· hope for' its dis.appearance under Anarchism. Mr. Tucker gave him. this answer: LIBERTY has never stood with those who profess to show on strictly economic grounds that economic rent tnZtst disappear or. even decrease. as a result of· the application of the Anar chistic principle. It sees no. chance for that· factor in the human constitution which. makes competition such a power ful influence-namely, the disposition to .buy in the cheapest market-to act directly upon' economic rent ill a way to reduce it. This disposition .to •buy cheap, which in a free market is.fatal to all other forms of usury, is on the contrary the mainstay of economic rent, whether· the market he' free or restricted, when, through. freedom of .banking,.it shall become po~sible to furnish mon~y at cost, no one will pay for money more than cost; and hence interest. on money, as well as on all capital consisting. of commodities which. money will buy and to the production of which there is no natural limit~ will necessarily disappear. But the occupant of land who is enabled, by' its •superiority, to undersell his. neighbor and at the same time to reap,. through' his greater volume of. busi ness, moreproflt than his neighbor, enjoys this economic rent precisely because of his opportunity to .exploit the consumer's disposition to buy cheap. The effect of freedom is not felt here in the same way and with the same directness that it is feIt elsewhere.

There are other' grounds, ho.wever, some of··them indirectly econo,mic, some of them purely sentimental, which justify the belief of the Anarchist that a condition of freedom will grad ually modify to a' very appreciable extent the advantage. enjoyed by the occupant of superior land~ Take first one .that is indirectly econolllic.. I agree with my· correspondent that great cities are not destined to disappear. But I believe also that they will be able to maintain their existence only by of f~ring their advantages at a lower price than they now exact. When the laborer, in consequence of his increased wages and greater welfare resulting from the abolition of interest, shall . enjoy a larger freedom of locomotion,·.shall. he tied down less firmly to .a particular employmen~, a.nd shall be .ableto remove to .the country. with greater facility and in possession of more 188 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY capital than he can now command, and when the country, partly because of this mobility of labor and partly because of the advances in science, shall continually offer a nearer ap proach to the undoubted privileges of city life, the representa tives of commercial and other interests in the great cities will be able to hold their patrons about them only by lowering their prices and contenting themselves with smaller gains.

In other words, economic rent will lessen. Here the disposi tion to buy cheap, not any special commodity, but an easy life, does exert an indirect and general influence upon eco nomic rent. And, under this influence and yielding to it, the city may increase in prosperity simultaneously with the decline of economic rent. Nay, the increase in prosperity may accelerate this decline; for under liberty increased pros perity means also well-distributed prosperity, which means in turn a lowering of the barriers· between classes and a con sequent tendency to equalize the different localities of the city one with another. Upon the sentimental grounds for believing in the evanes cence .of economic rent it is _perhaps not worth while to dwell. I have an aversion to definite speculations based on hypothetical transformations in human nature. Yet I cannot doubt that the disappearance of interest will result in an atti tude of hostility to usury in any form, which will ultimately cause any person who charges more than cost for any product to be regarded very much as we now regard a pickpocket. In this way, too, economic rent will suffer diminution.

I think my correspondent fails to understand what is meant by the freeing of vacant land. It does not mean simply the freeing of unoccupied land. It means the freeing of all land not occupied by the owner. In other words~ it means land ownership limited by occupancy and use. This would destroy not only speculative but monopolistic rent, leaving no rent ex cept the economic form, which will be received, while it lasts, not as a sum paid by occupant to owner, but as an extra and usurious reward for labor performed under special advantages. But evert if economic rent had to be co~sidered a per manency; if the considerations which I have urged should prove of no avail against it,-it would be useless, tyrannical, and productive of further tyranny to confiscate it. In the INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 189 ftrst 'place, .. if 1 have a right to a.share of the advantages that accrue from the possession of superior land, then that share is mine; it is'1l}Y property; it is like any otherprope·rty.of mine; no man, nobody of men, is entitled to decidehQw this prop"

erty shall be .used; and any man or body of men attempting so to decid~deprives me of my property just as trply as the owner .of the superior land deprives me of it if allowed to retain the economic.·r~nt. In fact, still assuming that this property i.s ~ mi.ne,. I •prefer, if I.·.'muSlt be robbed of it, to be n>bbedby the land-owner, who is likely to spend it in some useful way,.'rather ·than by an institution called government, which probably .will spend it for fireworks or something else which I equally disapprove~ If the property is mine, I claim it, t9 do as Ipleasewiih; if it is not mi~, it is impertinent, dishonest, and. tyrannical for anybody to forcibly take it from the· land-occupant on the pretense that it is mine and to.spend it in my name. It is precisely this, however, that the Single Taxers propose, and it is this that makes the Single-Tax a State Socialistic measure. There was. never anything •·more absurd than the supposition of some Single-T ax-ers that this tax can be harmonized with Anarchism.

But I now and .then meet a Single-Taxer who allows that the government, after confiscating this economic rent, has no right to devote it to any so-c,alled.pub1icpurposes, but should distribute it to the people. Supposing the people to. be en titledto1;he economic rent, this certainly looks on its face like a much saner and more· honest .proposition than that of the ordinary Single..Taxer. But the question at once arises: Who ,is to pay the government officials for their services in con... fiscating .the economic rent and handing me my share of it? And. how. much is to be paid. them? And who is to decide these matters? When I reflect that under such a Single-Tax systetntheo~cupants of superior land are likely tQbecomethe politicians and to tax back· from the people.to pay their sal arjeswhat the people have taxed out of them as ec1onomic rent, 'again I ~ay· that, even if a Pttrt of'the economic rent·is rightly mine, I· prefer. to leave it in the pocket of the land owner, since it is bound to ultimately get back· th~re. As M. Schneider".the Carnegie of France, said in a recent inter vieww"itha Figaro.reporter: uEvenif we were to have a col190 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY lectivist system or society and my property should be confis cated, 1 believe that I am shrewd enough to find a way to feather my nest just the same." M. Schneider evidently un derstands State Socialism better than the State Socialists themselves. The Socialists and Single-Taxers will have at tained their paradise when they are robbed by officials instead of by landlords and capitalists.

In my view it is idle to discuss what shall be done with the economic rent after it has been confiscated, for I distinctly deny the propriety of confiscating it at all. There are two ways, and only two, of affecting the distribution of wealth. One is to let it distribute itself in a free market in accordance with the natural operation of economic law; the other is to distribute it arbitrarily by authority in accordance with stat ute law. One is Anarchism; the other is State Socialism. The latter, in its worst and most probable form, is the exploitation of labor by officialdom, and at its best is a regime of spiritless equality secured at the expense of liberty and progress; the former is a regime of liberty and progress, with as close an ap proximation to equality as is compatible therewith. And this is all the equality that we ought to have. A greater equality than is compatible with liberty is undesirable. The moment we invade liberty to secure equality we enter upon a road which knows no stopping-place short of the annihilation of all that is best in the human race. If absolute equality is the ideal; if no man must have the slightest advantage over an other,-then the man who achieves greater results through superiority of muscle or skill or brain must not be allowed to enjoy them. All that he produces in excess of that which the weakest and stupidest produce must be taken from him and distributed among his fellows. The economic rent, not of land only, but of strength and skill and intellect and superior ity of every kind, must be confiscated. And a beautiful world it would be when absolute equality had been thus achieved!

Who would live in it? Certainly no freeman. Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labor; it will abolish all means whereby any laborer can be deprived of any of his product; but it will not abolish the limited inequality between one INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 191 laborer's product and~nother s.Now, because it has not this power last named, there'.are people who say: We will have no liberty, for .•we. must . have absolute equality. I am not of them~ If I go through life free and rich; 1 shall not cry beca,use my neighbor, equally free, is .richer.. Liberty will 'ulthnately, make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may ·not) make all men equally rich in purse; .it certainly will make them equally poor in all that tnakes life best worth l~v~ng. Mr.•Byington's erroneous conclusions regarding .the confis cation of economic rent are due, as I' view it, to his confusion of liberties with rights, or, perhaps I might better. say, to his foundation.of equality of liberty upon a supposed equality of rights. I take issue with him at the very start by denying the dogma of equality of rights,-in fact, by· denying •. rights al together except those acquired by contract. In times past, when, though already·. an •Egoist and knowing' then as' now that every man acts and always will act solely from an inter est in self,' I .had not. considered the bearing of Egoism upon the question of obligation, it was my habit to talk glibly and loosely of' the right of •man to' the land. It was. a bad habit, and I Jongago sloughed· it off. Man's .only right over the ,land is his might over it. . If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is' his·.. neighbor's until the latter is dispossessed in' turn by one mightier still.

But while the danger of such dispossession continues there is no society, ,no security, no comfort. Hence men contract. They agree upon certain' conditions of.·land owne'rship,. and will' protect no title in the absence of the' conditions fixed upon~ The object of this contract is nQt to enable aU' to benefit equally from the land, but to enable each to hold securely at his own disposal the results·•of his efforts .ex pended upon such portion of the earth as he may possess under the conditions agreed upon. It· is principally to secure this absolute control of the results of one's efforts that equality of liberty is/instituted, not as a matter of right, but as a so cial convenience. I have always maintained that liberty is of greater ·importance than wealth,-i:n other words, that ·1l1an derives morehappinesfroln freedom. than ·from luxury,--and this is .' true; but there is another sense in' which wealth, or, 192 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY rather, property, is of greater importance than liberty. Man has but little to gain from liberty unless that liberty includes the liberty to control what he produces. One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental neces sity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the regime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest.

Now the difference between the equal liberty of the An archists and the system which Mr. Byington and the Single Taxers consider equal liberty is this: the former secures prop erty, while the latter violates it. The Anarchists say to the individual: uOccupancy and use is the only title to land in which we will protect you; if you attempt to use land which another is occupying and using, we will protect him against you; if another attempts to use land to which you lay claim, but which you are not occupy ing and using, we will not interfere with him; but of such land as you occupy and use you are the sale master, and we will not ourselves take from you, or allow anyone else to take from you, whatever you may get out of such land." The Single-Taxers, on the other hand, say to the individual: uYou may hold all the land you have inherited or bought, or may inherit or buy, and we will protect you in such holding; but, if you produce more from your land than your neighbors produce from theirs, we will take from you the excess of your product over theirs and distribute it among them, or we will spend it in taking a free ride whenever we want to go any where, or we win make any use of it, wise or foolish, that may come into our heads."

The reader who compares these two positions will need no comment of mine to enable him to decide tton which side the maximum of liberty lies," and on which side property, or the individual control of product is respected. If Mr. Byington does not accept my view thus outlined, it is incumbent upon him to overthrow it by proving to me that man has a right to land; if he does accept it, he must see that it completely disposes of his assertion that ttwhen an other man takes a piece of land for his own and warns me off it, he exceeds the limits of equal liberty toward me with re spect to that land," upon which assertion all his argument rests.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 193 LIBERTY, LAND, AND LABOR While the Single Taxis now rarely spoken of, atone time, during Henry George's activity, it was very much, in the public eye. But George was ihclined to be... , little or ignore all 6ther factors of the economic problem, so he frequently received caustic criticism from the editor of Liberty: HERE is a ,delicious bit't>£ logic from Mr. George: tt1£ capi tal,a;mere creature of labor, is such an oppressive thing, its creator, when free, can strangle it by, refusing, to reproduce it." The italics are mine. If capital is oppressive, it must be oppressive of .labor. ' 'What difference does it make, then, what 1abor. can' do when free? The question is what it can do when. oppressed by capital. Mr• George"snexi: sentence, to besu.re, indicates that the freedom he refers to is freedopl from. land monopoly. But this does not improve his situation. He is enough of an economist to be very well aware that, whether it has land or not, 'labor which can get no capital~that is, !which is oppressed by capital-cannot, without accepting the alternative of starvation, refuse to reproduce-capital for the capit~lists.

It is one thing for Mr. George to sit in his sanctum and write of, the ease with which.a 'man whose sole possesslon,is.a bit Qfland can build a home aild scratch a living; for the man to do it is wholly another thing. The truth is that this man can do nothing,.of the .sortbntil you devise ~ome 11leaijs of, r~ising his wages above the cost of living. And you tan onlydQ this by increasing the demand for his labor by enabling m re men to go into business. And you can only enable m're m.en to, go into business by, enabling them to get capital wi hout interest, which, ip Mr. George's opinion, would be ve y wrong.' And you' can only enable ,them to get, capital wi hout interest by abolishing the money mqnopoly, which, by Ii iting the supply of money, enables its holders to exact in erest. And when you have abolished!the money mon()ply~ an when, in consequence, the wages of the man with, the bit of'land have begun to rise above the cost of living, ,the labor qu stion-,wil1be nine-tenths,solve,cl.For then either this man 194 INDIVIDU AL LIBERTY will live better and better, or he will steadily lay up money, with which he can buy tools to compete with his employer or to till his bit of land with comfort and advantage. In shortt he will be an independent man, receiving all that he produces or an equivalent thereof. How to make this the lot of all men is the labor question. Free land will not solve it. Free money, supplemented by free land, will.

In trying to answer the argument that land is practically useless to labor unprovided with capital, Henry. George de clares that ((labor and land, even in the absence of secondary factors obtained from their produce, have in their union to day, as they had in the beginning, the potentiality of all that man ever has brought, or ever can bring, into being." This is perfectly true; in fact, none know it better than the men whom Mr. George thus attempts to meet. But, as Cap'n Cuttle was in the h;tbit of remarking, ((the bearin' 0' this 'ere hobserwation lies in the application on't," and in its application it has no force whatever. Mr. George us~s it to prove that, if land were free, labor would settle on it, thus raising wages by relieving the labor market. But labor would do no such thing. The fact that a laborer, given a piece of land, can build a hut of mud, strike fire with flint and steel, scratch a living with his finger-nails, and thus begin life as a barbarian, even w~th the hope that in the course of a lifetime he may slightly improve his condition in consequence of having fashioned a few of the ruder of those implements which Mr. George styles ccsecondary factors" (and he could do no more than this with out producing for exchange, which implies, not only better machinery, but an entrance into that capitalistic maelstrom which would sooner or later swallow him up) ,-this fact, I say, will never prove a temptation to the operative of the city, who, despite his wretchedness, knows something of the advantages of civilization and to some extent inevita}Jly shares them.

Man does not Iive by bread alone. The city laborer / may live in a crowded tenement and breathe a tainted air; he may sleep cold, dress in rags, and feed on crumbs; but now and then he gets a glimpse at the morn ing paper, or if not that, then at the bulletin-board; he meets his fellow-men face to face; he knows by contact with the INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, 195 world more or less of what is going •on in it; he spends a few pennies'.occasionally for a. gallery-ticket to .the theatre 'or for someother luxury, even though he knows he Ucan't afford i('; he hears the music of the street, bands; he sees the pictures in the shop windows; he goes to church if he is pious, or if not, perhaps attends the meetings of the Anti-Poverty Society and listens to stump speechesby Henry George; and, when all these fail him, he is indeed unfortunate if some fellow-laborer does not.invite him. to' join him in a social glass over the nearest bar.

Not an ideal life, surely; but he will shiver in his garret and slowly waste away from inanition ere he will exchange it for the'·semi-barbarous condition of the backwoodsman without an axe.• And, were he,to do otherwise, I· would be the :first to cry: ,The more fool he! Mr. 'George's remedy is similar-at least for a part of man kind--to that which is, attributed to the Nihilists, but which few of them ever believedin,---namely" the total destruction of the existing social.order and. the: cre~tion, of a new one on its ruins. . Mr. George may as 'well understand first as ,last that labor wiUrefuse to begin this world anew. It never will abandon even its present meagre enjoyment of the wealth and, the, means of wealth which have ·grown out of· its ages ofsarrow, suffering, and slarvery. If Mr. George ·offers it land alone, it will turn itsbadk upon him. It insists upon both land and tools. These it will get, either by the State Socialistic method of·. concentrating ,the titles to them in the hands of one vast monopoly, or. by the Anarchistic method, of abolishing all mo nopolies, and thereby distributing these titles gradually among lab<>rers'through the natural channels of £reeproduction and exchange.

Mr.·T.·W. Curtis thought he discovered inconsistency and exaggeration in the foregoing, and, upbraided Mr. Tucker. The latter then went into the matter more deeply: HENRY GEORGE and his co-workers are of that class who ((speakin the name' of liberty, but do not know the meaning of the word." Mr. George has no conception of liberty as a 196 INDIVIDU AL LIBER Toy universal social law. He happens to see that in some things it would lead to good results, and therefore in those things favors it. But it has never dawned UPOI; his mind that disorder is the inevitable fruit of every plant which has authority for its root. As John F. Kelly says of him, e:the is inclined to look with favor on the principle of laissez faire, yet he will abandon it at any moment, whenever regulation seems more likely to produce immediate benefits, regardless of the evil thereby pro duced by making the people less jealous of State interference."

The nature of his belief in ·liberty is well illustrated by his attitude on the tariff question. One would suppose from his generalization that he has the utmost faith in freedom of competition; but one does not realize how little this faith amounts to until he hears him, after making loud free-trade professions, propose to substitute a system of bounties for the tariff system. If such political and economic empiricism is not rubbish beside the coherent proposals of either Anarchism or State Socialism, then I don't, know chaff from wheat. Liberty, of course, had something to do with the writing of UProgress and Poverty." It also had something to do with the framing of ·divorce laws as relief from indissoluble marriage. But the divorce laws, instead of being libertarian, are an ex press recognition of the rightfulness of authority over the sexual relations. Similarly ((Progress and Poverty" expressly recognizes the rightfulness of authority over the cultivation and use of land. For some centuries now evolution has been little else than the history of liberty; nevertheless all its fac tors have not been children of liberty.

Mr. Curtis turns his attention to the editorial on ccSecondary Factors." He thinks that my assertion that George asks labor to (Cbegin this world anew" ought to be backed by S0111e sh-ow of argument. Gracious heavens! I backed it at the begin ning of my article by a quotation from George himself. Dis lodged by his critics from one point after another, George had declared that (Clabor and land, even in the absence of second ary factors obtained from their produce, have in their union today, as they had in the beginning, the potentiality of all that man ever has brought, or ever can bring, into being." When such words as these are used to prove that, if land were free, labor would settle on it, even without secondary factors, -that is, without tools,-what do they mean exceptt1,lat the INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 197 laborer is expected to tcbegin this world anew"? But if this is not enough for Mr. Curtis, may I refer him to the debate between George· and Shewitch, in whic'hthe former, being asked· by •the .latter what. would have become of Friday if Crusoe had fenced off half the island and turned him loose upon it without any tools, answered that Friday would have made. some fish-hooks out of bones and gone .fishing? Isn't that sufficiently primitive 'to .. substantiate my· assertion, Mr.

Curtis? 'tell Mr. George that the laborer. can dQ nothing: without capital, and he will answer you substantially as fol lows.: Qriginally there was nothing but a naked man and the naked l~nd; free the land, and then:, i£.the laborer has no tools:t hew-ill again be a naked man on naked land and can do all that Adam did. When 1 point out that such a r(:turn to barbarism ,is on a par with the remedy attributed to the Nihilists, the total destruction. of the existing social order, Mr. Curtis asserts that uthis is wild talk;" but his assertion, it seems tome" Uought ·to be backed by ,some show of. argument." , 'He is sure, however, that there is no need of going to the backwoods. There is enou'gh vacant land in the neighborhood of cities, he thinks, to employ the surplus workers, and thus relieve the labor market. .Butt:his l~nd will. not employ any workers that have no capital, aiid those that have capital can get··the •• land now•. rhus the ·o~d question comes back ·again~ Make capital free by organizing I credit ona mutual plan, and th.enthes~ vacant lands will· conlt.··. e.into u.se, a.nq then in.<lus.try W1ll bestllllulated, and then ope~atlves Will ·be able to buy axes and .rakes and hoes, and then they will be independent of their employers,and. then the labor problem will be solved.

My worst. o:ffense..Mr. Curtis reserves till the last. It con sists in telling the worki1l;gmanthat he .would be a fool not,to prefer the street bands; the shop windows, the theatres, and ,the~hurches to a renewal \6£ .barbaric life. Mr. Curti~ ~gain misapprehends me in' thinking that I commend the bands, the windows, etc. I said explicitly that ,there ~s nothing ideal about them.·· ' But society has come to be man's dearest pos session, and the advantages and privileges which I cited, crude and vulgar and base as some. of them are, re.p~esent society to the operative. He .will not give them up, and I think 'he is wise. Pure air is good, but no one wants to breathe it long alone. Independence isgood,but isolation is too heavy a pric.e '198 INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY to pay for it. Both pure air and independence must be recon ciled with society, or not many laborers will ever enjoy them. Luckily they can be and will be, though not by taxing land values. As for the idea that persons can be induced to be come barbarians from altruistic motives in sufficient numbers to a:ff'e'ct the labor market, it is one that I have no time to discuss. In one respect at least Mr. George is preferable to Mr. Curtis as an opponent: he usually deals in economic argu ment rather than sentimentalism.

Next came CCEgoist," who was pained at the frequent attacks on Henry George, and it required a discussion that continued through several numbers of Liberty to thresh out all the points at issue: My correspondent, who, !by the' way, is a highly intelligent man, and has a most clear understanding of the money ques tion, should point out the truths that I have derided before accusing me of deriding any. I certainly never have derided the truth contained in Ricardo's theory of rent. What I have derided is Henry George's proposal that a maiority of the people shall seize this rent by force and expend it for their own benefit, or perhaps for what they are pleased to consider the benefitof the minority. I have also derided many of the arguments by which Mr. George has attempted to justify this proposal, many of which he has used in favor of interest and other form.s of robbery, and his ridiculous pretense that he is a champion of liberty. But I have never disputed that, under the system of land monopoly, certain individuals get, in the form of rent, a great deal that they never earned by their labor, or that it would be a great blessing if some plan should be devised and adopted whereby this could, be prevented without violating the liberty of the individuaL I am con vinced, however, that the abolition of the money monopoly, and the refusal of protection to all land titles' except those of occupiers, would, by the emancipation of the, workingman from his present slavery to capital, reduce this evil to a very small fraction' of its present proportions, especially in cities, and that the remaining fraction would be the cause of no more inequality than arises from the unearned increment deINDIVIDU AL LIBERTY 199 rived by almost every industry from the aggregation of people or from that unearned 'increment of superior, natural ability which" even under the operation of the cost principle," will probably always enable some individuals to get higher wages than the' average rate. ,In all these' cases the· margin of differ encewilltend steadily to· decrease, but it is not likely in any of ,them to disappear altogether. Whether, after the abolition of the State, voluntary cooperators ,will resort tocQmmunistic lTIethods ,'~nthe hope ot ban~sh~ng even these vest~ges of' ~n: equality is a question for their own future consideration, and has.nothing whatever to do with· the scheme of Henry George. I For. my part, I should· be inclined. to regard, such·,a course as aJeap not from the frying-pan into the fire, but from a Turk ish bath into the nethermost hell. 1 take no pleasure in atl tacking Mr. George, but shall probably pursue my present policy until he 'cop.descends to answer and refute my argu ments,if he can, oir gives some satisfactory reason for declin ingto do so~ Egoist's acquaintance with Lib.erty is of comparatively te cent date, but it is hard to understand how, he could have failed to find out f~om it that, in opposing all government, it so defines the word as to exclude the very thing which Egoist considers ideal government. It has been stated in these col umns I know not how many times that government, Archism, invasion, are used here as equivalent terms; that whoever in vades, individual or State,goyerns and is an Archist; and that whoever defends against invasion, individual or voluntary association, opposes government and is an Anarchist. Now,.a voluntary association doing equity woul~ not be an invader, but a defender against invasion, and might include in its de fensive 'operations the protection of th~ occupiers of land.

With this explanatio~, does Egoist perce~ve any lack of har mony in my statements? Assuming, then, protection by' such a method, occupiers would be sure, no rnatter how covetous others might be. .But now the question recurs: What is equity in the matter of land occupancy? I admit at once that the enjoyment by individ;.tals of increment which they do not earn,is not equity. On ,the other hand, I insist that. the con fiscationof such increment by the State (not a voluntary. as sociation) .andits expenditure for public purposes, while it 200 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y might be a little nearer equity practically in that the benefits would be enjoyed (after a fashion) by a larger number of persons, would be exactly as far from it theoretically, inas much as the increment no more belongs equally to the public at large than to the individual landholder, and would still be a long way from it even practically, for the minority, not being allowed to spend its share of the increment in its own way, would be just as truly robbed as if not allowed to spend it at all. A voluntary association in which the land-holders should consent to contribute the increment to the association's treasury, and in which all the. members should agree to settle the method of its dispositi6n by ballo~, would be equitable enough, but would be a short-sighted, wasteful, and. useless complication. A system of occupying ownership, however, accompanied by no legal power to collect rent, but coupled with the abolition of the State-guaranteed monopoly of money, thus making capital readily available, would distrib ute the increment naturally and quietly among its rightful owners. If it should not work perfect equity, it would at least effect a sufficiently close approximation to it, and without trespassing at all upon the individualities of any. Spots are uchoice" now very largely because of monopoly, and those which, under a system of free land and free money, should still remain choice for other reasons would shed their benefits upon all, just in the same way that choice countries under free trade will, as Henry George shows, make other countries more prosperous. When people see that such would be the result of this system, it is hardly likely that many of them will have to be coerced into agreeing to it. I see no point to Egoist's analogy in the first sentence of his last paragraph, un less he means to deny the right of the individual to become a banker. A more pertinent analogy would be a comparison of the George scheme for the confiscation of rent with a system ·of individual banking of which the State should confiscate the profits.

Under the influence of competition the best and cheapest protector, like the best and cheapest tailor, would doubtless get the greater part of the business. It is conceivable even that he might get the whole of it. But if he should, it would be by his virtue. as a protector, not by his power as a tyrant.

I ND 1 V I D U ALL I B E R T Y 2.01 He would be kept at his best by the p,ossibility of competition and the fear of it; and the source of. power. would. always re main, not with him, but with his patrons, who would exercise it, not by voting him down or by forcibly putting another in his place, but by withdrawing their patronage. Such. a state of things, far from showing the impossibility of Anarchy, would be Anarchy itself, and would have little or nothing in common with what now goes by the name CCequitable demo . "oc::rat1c g(;)vern:rnent. If •Hit can be shown that the value of· the protection to the possession of, land equals its economicrent,:J:) the demonstra tion .will be interesting. Tome it seems that the measure of such value must often include many other factors than economic rent. A manm~y own a home the economic· rent of which is zero, but to which he is deeply attached by many tende+ memories. Is. the value of protection in his possession oithat home zero? But perhaps Egoist means the exchange value of protection. If so, I answer that, under free compe tition, .the exchange· value. of protection, like· the exchange value of everything else, would be. its cost, which might in any given case be more or less than the economic rent. The 'condition of receiving protection would be. the same as the condition of receiving beefsteak,-namely, ability and will ingness to pay the cost thereof.

If I am right, the payment of rent, then, would not be an essential feature· in the contract between the land;..holder and the protector. It is conceivable, however, though in my judg ment unlikely, that it might be found an advantageous fea ture. If so, protectors adopting that form of contract would distance· their competitors. But if one· of these protectors should ever say to land-holders ttSignthis contract; if you do not, I not only will refuse you protection, .but I will myself invade you and annually confiscate a.portion of your earnings equal to the economic·.rent of your land," I incline. to •the opinion that Hintelligent people" would so()ner or later, Uby the process of natural selection," evolve into Anarchy by rallying around these land-holders for the formatioR of a .new social and· protective system, which would subordinate the pooling of economic rents to the securifyof each individ,ual in •the possession of the raw materials which he uses and the disposition of the· wealth which he thereby produces.

202 I ND I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y If government should be abruptly and entirely abolished to-morrow, there would probably ensue a series of physical conflicts about land and many other things, ending in re action and a revival of tl'e old tyranny. But if the abolition of government shall take place gradually, beginning with the downfall of the money and land monopolies and extending thence into one field after another, it will be accompanied by such a constant acquisition and steady spreading of social truth that, when the time shall come to apply the voluntary principle in the supply of police protection, the people will rally as promptly and universally to the support of the pro tector who acts most nearly in accordance with the prin ciples of social science as they now rally to the side of the assaulted man against his would-be murderer. In that case no s~rious conflict can arise.

Egoist neglects to consider my statement in reply to him in the last issue of Liberty, to the effect that the source of the protector's power lies precisely in the patronage. The pro tector who is most patronized will, therefore, be the strongest; and the people will endow with their power the protector who is best fitted to use it in the administration of justice. If the masses, or any large section of them, after having come to an understanding and acceptance of Anarchism, should then be induced by the sophistry of tyrants to reject it again, despotism would result. This is perfectly true. No Anarchist ever dreamed of denying it. Indeed, the Anarchist's only hope lies in his confidence that people who have once intelligently accepted his principle will ((stay put." The present State cannot be an outgrowth of Anarchy, because Anarchy, in the philosophic sense of the word, has never existed. For Anarchy, after all, means something more than the possession of liberty. Just as Ruskin defines wealth as ttthe possession of the valuable by the valiant," so Anarchy may be defined as the possession of liberty by libertarians, that is by those who know what liberty means. The barbaric liberty out of which the present State developed was not Anarchy in this se'nse at all, for those who possessed it had not the slightest conception of its blessings or of the line that divides it from tyranny.

Nothing can have value in the absence of demand for it. Therefore the basis of the demand cannot be irrelevant in IN D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y 203 considering value. Now,. it. is manifest that the demand· for protection in the possession of land does not Eest solely upon exc-ess.of fertility or commercial advantageo! situation .. On the contrary, it rests, in an ever-rising degree and among an ever-increasing proportion of the. people, upon the love of security and peace, the love of home, the •love of b~autiful scenery, and many other wholly sentimental motives. Inas much, then, as the strength of some of the motives for the de mand. of protection bears often no re1ationto economic renr, the value of such protection is not necessarily equal to eco nomic rent. Which is the contrary. of Egoist's proposition. Egoist's definition of the right of possession of land rests onanassumprion which Anarchists deny,-namely, that there is an entity known as the community which is the rightful owner of all land. Here we touch the central pointof the discussion. Here I take issue with Egoist, and maintain that Ctthecommunity" is,a nonentity, that it has no existence, and that what is called tPe community is simply a combination of individuals having no prerogatives beyond those of the indi viduals themselves. This combination· of individuals has no better title to the land than· any single individual outside of it; and the argument which Egoist uses in behalf of the com..

munitythis. outside individual, if he but had the strength to back it up, might· cite with equal propriety in his own be half. He might say: cCThe right of possessionof land consists in an agreement On my part to forego the ·.specialadvantages which. the use of such land ~ffords to· an undisturbed pos sessor. It represents a giving-up, by me, of that which I could obtain for myself,-the cost tome being certainly that which I have relinquished, and equals in value the special ad vantage which is the cause of rent. In view of this, it seems to me that affording this protection is to me an expense equal to the rent." And thereupon he might proceed to collect this rent from the community as compensation' for the protection which he afforded it in allowing it to occupy the land. But in •his case the supposed condition is lacking; he has not the strength necessary to enforce such an argument as this. The community, or combination of individuals, has this strength.

Its only superiority to the single individual, then, in relation. to the,land, consists in the right of the strongest, __a perfectly valid right, . I admit,· but one. which, if exercised, leads to 204 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y serious results. If the community proposes to exercise its right of the strongest, 'why stop with the collection of eco nomic rent? Why not make the individual its slave out right? Why. not strip him of everything but the bare necessities of life? Why recognize him at all, in any way, except ~s a tool to be used in the interest of the community? In a word, why not do precisely what capitalism is doing now, or else what State Socialism proposes to do when it gets control of affairs? But if the community does not pro prose to go to this extreme; if it proposes to recognize the individual and treat with 'him,-then it must forego entirely its right of the strongest, and be ready to contract on a basis of equality of rig,hts, by vrhich the individual's title to the land he uses and to what he gets out of it shall beheld valid as against the world. Then, if the individual consents to pool his rent with otg.ers, well and good; but, if not why, then, he must be left alone. And it will not do for the community to turn upon him and demand the economic rent of his land as compensation for the Ctprotection" which it affords him in thus letting him alone. As well might the burglar say to the householder: CtHere, I can, if I choose, enter your house one of these fine nights and carry off your valuables; I therefore demand that you immediately hand them over to me as compensation for the sacrifice which I make and the protection which I afford you in not doing so."

Egoist asserted that it would be difficult to show that the occupier of superior land. would be entitled to that part of the production from his land that would be in excess of what, with an equal application of labor, could be produced from inferior land. Mr. Tucker replied: PRECISELY as difficult as it would be to show that the man of superior skill (native, not acquired) who produces in the ratio of five hundred to another's three hundred is equitably entitled to this surplus exchange value. There is no more reason why we should pool the results of our lands than the results of our hands. And to compel such pooling is as med dlesome and tyrannical in one case as in the other. That school of Socialistic economists which carries Henry George's INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 205 idea to its conclusions, confiscating not only rent but interest andpfofitand equalizing wages,-a school of which G. Ber nard Shaw may be taken as a typical representative,-is more logical •than the school to which Mr. George. and Egoist be lOflg, because it completes. the application of the tyrannical principle.

The. cultivator of land who does· not ask protection does not. expect the community. to secure, him the opportunity referred· to. He simply expects. the. community not to de prive him of this opportunity. He does not •say to the com munity: CCHere! an invader. is trying· to oust me from· my land;c9me and help ~e to drive him off." He says to the community: ((My right to this land is as good as yours. In fact it is better, for I am ,already occupyihg and cultivating it-. I demand of. you simply that you shall not disturb me. If you impose ,.certain burdens upon me .by threatening me with dispossession,.I, being. weaker than you, must of course submit temporarily. But ·in the mean time I shall teach the principle of liberty to the individuals of which you are com posed, and by and by, when they see that you are oppressing me, they will espouse my, cause, and your. tyrannical yoke will speedily be lifted from my neck."

If the cost principle of.· value cannot be realized other wise than. by compulsion, then it had better •not be realized. For my part, I do not believe that it is possible or highly important to realize it (tbsolutely and completely. But it is both· possible and highly important to ~ffect its approximate realization. So much can be effected without compulsion,-in fact, can only be effected by at least partial· abolition of com pulsion,-and so much will be sufficient. By far the larger part of the violations of the cost principle-probably nine tep.ths-resultfrom artificial, law-made inequalities; only .a small portion . arise from natural inequalities. Abolish. the artificial monopolies of money and land, and interest, profit, and .. the rent of buildings will almost entirely disappear; ground rents will no longer .f1ow into a few hands; ·and prac tically the only •inequality remaining will. be the slight dis parity of products due to superiority of soil and skill. Evett this disparity will soon develop a tendency to decrease. Under the new economic •conditions •and enlarged opportunities. re sulting from, freedom of credit and land classes will tend to 206 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y disappear; great capacities will not be developed in a few at the expense of stunting those of the many; talents will ap proximate towards equality, though their variety will be greater than ever; freedom of locomotion will be vastly in creased; the toilers will no longer be anchored in such large numbers in the present commercial centres, and thus made subservient to the city landlords; territories and resources never before utilized will become easy of access and develop ment; and under all these influences the disparity above men tioned will decrease to a minimum. Probably it will never disappear entirely; on the other hand, it can never become intolerable. It must always remain a comparatively trivial consideration, certainly never to be weighed for a moment in the same scale with liberty.

It was only because I conceived it out of the question that Egoist, in maintaining that ((the value of protection in the possession of land is equal to its economic rent," could be discussing value without regard to the law of equal liberty as a prior condition, or soberly advocating the exercise of the right of mig~t regardless of· equity, that I interpreted his words as implying a superiority in equity in the com munity's title to land over that of the individual,-a superi ority other than that of might; a superiority, in short, other than that by which the highwayman relieves the traveller of his goods. I was bound to suppose (and later statements in his present letter seem to strengthen the supposition) that he looked upon the Ugiving up, by the community," of its right to land as the giving up of a superior equitable right; for otherwise, in demanding value in return for this sacrifice, he would be compelled in logic to demand, on behalf of a burglar, value in return for the sacrifice made in declining to carry off a householder's wealth by stealth. But Egoist repudi ates this supposition (though he does not follow the logic of his repudiation), and I must take him at his word. He thus lays himself open. to a retort which I could not otherwise have made. In his previous letter he criticised me for making sentiment a factor in the estimation of value. Whether or not this was a transgression, on my part, of the limits of economic discussion, he certainly ras transgressed them much more seriously in· making force such a factor. Exchange im plies liberty; where there is no liberty there is no exchange, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTy' 2.07 hut· only robbery; and robbery is foreign to political economy.

At .·.least one point, •however, is. gained. Between Egoist and myself all question of any superior equitableright of the com 111unityis put aside forever~ •Equity not considered,· we agree that th~ land belongs to· the man or body of men strong enough to hold it. And for all practical purposes his definition of tcownership" suits me, though I view ownership less as· the I:l:result of. the ability of the··community to· maintain posses siort." ~l1d ~n ~pplic~tion: of this result CC£orthe beneht o£ individuals," than as a result of the inability of the com munity· -to maintain itself in peace and ·security otherwise than by the recognition of only such relations between man and wealth as are in harmony with the law of equal liberty. In other words, ownership arises not from superiority of the community to the individual, but from ~he inferiority of the community to the facts and. powers of nature.

Egoist here stated that he would not agree Uthat· the right of the strongest will lead· to serious results, except when. applied to create an inequitable relation between individuals"; so Mr. Tucker rejoined: HERE we have an acknowledgment ofa principle of equity and a contemplation of its observance by.the rnighty,which goes to sustain my original supposition, despite Egoist's pro test. It implies an abandonment by the mighty of their right. of domination and a willingness to .contract with the weak. Now, I agree that the contracts thus entered into will not lead to· serious results, unless they create inequitable rela tions between individuals. But the first of all equities is not equality of material well-being, but equality of liberty; and if the contract places the former equality· before the latter, it will lead to serious results, for it logically necessitates the arbitrary .leveling of all material 'inequalities, whether these arise from differences of soil or differences of skill. To di rectlyenforce equality of material.well-being is meddlesome, invasive,· •and oftensive,but to directly enforce equality of liberty is simply protective and defensive. The latter is nega tive, and aims only· t<J;prevent the establishment of artificial ineq~alities; the former is positive, and aims at direct and 2.08 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y active abolition of natural inequalities. If the former is the true policy, then it is as equitable to enforce the pooling of interest, profit, and wages as the ·pooling of rent. If the latter is the true policy, we have only to see to it that no artificial barriers against individual initiative are constructed.

Under such conditions, if the natural inequalities tend to dis appear, as they surely will, then so much the better. In speaking of skill. as ((inseparably attached to the indi vidual," Egoist surely does not mean to argue the impossi bility of seizing and distributing the results of skill, for that would be a ridiculous contention. Then he can only mean that there is something sacred about the individual which the mighty are bound to respect. But this again is inconsistent with his theory of· the right of might. If the strongest is to exercise his might, then he need stop at nothing but the im possible; if, on the other hand, he contracts with the weaker on a basis of equal liberty, then both strong and weak must be left secure in their possession of the products of their labor, whether aided by superior skill or superior soil. If Malthusianism is true, it is as true after the pooling of rent as before. If the encroachment of population over the limit of the earth's capacity is inevitable, then there is no solution of the social problem. Pooling the rent or organizing credit would only postpone the catastrophe. Sooner or later the masses would find nothing to share but the curses of war ratper than the ttblessings of peace," and at that stage it would matter but little to them whether they shared equally or unequally.

I hold that, in case rent were to be nationalized by force, liberty would be incomplete; and liberty must be complete, whatever happens. I hold that superiority will always rule; and it is only when real superiority is known and recognized as such, and therefore allowed to have its perfect work unresisted and unimpeded, that the minimum of evil will result. The really serious results are those that follow the attempts of inferiority, mistaking itself for· superiority, to fly in the face of the real article. In other words, when individuals or majorities, seeing that they are stronger for the time. being than other individ uals or minorities, suppose that they are therefore stronger than natural social laws and act in violation of them, disaster IN D I V I D U ALL IB E R T Y 209 is sure to.fQllow. These laws .are' the' really mighty, and'they will· always prevail. The first of them is,.the. la;w of equal liberty. It is by the observance of this law, I am persuaded, ratherthan by (tan equal share in the transferable opportuni ties," that the' ultimate Uintelligence of the people" willre move Uevery reasonable cause of complaint."

I find so little attempt to meet the various considerations Which I have advanced that I .have not much to add byw,ay of comment. The monopoly. of mining gold at a particular point exists in the physical constitution of things, and a pool ing of the results thereof (which would qe a virtual de struction .of the monopoly). can only be directly achieved in one of two ways,__lfiutual agreement or an invasion of lib erty. The monopoly of inventors and authors, on the con trary, has no existence at all except by mutl.1al agreement or an illvasionof liberty. It seems tome the difference between the two is su$ciently .clear.Egoist's st~temer1t of the law of equal liberty is satisfactory. Standing UpOJ1, it, I would repel, by force if necessary, the confiscator of ! rent on the ground that he utakes a' liberty at' the expense of others." I have no objection to forcible measures against transgressors, but the question recurs as to who are the transgressors.' If the piece of. land which I am 'using happens to be' better than my neighbor's, I do not consider myself a transgressor on that account; but if my neighbor digs some of my potatoes and carries them off, I ~ertainly consider him a transgressor" even though he may na~e his plunder economic rent.,. But, Egoist, viewing this case, considers me the transgressor and my neigh bor the honest man. I believe that education in liberty will bring people. to my view rather than his. If it, doesn't, I shalrhave to succumb. It is to be noted that Egoist makes noturther reference to my argument regarding skill. I urged that the. levelling of inequalities in land logically leads to the levelling of inequalities in skill. Ego~st replied that skill is in separably. attached to the individual, while land is not. I rejoined. that· the results of skill are not inseparably attac~ed to the individual, and that the right of might recognizes noth ingsacred ,about the individual. To this Egoist makes no reply •. Hence my argument that the nation,alization of rent logically •• involves, the, most complete State •Socialism and minute regulation of the individual stands unassailed.

210 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY It has been stated and restated in these columns, until I have grown weary of the reiteration, that voluntary associa tion for the purpose of preventing transgression of equal liberty will be perfectly in keeping with Anarchism, and will probably exist under Anarchism until it Hcosts more than it comes to"; that the provisions of such associations will be executed by such agents as it may select in accordance with such methods as it may prescribe, provided such methods do not themselves involve a transgression of the liberty of the innocent; that such association will restrain only the criminal (meaning by criminal the transgressor of equal liberty) ; that non-membership and non-support of it is not a criminal act; but that such a course nevertheless deprives the non-member of any title to the benefits of the association, except such as come to him incidentally and unavoidably. It has also been repeatedly affirmed that, in proposing to abolish the State, the Anarchists expressly exclude from their definition of the State such associations as that just referred to, and that who ever excludes from his definition and championship of the State everything except such associations has no quarrel with the Anarchists beyond a verbal one. I should trust that the <Cunderstanding on these points" is now clear, were it not that experience has convinced me that my command of the English language is not adequate to the construction of a foundation for such trust.

The fact that Egoist points out a similarity between the monopoly of a gold-mine and that of an invention by no means destroys the difference between them which I pointed out,-this difference being that, whereas in the former case it is impossible to prevent or nullify the monopoly without restricting the liberty of the monopolist, in the latter it is impossible to 'sustain it without restricting the liberty of the would-be competitors. To the Anarchist, who believes in the minimum of restriction upon liberty, this difference is a vital one,-quite sufficient to warrant him in refusing to pre vent the one while refusing to sustain the other. Egoist says that Han occupier is not a transgressor of equal liberty unless he claims and receives the right of undisturbed possession without giving an equivalent in return." Anarch ism holds, on the contrary, in accordance with the principles stated at the outset of this rejoinder, that an occupier is not INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 211 a transgressor even •if, not claiming it, or paying for it, he does receive this right. .

The assertion that ccthedistribution of skill is absolutely independent of socia:! agreement" is absolutely erroneous. In proof of this I need. only 'call attention to the apprenticeship regulations of the trade unions and the various educational 'systems that •are or have been in vogue, not only as evidence of what has already. been done in the direction of' controlling the'distribution of skill, hut 'also as an indication of what more may be' done.if State Socialism ever gets a chance to [try upon humanity the interesting experiments which it propd,ses. On the other hand, the colle~tion' of rent by the, collectivity does not ,necessarily affect the distribution ofland~ Land titles will remain, unchanged as long as the tax (or rent) shall be paid. But it does distribute the products resulting from differences of land, and it is'1ike'wisepossible to ,. distribute the products resulting from differenceso£ skill. Now until this position is overthrown (and I defy ,anyone to successfully dispute it), it is senseless to liken C(dissatisfaction with the distribution of skill" to uthe crying' of a child because it cannot fly." The absurdity of this analogy, in which· the pos sibilityo£ distributing products is ignored,would have been apparent if it had been immediately followed by the admission of this possibility which Egoist places several paragraphs.

further down. To be sure, he declares even there that it is impossible, but only in the sense in wpich Proudhon declares interest ..bearing property impossible,-that. of ,producing anti-social results which eventually' kill it or compel its abandonment. I contend that, similarly anti-social results will follow any attempt to distribute by law the products ~rising from differences of land; and ,I, ask, as I have ,asked before without obtaining an answer, why the col1ectivity~ if in its right of might it may see fit to distribute the rent of land, may not find it equally expedient to distribute the tent of skill; why it may not reduce all differences of wealth to art absolute level; in short, why it may ',not create the '; worst and most complete tyranny the world has ever known? In regard to the attitude of Anarchistic associations towards rent and, its collection, I would say that they might~ consist entlywiththe law of equal freedom, except from 1:heirjuris diction whatever, cases or forms of transgression they should 212 INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY not think it expedient to attempt to prevent. These excep tions would probably be defined in their .Constitutions. The members could, if they sa.w fit, exempt the association from enforcing gambling debts or rent contracts. On the other hand, an association organized· op. a different basis which should enforce such debts or contracts would not thereby become itself a transgressor. But any association would be a transgressor which should attempt to prevent the fulfilment of rent contracts or to confiscate rent a~ld distribute it. Of the three possibilities specified by Egoist the third is the only one that tends to establish an artificial inequality; and that the worst of all inequalities,-the inequality of liberty, or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the equality of slavery. The first or second would at the worst fail to en tirely abolish natural inequalities.

The possibility of valuable land becoming vacant is hardly worth consideration. Still, if any occupant of valuable land should be foolish enough to quit it without first selling it, the estate would be liable to seizure by the first comer, who would immediately have a footing similar to that of other land holders. If this be favoritism, I can only say that the world is .not destined to see the time when some things will not go by favor. Egoist's argument that free competition will tend to dis tribute rent by a readjustment of wages is exactly to my pllr pose. Have 1 not told him from the start that Anarchists will gladly welcome any tendency to equality through liberty? But Egoist seems to object to reaching equality by this road. It must be reached by law or not at all. If reached by com petition, ((competition would be harassed." In other words, competition would harass competition. This wears the aspect of another absurdity. It is very likely that competitors would harass competitors, but competition without harassed com petitors is scarcely thinkable. It is even not improbable that «class distinctions" would be developed, as Egoist says.

Workers would find the places which their capacities, condi tions, and inclinations qualify them to fill, and would thus be classified, or divided into distinct classes. Does Egoist think that in such an event life would not be worth living? Of course the words ((harass" and ((class distinction" have an ugly sound, and competition is decidedly more attractive when INDIVIDUAL LIBER,TY 2.13 associated instead with ttexcel" and Horganization." But Anarchists never recoil from disagreeable/terms. Only their opponents are to be frightened by words and phrases. PROPERTY UNDER ANARCHISM A discussion in The Free Life . (Lonpon) between its editor, Mr. Auberon Herbert, and an Anarchistic corre spondent, Mr. Albert Tarn, involved an objection to Anarchism that it· would throw property titles (espe cially .land·titles) ·into hopeless confusion, which led Mr. Tucker to enter the controversy i~ Liberty in the fol lowing. manner: THIS .' criticism· of Anarchism, reduced. to its essence, is seen to· be twofold. ,First, the complaint is that it has no fixed standardo£ .acquiring .or owning. Se:cond, the complaint is that· it necessarily' results in a fixed standard .of acquiring or owning .•Evidently Mr. Herbert is a.veryhard man to·please.