Occupancy and Use Versus the Single Tax

And it, Will then be regarded as just in proportion to its flexi bility,i*stea~ ,of as now in proportion to. its rigidity. OCC'QPANCYAND USE VERSUS THE'SINGLE TAX In iDecember, 1894, Mr. Steven T. Byington, still a Singl~ Taxer, started a discussion with the editor of Liber1y (Mr. John Beverley Robinson and Miss Katharine J. M~sson participating) on certain factors in· the land tenur~ and rent problems. Mt. Byington, an expert math~matician, carried the discussion into quite an intri. cate~aze of figures, which· are rather hard for· the reader toun~erstand without complete. reproduction, here im possible. But, since· Mr. Tucker's replies' embodied some very pertinent and valuable explanations ·and arguments, it has. been attempted to give as many· of these as ,will be co~erent without a full presentation of the other side. The discussion extends over a,period of more.than a year: IT is not my purpose to lose myself in the mathematical maze through which Comrades Robinson. and Byington are nowgropingly. threading their. way., But. I may point out to the latter, anent the dire perplexities. iu which he has involved III ',. coaf•miners, that political .econqmyknows not only a 2.16 INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY law of diminishing returns, but a law of increasing returns as well, and that he has ignored this branch of the law in the operation of his second mine.

In the first mine, where 100 men are already at work at the time of Mr. Byington's hypothesis, it may fairly be supposed that the law of diminishing returns begins to apply; but in the second mine, where not even one man works until there are 110 at work in the first, it is equally fair to suppose that the law of increasing returns will be in force until here also there are 100 workers. In that case the second mine, instead of yielding (as Mr. Byington presumes) one workman $900, two $1790, three $2.670, &c.) would yield one workman $900, two $1810, three $2730, &c. This little fact brings a won derful change ov~ the spirit of Mr. Byington's dreadful dream. For no sooner will his I 11th miner have begun to work the second mine alone than he will be joined by the I loth, and the I09th, and the Io8th, and the I07th, &c., &c.) each new accession having a tendency to increase the earnings of the I I men and to reduce .the swollen incomes of the original 100, and the movement as a whole achieving, if not a restoration of absolute equality, at least a considerable ap proach to it. Which again impels me to recall the remark of Bastiat that there are things that we see and things that we don't see.

Again: the hypothesis is unwarrantably violent in predi cating the existence of but one first-quality mine. As a matter of fact, there would in most cases be a number of superior mines nearly on a level in point of quality, and as the demand for coal increased, these mines would compete to secure extra lahor, the competition forcing them to pay for this labor as much as could be paid without reducing the $1000 income enjoyed by each of the original occupants. Still again: absolute freedom being the condition of the hypothesis, these mines would compete for this labor, not only with each other, but with all the other branches of in dustry newly opened or increased in activity by free money, free land, and free conditions generally, which would make it still less possible to obtain labor without awarding it its full product. And further: it is assuming too much to say that a fair interpretation of the terms occupancy and use could exclude I N D I V I D U ALL IBE R T Y2.I7: all but 100 men from the mine in question.. Here the' eco nomic problem becomes complicated with engineering prob lems which I am incompetent to>discuss; but it is not at all sure that the theory of occupancy and use would enable any hundred men to get the grip on ,subterranean. riches that. is here' pres'4med.

And-last consideration of .aU-mining is but one, and the smallest, of the four great .classes of labor, and the others' are not relieved in the s~me degree from the eqll~lizing influence of competition; so that, were a considerable inequality proven a necessity of mining, it would not follow that there would be as great inequality, or necessarily any at all, in agricul ture,manufactures and commerce. Thus you see, Mr. Byington, that, do your little sum as nicely as you will, there are still a Jew other things to· be thought of.. It must not .be supposed,. however, that I share Mr. Robin son's view that economic rent is nota reality. I believe that economic rent exists now, and would continue under free dom, but then with a tendency to decrease and a' possibility (though not a probability) of ,ultimate disappearance. In any event, taking the worst 'vie'w of the matter, it would be distributed among actual. occupants and, users,-a vastly greater number than now enjoy it,-which would be much better fQr all than to distribute it among those who benefit by political jobbery,. or .~mong the 'people themselves through rhe agency' ofa State landlord, which would speedily become, by successive grants and usurpations of power,.·a State money lord, a State industry-lord, a State education-lord, a State religion-lord, \?- State love-lord, and· a State, art-lord.

Equality if we can get it, kut Liber,ty at any rate! By compelling Mr. Byington to recpgnize the law of in creasing returns. in both mines instead! of in one alone, I at the.same time compel him to assume, iDj order to overcome the tendency of this law toward equality, ~ far greater and more improbable inferiority in the quality o~ the second mine than he attributed to that mine in his first hypothesis. And, as these sudden drops in quality are not, as' a g~neral thing, typical. of the •actual 'fact, Mr. Byington's new figures greatly weaken his argument.

;ZI8 INDIVIDU AL LIBERTY It is not altogether a question of how much these laborers are worth to employers engaged in coal-mining. Their worth to employers in other lines must be taken into account. Under freedom, when the availability of capital will furnish new avenues for labor, Mr. Byington's I 11th man who goes to work in the second mine for $900 instead of accepting offers of $1000 from men in other lines of business will be a fool who deserves his fate. But, says Mr. Byington, the demand for coal finally making it worth while to pay the I I I th man $1000 to go to work in the second mine, this demand and consequent rise in price will correspondingly increase the reward of the operators of the first mine, and the inequality will be as great as ever .. Which means, at the worst, that, while none are paid any less than formerly, some are paid more. Dreadful thing! As Mr. Donisthorpe has pointed out in a way that evidently appeals with force to my Christian friend, Mr. Byington, the accidental benefiting of another is, ctin the present state of Christian fraternity, a consummation to be carefully shunned."

Whether the neighboring farmers should sink shafts them selves or part with their land to others wishing to do so, in either case there would be an introduction of a new competi tive factor tending toward equality. The article to which Mr. Byington now replies was one calling his attention to factors in the rent problem which he seemed to neglect. The liability of access to the first coal vein through a new shaft was one of these factors, and Mr. Byington's answer does not get rid of it. His nearest approach to it is a suggestion of the Malthusian argument, to which I can only respond that, if Malthusianism be true, it militates as strongly against the single tax as against any other reformatory proposal. I may add-though this matter is not strictly pertinent to the pres ent discussion, but an engrafting upon it of an old discussion -that I would not, under any ordinary circumstances, oust an occupant and user to get either mining land or a right of way thereto. But I can conceive of circumstances, not only in the relations of men to the land, but in the relations of men to each other, where I would, for the moment, trample ruthlessly upon all the principles by which successful society must as a general thing be guided. I would advise Mr. ByingIN D I VIDUAL L I BE R TY 2. 1 9 ton· to consider for a while whether he himself .• is superior to necessity before. too confidently assuming that there is .any single rule to which he can always conform his conduct.

I know of no domain that. occupies a higher eminence than that.occupied· •• by the domain which says to· every user of land: UHand over to me all that your land yields you over and above ·what the ·most barren of wastes .. yields to your most unfortunate fellowman, or else I will throw you neck .and heels into the street/' The tteminent domain" that I believe in, if Mr. Byington insists on so denominating it, would. as sume no rights· in .any land whatsoever, but would simply decline to protect the dominion of anyone over land which he was not using. To· block up a narrow passage not regularly occupied. and used for purposes of travel is one thing; to barricade an im proved, claimed, and constantly used' highway is another thing. Admission of the former requires no reconciliation with denial of the latter. The .value of land under the present system of land tenure has no bearing whatever on my assertion that under freedom the equalizing influence of competition is felt less in mining than in other branches of labor. If A has a mine in which his day's labor will yield him ten per cent. more coal. than B's day's labor will yield B in another mine, A 'will derive ten per cent. more from the sale of his coal than B. will derive from the sale of his, •because all the. coal, assuming it to be of equal quality, will bring the same· price per ton,. so far as the mine-owner is concerned. But commercial com petition in cities is a different matter. In the lower and busy section of New York city there are perhaps a hundred drug ...

stores occupying sites which may vary slightly in suitability for the drug tr1tde, but all of which are excellent. In .the upper parts of the city there are other drug-stores, most of which occupy vastly inferior sites. There is always a stiff competition. in· progress between the·· down-town druggists, but, in spite of this, the high rents which they have to pay prevent them from putting their prices much below the prices prevailing up town. N ow, if the present· system of land tenure should be changed to one of occupancy and use, what would happen? Why, the·.down-town druggists, relieved.·.of the· burden of re·nt, vlould •lower their prices· in competition 2.2.0 I N D I V I D U ALL I BE R T Y with each other until all or nearly all the rent which they now pay landlords would be flowing into the pockets of their customers. The profits of the down-town druggist doing a large business at low prices could be little or no more than normal wages, and those of the up-town druggist doing a small business at high prices could be little or no less. In this typical commercial example competition under freedom shows a strong tendency to take from the occupants of superior sites their advantage. The occupants of inferior com mercial sites can in most cases obtain for their goods; prices proportionately higher, but the owner of a mine yielding an inferior quantity of coal can get no more per ton for his product than can his Inore fortunate rivals. This is the dif ference that I pointed out to Mr. Byington, and his remark regarding the present value of city land is no answer.

Certainly no land, except the very poorest, will be free under the single. tax, for every occupant of land that is good .for anything will have to pay tribute to the State. Evidently free land is one thing to. Mr. Byington and another thing to me. I consider a potato patch whose cultivator pays lio rent free land, even though it be a city corner-lot; and I should consider the same piece of land not free, but monopolized, if it were occupied by a confectioner obliged to pay tribute either to an individual or to the State. The man who plants himself in a passage-way simply takes up vacant land and becomes an occupant thereof in good faith for ordinary and legitimate purposes, and not with a view to unnecessarily and maliciously embarrassing and crippling others. But, though the intent were not malicious, if the result were not merely inconvenience for others but complete imprisonment, I should regard the emergency as sufficiently critical to warrant a violation of principle. Not for gods, devils, society, men or principles would I allow myself to be imprisoned, completely crippled, and virtually killed, if I could in any way avoid it. But I would suffer a great deal of embarrassment in order to avoid the violation of a principle the general observance of which I consider essen tial to the closest possible approximation to that social har mony which I deem of high value to myself.

By all means kick for your full product, Mr. Byington, and INDIVIDUAL LIBER TY 22.1 kick hard. I wish you to get it if you can, as I too wish to get mine. But I am· not willing to pay too· much for it.· I am not willing to part with my liberty_to get my full pro duct, unless that part of my produ~twhich I .do. get is insufficient to .keep me from starving.· And even then I per sonally .• might prefer death; I do not. know. Besides, Mr. Byington does not fairly represent his fellow Single-Taxers. He wants his. own product, but their chief worry is because their product goes in P4rt to a. ne~ohborW'hoxn.t:hey hat:e~ the landlord; and they will·be abundantly.satisfied when· it shall be taken frornthis hated neighbor and given to -another whom they love,-the tax-collector. Mr. Byington said that, whatever relief might come· from the opening of new mines, the needs of civilization would soon press upon the limits of these mines. This is simply a form of saying that, whatever new opportunities may be opened for labor, the tendency of population to outstrip the means of subsistence is sure to ultimately neutralize them. That is Malthusianism; and, if it is true, all economic reforms, in cluding .the Single Ta~, are a delusion and a snare.

I .have •not urged that society should make any exceptions in favor of the man who commits an invasion under circum stances that go far to excuse him. This would be a matter entirely for the jury. If I were on a. jury to try the case of a man who had stolen bread when starving, I wo:uld vote in favor of· a formal penalty, too light to b~ burdensome, and yet sufficient to stamp the act· as. invasive. The simple fact is this,-that necessity, and only neces sity, may excuse .thecoercion ·of the innocent. Now, neces sity knows no law, and it knows no uaimsu ; it does not in quire •whether the coercion to be exercised will be direct or indirect, incidental or essential; it just coerces, whether or no~ and because it. cannot do otherwise. I believe that all vacant land should be free in Mr. Bying ton's sense of the word,--that is, open to be freely occupied by any comer. I believe that all occupied land should. be free in my sense of the word,-that is, enjoyed by theoccu pant without payment of tribute to a nonoccupant. Whether the achievement of· these two ·freedoms will tend to reduce renta.lvalues\ we .shall kll;ow.better when Mr. Byingto11 has U See11 about those drug-stores."

2.22 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y In this sense [evicting occupants contrary to the prin ciple of liberty, under the plea of a higher law of necessity] I declare my willingness to stand for eminent domain~ But I insist that :NIr. Byington does not, as he claims, get rid of eminent domain, but on the contrary gives it the most rigor ousand universal application, when he proposes to exact ftom each land-occupant a portion of his product under penalty of eviction. I accept Mr. Byington's amendment. I think myself that it is better to exclude the matter of good faith. It is simpler and truer to say that any man who uses his land for the com mission of a plainly invasive act may be dispossessed and treated as a criminal. If the act committed is of a doubtful character, then the same rule applies here that applies to all other doubtful cases: that is, the troublesome party should be given the benefit of the doubt, either until his course be.comes clearly invasive, when he should be dispossessed as an invader, or until it becomes a peremptory menace to the community's safety, when he should be dispossessed in the name of necessity, though it be still doubtful whether he is an invader.

I deny that the thing fundamentally desirable is the mini mum of invasion. The ultimate end of human endeavor is the minimum of pain. We aim to decrease invasion only because, as a rule, invasion increases the total of pain (mean ing, of course, pain suffered by the ego, whether directly or through sympathy with others.) But it is precisely my con tention that this rule, despite the immense importance which I place upon it, is not absolute; that, on the contrary, there are exceptional cases where invasion~that is, coercion of the non-invasive-:-Iessens the aggregate pain. Therefore coercion of the non-invasive, when justifiable at all, is to be justified on the ground that it secures, not a minimum of invasion, but a minimum of pain. The position, then,. which IMr. Byington seems to take that coercion of the non-invasive ~is allowable only as an unavoidable incident in the coercion of invaders, and not allowable when it is an unavoidable incident in the prevention. of impending cataclysmic disaster not the work of invaders, is seen at once to be inconsistent with my jundamental postulate-to me axiomatic-that the ultimate INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 2.23 {end is the minimum of pain. If Mr. Byington believes that , the minimum of invasion, is always desirable,' I summon him (to. deal specifically with the case cited by me in my discussion 1with Mr. Yarros,-thecase, that is, of a burning city which-can be saved from total destruction only. by blowing up the !houses on a strip of territory inhabited by non-invasive per sons who refuse their, consent to ,such disposition ofthei!) rproperty.. . If .,Mr. Byington ',thinks that' these houses•should. not: be blQwnup, I ask hhn tQ tell us why. If,on the otherJ "hand, he admits that they should be blown up, I ask him if (such action would not be ((injury to non-invaders withou.t.

the resistance of invasion,"-a policy to which he declares~ himself' opposed under' any circumstances. Can he maintain 1 his abstract proposition in face of the concrete illustration? Mareover, the illustration, though not framed originally fo"," this discussion, is a most happy one for the purpose, since here !fit is the innocent act of land-occupancy which constitutes ,the •obstacle to social welfare.. , I hold, then, to my claim. that occupancy. and use as· the title to land is not vitiated by ,th~ fact that it is a rule which, like .allothers,must sometim~ ,;' be trodden underfoot.' Either Mr., Byington has not understood me, or I do not understand him. His answer.,to. me seems tobebase,d '. on an rassumption that my previous answe'rto him was just the op positeofwhat it really was.. He had put tome this 'question: ulfAbuilds ~ 'house, and rents it to B, who thereupon lives or works in it under the lease, will you regard A or B as the coccupie'r and user' of the •land on which that house stands?"

I answered: HI would regard B as the occupant and user ,of the •land on which the house stands, and as the owner of . the house itself." To this Mr. Byington rejoins: ttThen houses will be rented. under your system just as now, and the sum (charged for rent willi,nclude the rental valueo! the land. as ~,well as payment for the use of the house." A most remarkable !conclusion, surely! To my own mind"the logical conclusion is iprecisely the contrary. It is perfectly clear to me that A will J notpuild a.house to rent to B, if he knows that the protective association.will recognize B as the owner of both land and fhouseassoon as he becomes the occupant. ' I. utterly repudi ate the ·idea that unused land, if usable, would remain idle ,11nderanoc~upancy-and-use •regime. How could it, when 2.2.4 I N D I V I DU ALL I B E R T Y anyone would be free to take it and would not be forced t< pay rent for it?

As a result of the misunderstanding, Mr. Byington ha: failed to CC see about the drug-stores." All his present remark: upon them are mal a propos. Under an occupancy-and-us l system all ground-floor druggists-that is, all retail druggist: ~will be owners of both land and store, and competitioI will proceed among them with the effect described by me and my argument that CCcompetition under freedom shows ~ strong tendency to take from the occupants of superior site: their advantage" remains intact. Mr. Byington will have t< try again. First, however, let me answer his puerile ques· tion: CCWhy does not the man who now pays no rent becausl he is on his own land now undersell his rent-paying competi tors." For precisely the same reason that the man who pay no interest because he is using his own capital does not under· sell his interest-paying competitors. Is Mr. Byington reallJ unaware that the man who uses that which he could lend tc another for a price insists on getting as much profit from i (in addition to the reward of his labor and enterprise) as h would get if he sho~ld lend it?

Mr. Byington may understand that the man who build a cage over the sleeper is an invader. The man who block up an improved, claimed, and constantly used highway i also an invader. The man who takes possession of an un occupied, unimproved, unused passage is not an invader, an< does not become one simply becatl-se, afterward, somebod~ else wishes to make a highwa-r of it. Such a man is not tl be dispossessed except in one of those rare emergencies wheJ necessity, which knows no law, compels it. Regarding protection of occupancy, I answer Mr. Bying ton that undoubtedly the protective association would insis on registration of all titles to real estate as a condition 0 protection. Then, in case of dispute between claimants anI a failure of the jury to agree, the protective association woull regard as the occupant the party whose registration of titl it had already accepted. The picket note to which Mr. Byington alludes was criticism upon Miss Katharine J. Musson. The paragraph bein; short, I reproduce it: The statement that a State can have no rights except thos INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 2.2.5 delegated to it by individuals is singular doctrine on the lips of aSingle Taxer. Miss Musson acknowledges the right of the State to collect rent· from every land-occupant, this rent being Jnher eyes the just due of aU individuals, since all have an equal right to the use of every part of the earth. It followS'"

:£romthese two positions that the State, if it collects my share 'of this rent, commits an act of usurpation, for I have not delegated to it the right to collect my rent. And yet I have not heard that Miss Musson or any other Single Taxer would ;Jimit the State, in the exercise of its rentcollecting function, :to the collection of only such. portion of the total· rent as·is properly ·due to the persons who have appointed the State thecir.t~nt-follector. It follow.s ~urther .. that all indfviduals who,hke inyself, have not appoInted the State theIr rentcollector nltay, if they choose, go about~ each individually, from one land-occupant to another,. collecting their respec.....' !tive shares of. the rent due. According to this, I have the J tight to at lonce start on a tour among my neighbors (or even'" among· all Ithe.land-occupying inhabitants of .the earth) and demand ofl each the delivery into my hands of that greater or "smaller fraFtion of a cent which each owes me for the current quarter. <pr, if I find this course Itoo expen;sive,all those who ignore the I State may unite in appointing a private force of >frent-coUec~ors to collect their share of the total rent. Does Miss Mussdn· accept these logical inferences. from her position?

Mr. Byingtoh admits that the State is a usurper if it cotrect; my sh:!re of rent without getting from me a power of attor ney.He cI~ims neither for himself or for any other person or for any association of persons the right to collect my share of rent without authorization from me. Accordingly he expresses a willingness to enter into an arrangement with me tor the collection of our rents; that is, he invites me to give a power of attorney. I must admit that this is very accom-j i·modating on Mr. Byington's part; nevertheless, I churlishlyJ :decline. If any part of the money in the hands of land-users belongs to-me (which is the hypothesis just now), I prefer to; 'leave it where it is. Now, ,Mr. Byington, what are you and'! \your Single-Tax friends going to do about it? I do noti' ;;call upon you to deter~ine. my share; so far as lam coni cerned, it may remain undetermined. But, if you are going tcj collect your share, you will have to determine first what you~ 226 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y share is. At any rate, I bid you take good care not to touch mine. By your own confession you Single Taxers are entitled to collect only such rent as is the rightful share of the Single Taxers, all others refusing to delegate their rights. Do you tell me that such a task is insuperably difficult and intrinsi cally absurd? Very well, I answer; that fact is not my fault; it is simply the misfortune of the Single-Tax theory.

The collection of rent by each individual from all land users on earth, which Mr. Byington accepts so complacently, is an absurdity which Miss Musson cannot stand. So she at tempts to dispute my conclusion. I am not debating with her now regarding the Single-Tax theory. For the nonce I am accepting it; I am supposing that I have a right in certain funds now in the hands of land-users. So never mind the Single-T ax theory. Then she tells me of the dreadful things that would happen if, under' an occupancy-and-use regime, I should refuse to delegate my right. But I am not discussing occupancy and use either. Miss Musson is supposed to know nothing of my opinions on the land question. I present my self to her simply as the individual, Tucker, who declines to delegate his rights, just as I might have presented a hypo thetical individua~, Smith. But, argues Miss Musson, you have no separate right to rent. Very well; we will not dispute about that either. The only thing that concerns me at present is Miss Musson's specific declaration, in the last sentence of her article, that I· have a share in the aggregate right to rent, and that I can delegate this to the State. Here I have all tIiaE""r·":\\T'arrt;~aH,·»tha1:'''iS'''nt!'e"~ssa<rf''to'''tIie·· main purpose of my original criticism. Delegation of rights is an act of pure volition, and, as such, implies the power to refuse such dele gation. Then, i~!",~,aA".delegate<to"the·State my share in the aggregate rigIit to rent, I ,can also 4~~Hl)&< ~o < delegate it.

N'0w;'''''r';ao's()~''~es:!iiie::,:,:But'''Mi's's'-Miis'son has previously and ftiiidament'aIlfdeclared that a State can have no rights except those delegated to it by individuals. Therefore, since I refuse to delegate to the State my share in the aggregate right to rent, the State has no right to take my share in the aggregate right to rent. Q. E.· D. And there is no escape from the demonstration. Miss Musson may as well ((acknowledge the corn" first as last, and make her. choice between individual ism and the Single Tax. The two are incompatible.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 2.2.7 lean readily forgive Mr. Byington for mistaking B for A (in my answer to his question. Such a slip the most careful 111an may make at any time. But his more fundamental mis ;conception of what the occupancy-and-use doctrine really i,~isJ find it· more difficult, if not to pardon, at least to account tor. Certainly in no writing of mine have I given him war 1'rant'for supposing me to hold that a man should be allowed 'a title to as much of the earth as he, in the course of his'life, fwith the aid of all the workmen that he can employ, may suc lceed in covering with buildings. It is occupancy and use ~hat Anarchism regards as the basis of land ownership,-not f(Jccupany or use, as •Mr. Byington seems to have understood. A man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labor, to the limit of his capacity and beyond the limito£ his personal use, into material of which there .,is a li1l1itedsupply and the use of which is essential',to the existence of other men" to with-j ,hold that material from other meri's, use; and. any contract based upon or involving such withholding is as lacking in sanctity or legitimacy as a contract to deliver stolen goods.

,As I have never held that freedom of contract includes a ,right to dispose of the property of others, 1 do not, in denying such right, ((yield the sanctity of contract," as Mr. Byington 'puts it. "Yes, the object of AnarcNsm is, sure enough, to let every man Ucontrol self and the results of self-exertion"; [but this by no means implies that a man may store upon another's land the results of his' self-exertion. If a man exerts bimselfby erecting a building on land which afterward, by the operation of the principle of occupancy and use, rightfully. becomes another's, he must, upon' the demand of the subse-I' .quent occupant, remove, from this land the results of his self exertion, or, failing so to do, sacrifice his property right t~ in. The man who persists in' storing his property on another's premises is an invader, and it is his crime that alienates his control of this property. He is tenned one house," not «(for ',building a house and then letting another man'live in it,"

iput for invading the premises of another. If there were noth ingin •the ((Beauties of Government" to heat that, then in i.deedwould government be a really beautiful thing. ';' The objection advanced by Mr. Byington that adherence to· this principle must cause a degree of embarrassment, to persons de-sirousof usinga~entire edifice for a period too 2.2.8 I N D I V I D U ALL I B E R T Y short to warrant building or buying has some validity, and should be accorded all the weight that properly belongs to it, But its gravity is insufficient to balance that of consideration~ in the other scale. It must be remembered that comparativel) few persons desire to rent an entire building for a short time As a rule, those who want quarters for a short time prefeJ parts of buildings, and there is nothing in the occupancy· and-use plan to prevent them from realizing their desire. A: a rule, again, those who want an entire building want it fOl a long time, and therefore can afford to build or buy. Thl exceptional person who does not come under these heads wi!

undoubtedly have to pay something for the realization of hi exceptional desires. He will have to make it worth the whill of the occupying owner of the desired building to part wid it; that is to say, he will have to buy the building at some, thing above its normal value. Perhaps, to avoid the embar rassment of looking for a purchaser at the expiration of th time for which he desires the building, he will be able tl effect a contract with the seller whereby the latter shall agre to buy back the building at a given date at its normal valu(; If the seller should fail to keep this agreement, the buildin; would still be the property of the buyer, and he couldsel it to another party. The difference between the buying an the selling price might not exceed the rent exacted for sue: buildings under the present reginte. But, assuming that thes e~ceptional persons would be, for occasional brief period: under a greater burden in this respect than at pr~sent, th could not offset the far m.ore important fact that the gre:l body of people would be occupying 'their own building paying no rent for their use and no interest on the mone with which they were built. The entire race's steady an imperative need of free access to the land cannot be .'iubord nated to· the occasional convenience of a small fraction of tl race.

The adjustment of the conditions upon which an occupar and user can secure his premises against being considered : abandoned while he is on a vacation or a visit, or of the COl ditions upon which an occupying owner who desires to s(; may hold his property while· seeking a purchaser, or of tl conditions upon which a man who builds houses, not to ren but to sell, may likewise be accommodated in his search fl INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 229 purchasers, is a mere matter of human device or administra ;tive .detail, not to be. discussed in these columns unless the attempt be .to show that such device is impossible. Probably my language regarding ground-floor occupants [was not sufficiently clear. In my assertion that they 'would :own both land and store the intended emphasis was on the twords .here italicized, and I neglected to consider the fact ;tpat .notall occupying owners would, on erecting a building, i,prefer.to occupy the ground floor themselves~ my view being ,colored by the knowledge that retail druggists, apropos of 'whom my point was made, so far as I have observed, do busi inesson the ground floor.. It was not in my mind at all to deny that a. registered occupying owner would lose.his claim to pro f t~ction of his title should he .choose to personally occupy only the. attic of his building. It would be required only that he should occupy and use some portion or portions practically \equal .• to the ground floor in .area. It is probable that in an occup~ncy-and-use system there would be many cases of rent paying by tenants of rooms or floors. B.utthe amount of this tent' .would .be greatly influenced by the competition that would prevail in consequence. of the freeing of unused land, landtlte ability to build with non-interest-bearing capital that :free money would insure, as well as by the non-intervention of the protective association in the relations of owner and ten ant. I question whether, under such circumstances, the rent 'that could be obtained would often much exceed the loss fthrough wear and tear and care of the premises rented.

, In his present remarks. abou~ price-cutting and its relation ,to rent Mr. Byington leaves entirely out of the account the ,element' of competition on which my argument rests. Does 'he suppose that there is any sharply competitive trade in ex (istence in which the tradesman does not constantly ask him i'self ,the' question how he can manage to lower his prices in Yorderto secure some of the patronage that is going to his fompetitors? And does he suppose that, in (considering this 1problem, .this tradesman fails to ask himself if he cannot re duce his expenses and thereby' manage to lower his 'prices? !,A.nd is not tent one of these expenses? And, if it were lifted :£rornhisshoulders, would he not lower his prices at once? ,,And, if he did, would not his.competitor, who has all the time [been. doing business in a building of his own and paying rent 2.30 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY to nobody, be forced to lower his prices also in order to retain his, trade,-a thing which now he does not have to do because his rent-paying competitor cannot lower his prices? It is as clear as daylight.

The man who builds a cage over a sleeper prevents the sleeper from exercising his unquestionable right to step off of premises that belong to another, and therefore is an invader. The man who becomes by occupancy and use the owner of a previously unoccupied, unimproved, and unused passage, and in the exercise of his ownership blocks the passage, simply prevents other men from doing what they have no right to do, -that is, step on to premises that belong to another,-and therefore is not an invader. Mr. Byington's answer to my contention that there may be circumstances under which it is advisable to do violence to equal freedom amounts in its conclusion to a statement that no evil can be as disastrous as an act of invasion; that justice should be done though the heavens fall, for a precedent of injustice would lead t'o a worse disaster than the falling of the heavens; and that, if he were the guardian of a city most of whose inhabital\ts found themselves under the necessity of a choice between death by :fire on the one hand and death by drowning on the other, he would not relieve them from thi~ choice if he could do so only by violating the property right~ of a portion of his fellow-citizens. Discussion is hopeless here.

In May, 1895, Mr. Louis F. Post delivered a lecture at Cincinnati on the Single Tax, in which he made the statement that occupancy and use was really the only true title to land. After the lecture, in reply to a ques tion from one of his auditors, he explained that his advo cacy of the Single Tax was as the best method of reach ing the occupancy-and-use title. When Mr. Tucker's attention was called to Mr. Post's statement, he hailed it as very significant, since the other prominent champions of the Single Tax denied that the land belongs to the occupant and user and affirmed 'that all land belongs ",equally to all the people; and he stated that, if Mr. Post INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 231 had not been misunderstood, the latter had taken a posi tion which involved the rejection of the Single-Tax the ory and··pledged him to the Single Tax only as'a measure of expediency and as :l stepping-stone.Mr . Post replied that he did. not mean to imply that he advocated the Single Tax asa stepping-stone in the. sense of a temporary expedient, but as the. only way of obtaining and main tain~ng thet~tle of occup~ncy ~nd. us~.Th1t exp11111 tion .•... called forth the following from the editor of Liberty: MR. POST admits the utterances attributed to him, and then proceeds to· emasculate them. It appears .that .the phrase occupancy.and use is used oy Mr. Post simply· as an equiva leritof thel'ight ofpossefsiol). In that case it is nonsense to talk about the Single Ta~,orany. other. measure as the best method of reaching the· pccupancy-and-use •title, for· in Mr.

Post's sense that title already exists.....Today the occupant of land is its possessor,.in right and in fact. .• The aim of the occupancy-and-use' agitation is not to secure for the occupant a possession which is already his, but an ownership and eon trol which in most cases isno~ his, but his landlord's,-an 'ownership and control ¥which'shall end when occupancy and use end, but which shall be absolute while occupancy and use continue. In another part of his letter Mr. Post virtually denies the equivalence of occupancy with possession by declaring that landlords, even those who rent land. and· buildings in their entirety, are occupants and users. If this be true, then the Astor estate is occupying and using a very large portion of thecityof'New York. But·to assert that the Astors are either occupants or possessors is' an utter misuse of language. Besides, if the Astors. are occupants and users, and if the Single Tax will virtually compel the Astors to relinquish their lands, then the Single Tax, instead of being a means of getting to an occupancy-and ...use tenure, will be. a means of destroying such tenure •.. Mr. Post's position bristles at every point with incan sist~ncy and absurdity.

232 INDIVIDUAL tIBERTY It is so long since I read Mr. George's book that I do not remember whether Mr. Post is right in denying that Mr. George teaches the doctrine of equal ownership of land by all the people. One thing, however, is certain,-that the equal right of all people to every piece of land is asserted by many of the foremost Single Taxers, some of whom are on the na tional executive committee of the party. And it is on the strength of this that the Single Tax is defended. How often we hear Single Taxers deploring the name by which their idea is kno,wn! CClt is very unfortunate," they will tell you, CCthat our plan is called a tax. It is not a tax at all. We be lieve in the utter abolition of taxation. Taxation is robbery, a. taking from the producer of his product. .We do not pro pose to rob; in collecting rent we take only what is ours, for that which comes, not from labor, but from land, belongs, not to tile laborer, but to us, the people." If occupancy and use is not a title to land; then this position is sound; on the other hand, if it is a title to land, then the Single Tax is rob bery. Mr. Post cannOt escape from this dilemma.

If there must be Single Taxers, I prefer those of the Phila delphia sort, who attack occupancy and use' with hammer and tongs, maintaining that it is·unscientific and diametrically opposite to their fundamental principles. Relieve me, pray, of oppol}ents like Mr. Post, who, using my own phraseology in a· distorted sense, strive to make it appear to the people that their ideas, are mine. Let Anarchists be on their guard. Don't bite at phrases. In considering the letters of Mr. Alexander Horr, I notice at the outset that they betray·a 'singular contradiction. In the first we are told that the occupancy-and-use theory of land tenure Cthas not risen to the dignity of respectable em piricism." In the second we are told that of the four systems of land tenure now' advocated there are two which ccdeserve the most careful consideration," and that one of the two is the occupancy-and-use theory. The question arises: why does that which has not risen to the dignity of respectable em piricism deserve to be considered with care?

Mr. Horr complains of the indefiniteness with which the advocates of theoccupancy-and-use theory explain it. My opinion is·that the larger share of the indefiniteness regarding it that exists in his own mind is due to a failure on his part INDIVIDUAL LIBER'r'Y 2.)3 to, weigh and understanp what .has been said in defense of the theory. In a recent conversation with me, Mr. Horr naively assum~d the ownership by an Astor of the whole of Manhattan Island, and the renting 'of the same in parcels to tenants, as a possibility quite consistent with the occupancy-and-use theory and· one which the theory's advocates would so regard. Such an assumptiQn on his part showed beyond question· that he has failed to consider the positions that have beeh taken in Liberty as to the nature of occup~ncy ~nd use. Thes~ positiotlg h1ve been stated· in English plain ~nough to be definitely grasped. If. Mr. Horr had taken pains to understand them, he could not int~rpret the occupancy-and-use theory ina manner squarely contradictory of them. There will be no motive for Liberty. to attempt a completer exposition of its doctripe for Mr. Hort's benefit, until he understands the perfectly definite things that 'Liberty has .already said. . .' , Agreeing to my claiin that equal freedom is not a law, biiJt si1llply a lime of social.lifew~i~h. w.e fin~ it exped.ient •• to fol".

low" Mr. Horr asks me why, If It l~expedlen:t to enforce equal freedom in other things, it is not also expedient to enforce equal rights to· the· use of the earth. As appropriately might I ask him why, it is not expedient to enforce equal rights to" the use of brain power. Equal freedom as defined and advo cated in Liberty covers only the control of self and the results of, self-exertion. t~Equalrights in other things" is a phrase ~ of Mr. Horr's coinage.. I llphold equal freedom, as I define it. because it ~ec~res. individ~ality, the definition and encourage~ m.e.n.t .Of w...h,i~h, are .. e.ssential.'.toSo... cial dev.e.lopment and. ,prospe..r~ity and to individual happiness. I oppose Mr. Horr's policyl loosely described as (tequal rights in other things" because it tends to obliterate individuality. The enforcement of equa rights to the use of the earth, for· instance, by a single ta~ on •land values means a confiscation of a. portion of the. indi- , vidual's ·prqduct, a denial of the liberty to control thee result$ ofself-exertion, and hence a trampling upon individuality. If· an equal distribution or common ownership of wealth, witH the accompanying destruction of individuality, is a good : thing,.then let us become·Communists at once, and confiscate every excess, whether its source be land value, brain value', or some .other v.alue. If, on the other 'hand, the protection of the· individual is the thing. paramount and the main essential of .happiness, then let us defend theequal.liberty of individuals 234 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY to control self and the results of self-exertion, and let other equalities take care of themselves.

An instance of the peculiar manner in which Mr. Horr interprets his opponent's utterances may be seen in his com ments on Mr. Yarros's statement that, while voluntary taxa tion of economic rent might not be a good thing, cCthe use of force to bring it about would be extremely unwise." Mr. Horr thinks that this statement is ((not quite clear." It is true that it is not quite exact. Mr. Yarros had better have said ((the use of force to effect it," or, more simply still, Ctthe ,enforcement of it," than CCthe use of force to bring it about." But even from the sentence as it stands it seems to me that no intelligent reader should have failed to extract the evident meaning that, though men might well agree to pay rent into a common treasury, no man should be forced to do so. Yet Mr. Horr takes it to mean that force should not be used to collect rent in special and abnormal cases. I do not see the slightest warrant for this extraordinary and senseless construc tion of Mr. Yarros' swords.

/'".Mr. Horr defends State collection of rent on the ground l~l1at, if equal rights to land be admitted, (Call men have a l ~ight to collect rent from those who use better than free land, ~ 'ecause each in~vidual. would collect such rent ~mself, if he . d the power. LogIC does not warrant the Inference. I s owed clearly, in my discussion with Miss Musson, that, even granting Single-Tax ethics, still State collection of every indiidual's share of rent, without delegation by each individual of his right to collect, cannot be advocated consistently by any individualist. The fact that an individual would collect t e rent rightfully due him, if he had the power, does not warrant another man, or all other men, in proceeding un~ uthorized to collect this rent. There are some creditors who elieve that the State should not collect debts. Would Mr. ,o'Horr claim that the State is entitled to collect the debts due t""hese credi,tors, regardless of their wishes in the ma,tter? Now rent is nothing but a debt, under Single-Tax ethics. Conse quently any parties who contract for the collection of their , rents in common must see to it that they collect only their own shares of the total rent due. If they collect other people's shares, even the Single Taxer, if he be an individualist, is bound to consider them thieves.