Rent

CtThe land for the people," according to Liberty, means the protection (by the State while it exists, and afterwards by such voluntary association for the maintenance of justice a~ may be destined to succeed it) .of· all people who desire to cultivate land in the possession of whatever land. they per sonally cultivate, without distinction between the existing classes of landlords, tenants, and laborers, and the positive refusal of the protecting power to lend its aid to the collec tion of any rent whatsoever; this state of things to be brought about by inducing· the people to steadily refuse the paylnent of rent and taxes, and thereby, as' well as by all other means of passive and moral resistance, compel the State to repeal all the so-called land titles now existing. . Thus ttthe land for the people" according to Liberty is the only Uland for the people" that means the abolition of land lordism and the annihilation of rent; and all of Henry George's talk about ttpeasant proprietorship necessarily mean ing .nothing more than an extension of the landlord class" is the veriest rot, which should be thrown back upon him by the charge that land nationalization means nothing more tpan a diminution of the landlord class and a concentration and, I hundred-fold multiplication of the landlord's power.

RENT CtEdgeworth/' a frequent contributor to Liberty, had read a couple of Proudhon's books, treating of the rent question, which Mr. Tucker had recommended to him, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 183~ and he seemed'. to be muddled about the ctfictionof the productivity of capital," and some other things. And so the ,editor •enlightened him: THE two works which I recommended to Edgeworth, are among Proudhon's best; but they are very far from all that he has.,written, and it is very natural for,the reader.0£ a very small portion of his "writings ,to draw inferences.' which he will find unwarrantedl, when he reads more. This is due prit1 cipallytoProudhon's ;habit of using words' in different 'senses at different times, wllich I regard as ,unfortunate. Now, in the. article which gave rise to this discussion,Edgeworth in ferred (or seemed to infer), from th,e fact ,that some of Proudhon's transitional proposals, allowed a share to · capital fora time, that he contemplated as a permanent arrangement a division .of labor's earnings' between labor and capital as two distinct things. Lest this might mislead, I took, the liberty to 'correct it, and to state that Proudhon thought labor. the only legitimate title to wealth.

Now comes Edgeworth,and says that he meant by, capital only the result of preparatory labor, which is as much en titled to reward as any other~ Very good, say I; no one denies that. But this is not. what is ordinarily meant by the ccproductivity of capital"; and Edgeworth, •by his own rule~ is bound to use words in their usual sense. The usual sense of this phrase, and the sense in which the economists use it, is that capital has suchan independent share in. all production that the owner of it may rightfully farm out the privilege of using it, receive a steady income from it, have it restored' ;to him intact at the' expiration of the lease, farm it out again to ,somebody else, 'and gO"on in this way,' he and, his. heirs forever, living in a permlnent state of idleness and luxury simply from having performed' a certain amount ofccprepara tory labor." , That is what, Proudhon denounced as ((the fiction of the productivity of capital"; and Edgeworth, in iuterpreting the phrase. otherwise, gives it a very •unusual sense, in violation of his own rule.

Moreover, what Edgeworth goes,on to say about the pro portional. profits of landlord and tenant indicates that he has very loose ideas about the proper reward of labor, whether 184 IN D I V ID U A L :t I B E R T Y present or preparatory. The scientific reward (~nd under absolutely free competition the actual reward is, in the long run, almost identical with it) of labor is the product of' an equal amount of equally arduous labor. The product of an hour of Edgeworth's labor in preparing a field for cotton culture, and the product of an hour of his tenant's labor in sowing and harvesting the crop, ought each to exchange for the product of an hour's labor of their neighbor the shoemaker, or their neighbor the tailor," or their neighbor the grocer, or their neighbor the doctor, provided the labor of all· these parties is equally exhausting and implies equal amounts of ac quired skill and equal outlays for tools and facilities. Now, supposing the cases of Edgeworth and his tenant to be repre sentative and not isolated; and supposing them to proq.uce, not for their own consumption, but for the purpose of sale, which is the purpose of practically all. production, it then makes no difference to either of them whether their hour's labor yields five pounds of cotton or fifteen. In the one case they can get no. more shoes or clothes or 'groceries or medical services for the fifteen pounds than they can in the other for the five. The great body' of landlords and tenants, like the great body of producers in any other industry, does not profit by an increased productivity in its special field of 'Work, except to the extent that it consumes or reputchases its own product. the profit of this increase' goes to the people at large, the consumers. So it is not true (assuming always a regime of free competition) that Edgeworth's tenant ((profits three times as much" as Edgeworth because of the latter's preparatory labors. Neither of them profit thereby, but each gets an hour of some other man's labor' for an hour of his own.

So much for the reward of labor in general. Now to get back to the question of rent. If Edgeworth performs preparatory labor on a cotton field, the result of which would remain intact if the field lay idle, and that result is. damaged by a tenant, the tenant ought to pay him for it on the basis of reward· above defined. This does not bring a right of ownership to the tenant, to be sure, for the property has been destroyed and cannot be purchased. But the transaction, nevertheless, is in the nature of a sale. and not a payment for a loan. Every sale is an· exchange of labor, and the tenant simply pays money representing his INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY I8S Own labor; lor the result of Edgeworth'slabor which he (the tenant) has destroyed in appropriating it to his own use. If the tenant does notdamage~ the result of Edgeworth's prepar atory.labor, then, as Edgeworth· admits, .w4atever money the tenant pays .justlyentitles him to· that amount ·of ownership in the cotton:field~ Now, this money, paid over and above all danlage, if it does not bril1g equivalent ownership, is payment for use, usury, ap.d, in my termino~ogy;rent. It Edgeworth prefers ·to use the "Word. rent to· signify allmofiey .. p~id to landlords as such by tenants as such for whatever reason, I shall think his use of the word inaccurate; but I shall not qu~rrel with ~im, and shall only protest when he interprets other men's thought by his own definitions, as he seemed to me. to have done in Proudhon's case. If ·he will be similarly peaceful towards me in my use of the word, there will be no logomachy.

The difference between us is just this. Edgeworth says th~t from tenant to landlord there is payment for damage, and this is just. rent; and there is payment. for use, and that is unjust rent., I say there is payment for damage, and this is indemni fication or sale, and is just; and there is payment for use, and that is rent, and is unjust. My use]o£the,word is in accord ance with the dictionary, and· is more definite and discrim inating than the .other; moreover, I find it more effective in argument .. Many a time has some smaV.proprietor, troubled with qualms of conscience and anxiQus to. justify the source of his income, -exclaimed, on learning .that I believe in pay mentfor wear and teal':ccOh! well, you believe in rent, after aU; it's oalya question of ho)V much rent;" after which he would settle back, satisfied. 1 have always found that the only way. to give such a man's. conscience ·a chance to get a hold upon his thought and conduct was to insist on the narrower use of the word· rent. It calls the attention much more vividly to the distinction b~~ween justice and injustice.

More from CtEdgeworth" about cCunearnedincrement," Ujudgmentand skill," Hemployer the appraiser of work," etc. Then a few more remarks from Mr. Tucker: This smacks of Henry George. If the municipality is an organization·. to which every. person residing within a •given terri/tory must belong and pay tribute, it is not a bit more de:186 INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY tensible than the State itself,-in fact, is nothing but a small State; and to vest in it a title to any part of the value of real estate is simply land nationalization on a small scale, which no Anarchist can look upon with favor. If the municipality is a voluntary organization, it can have no titles except what it gets from the individuals composing it. If they choose to transfer their ((unearned increments" to the municipality, well and good; but any individual not choosing to do so ought to be able to hold his ((unearned increment" against the world.