INDIVIDUALISM AND EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP. IN N the ages of authentic history there has now and again cropped out, in one guise or another, indications of a desire for the realization of some undefined communistic ideal. Roman agrarianism, lasting for several centuries, was a definite movement under the influence and direction of this desire. The Golden Age delineated by poets, a time when man "No rule but uncorrupted reason knew," included the conception of a communion in the use and enjoyment of terrestrial things. The same ideal entered into the speculations of the Grecian schools of philosophy. Plato reasoned about a theoretical state of mankind, an ideal polity, in which absolute and universal communism was to be the rule. The now beatified Sir Thomas More framed his celebrated Utopia, a production which has added a word to language, upon principles similar to those of the Platonic. hypothesis. He of course omitted the gross and intolerable errors which are included in the visionary project of Plato. The fruitless expectations of the Chiliasts, or Millennialists, are another indication of the same dominating desire or tendency. In our own day we have Mr. George's celebrated scheme for common proprietorship of the soil. Such yearnings of the human heart have an adequate cause to excite them. It may be admitted that there is in our identical nature a certain propensity to some manner of life in common. The inclination often manifested to realize a theoretical and communistic conception of man's condition is, in its way and degree, a witness that he is now in a violent, or at least an uncongenial, state: a witness of the authenticity and truth of his primeval innocence, and of his subsequent fall from that happy and peaceful condition. For we are enduring an "exile in a valley of tears, banished children of Eve." Although such are the promptings evinced by these recurring movements to establish an unexclusive and universal freedom and community in the possession and enjoyment of all the goods of the earth, it is evident that the end is unattainable, the hope chimerical. But, in connection with these reiterated aspirations of the race for a method of life in common, it is well to remember the supreme ideal which the Christian Church proposes for man's attainment. She has taught from the days of her Founder, and she will ever teach, that there is a higher and more excellent mode of life, which those who would be perfect and are able to adopt are counselled to follow, namely, her approved life in common, with voluntary poverty. Nevertheless, mankind do not compose a great monastic community. Of the ideal of communism it may be said that its only realization which is true and practical is in the religious orders of the Catholic Church. This is the method of living in common which was founded by our Divine Redeemer. It is a system for a chosen and limited few. "Non omnes capiunt verbum istud." The multitude of mankind must live by a different rule. The Creator and Sovereign Ruler originally gave all the goods of the earth to men in common; for reasons of ascertained importance and manifest necessity to the general welfare, men have divided the stores of nature. They have authorized nations and individuals to acquire the exclusive ownership of particular portions. This was actually accomplished jure humano, by human. law. Such is the admitted principle of sound jurisprudence. The public mind has been directed to a consideration of land. Why was it made the subject of exclusive ownership? A brief examination of the reasons why will be useful. The best use of land is obtained when it is rendered most fruitful by careful, industrious, and intelligent cultivation. By dividing it amongst individuals, or giving to them a separate portion with exclusive ownership, the highest degree of cultivation is secured for the soil, and its fruitfulness is brought to the greatest perfection. Such is the avouchment of history and experience. The aboriginal Indians of the United States owned the land in common. They subsisted almost exclusively by hunting. A small tribe of them roamed over a vast area of country, and were ever, we may well believe, in a state of extremity for the absolute wants of the coarsest and commonest necessaries of life, raiment and food. Whereas, by the proper cultivation of the ground, the same area could be made to yield an abundance of all things for a great and numerous population. In early days the colonization of Virginia had long been attempted. But one failure had followed another. Still, the colonists, some remnants of earlier bands and new arrivals, struggled on. They owned the land in common. At length a new and successful turn in affairs occurred, the reasons for which our historian, Mr. Bancroft, thus narrates: "The greatest change in the condition of the colonists resulted from the establishment of private property. To each man a few acres of ground were assigned for his orchard and garden to plant at his pleasure and for his own use. So long as industry had been without its special reward, reluctant labor wasteful of time had been followed by want. Henceforward the sanctity of private property was recognized as the surest guarantee of order and abundance." (U. S., vol. i., A.D. 1611.) And so, too, it was with the Plymouth Pilgrims. They verified the wise and prophetic words of Aristotle who, long before, had, with his accustomed accuracy, noted the evils resulting from systems of communism. "Such evils are manifest," he says, "from the methods of common proprietorship (howviat) practised by those who go out to settle a colony. For nearly all of them have disputes with each other upon the most ordinary matters, and come to blows upon trifles." (Polit. Lib., 2, c. 5.) The Plymouth Fathers were no exception to the rule thus sagaciously discerned by Aristotle. Their situation had become burdensome. With them, says Mr. Bancroft, "the system of common property had occasioned grievous discontents; the influence of laws could not compel regular labor like the uniform impulse of personal interest; and even the threat of keeping back their bread could not change the character of the idle. After the harvest of 1623 there was no general want of food. For, in the spring of that year it had been agreed that each family should plant for itself; and parcels of land in proportion to the respective numbers were assigned for cultivation, though not for inheritance. This arrangement produced contented labor and universal industry; even women and children now went into the field to work. The next spring every person obtained a little land in perpetual fee." (Ibid. Plymouth, 1623.) If among a handful of colonists the system of common ownership and occupancy of land was found to be so impracticable and disastrous, it follows irresistibly that the widespread and populous nations would experience the evils of such system to a degree beyond imagination and endurance. Admitting that bounteous nature primarily bestowed upon mankind the earth with its plenitude of resources for their common use and well-being, it is evident that creatures so richly endowed with reason by nature and the author of nature would, in due time and as circumstances and conditions pointed out the way, seek a remedy and mode of escape from a state of things fraught with never-ending disputes, quarrels and tumults, being convinced that "Reason's whole pleasure, all the joys of sense, Nature's beneficent gift of land, the permanent spring of life-materials for all the countless generations of men, was never intended to become the source of evils wholly unbearable and destructive of human happiness. Had separate ownership and occupancy never been established, the records of strife between individuals and nations over the possession of land or territory, even now so numerous, would have been increased a thousand-fold. The bellicose principles of the philosopher Hobbes would have found almost universal illustration. An occurrence in patriarchal days is instructive. Abraham and his kinsman Lot shared their goods in common. But dissensions were on the point of arising between them. "Neither was the land able to bear them that they might dwell together, for their substance was great, and they could not dwell together." (Gen. 13:6.) The favored and venerable patriarch Abraham judged that it was expedient for himself and Lot to have their lands and other possessions apart. “Let there be no quarrel . . . . between me and thee. . . . . Depart from me, I pray thee: if thou wilt go to the left hand, I will take the right." (Ibid. 13:8.) Thus "the Father of many Nations" discontinued the practice of living in common with his own kinsman, the upright and "just Lot." The separation was necessary that each might have the undisturbed possession and peaceful enjoyment of If even these holy patriarchs found it indispensable for harmony and mutual happiness and welfare to divide the land, and to institute separate and exclusive ownership of things, it is quite evident that the less favored of the race will not live together in peace, if their possessions, and especially if their lands, are owned in common. This is the result declared by universal experience, an experience which is based on the indisputable facts and principles of human nature as at present existing. It has been admitted, though incorrectly, that Mr. George does not defend communism. It is true he does not maintain that false theory in its complete universality. That is, he does not advocate a scheme of common ownership which would extend to all the possessions of men. But he does maintain an absolute communism of the land. This is his chief and fundamental error reiterated in all his writings with the directness and eloquence of style for which he is remarkable. His leading principle, stated in his strong, unequivocal language, is this: "In the very nature of things, land cannot rightfully be made individual property. This principle is absolute. The title of a peasant proprietor deserves no more respect than the title of a great territorial noble. No sovereign political power, no compact or agreement, even though consented to by the whole population of the globe, can give to an individual a valid title to the exclusive ownership of a square inch of soil." (The Land Question, Ch. 8.) When the great and ruling minds of the race constructed their irrefutable arguments against the impracticable theory of communism, they did not fall into the error of excluding communism of the land from the number of those false doctrines against which the cogent validity of their reasoning was directed. The arguments which demonstrate that, for cultured and populous. nations, communism is a visionary project, also prove that it is, for the same nations, an unfeasible plan when applied to real property. The profound scholastic philosophers examined by disputation the topic of exclusive ownership-De Rerum Divisione-until they completely exposed its metaphysical principles. Their reasoning, too, is comprehensively universal. It applies to all its legitimate objects, and it embodies the entire truth respecting all. For, these objects have an intelligible unity, and they are thence coupled by a logical tie. There is not, in the material objects of wealth themselves, any sign or other evidence declaring that they shall not be owned in common. The reasons which carry conviction to the mind that the various communistic schemes are not practicable, but on the contrary illusory, are not deduced from the intrinsic nature of the objects of wealth. These paramount reasons are derived from a consideration of the undeniable characteristics of human nature in its present state. Change the conditions of man's being, as would be done by restoring him to what the theologians call "A State of Innocence," and the reasoning against systems of common proprietorship no longer applies. Mr. George's arguments against the legitimacy, and even the validity, of exclusive ownership of land, are fully as cogent against exclusive ownership of other property, whereas he admits personal and exclusive ownership of other goods. If it be granted that other objects may legitimately become private property, it is inconsistent to affirm that land should be owned in common. Although Mr. George's arguments are inconsequent and invalid, their weakness cannot be exposed by any process based on inconsistency. A plan which cannot be reduced to practice, save by a violation of the rules of equity, public order and tranquillity, is clearly impracticable and unlawful. Communism of land is precisely such a plan. It is therefore unfeasible, and contrary to law and equity. Whether men be considered as living in civil society or under conditions preceding the establishment of States, it is equally true. to affirm that exclusive ownership was actually introduced by their positive, or conventional rules. The land of the earth has, in all the great and enlightened nations, been distributed amongst individuals by public authority guided by equitable general laws. It was the law of the land which established and regulated its division. Particular persons were thus invested with the legiti |