The Land Question
Henry George
[Reprinted from Chapter XXIII, The Labor
Movement; The Problem of Today, edited by George E. McNeill, First
Deputy of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor. Published
in New York by M.W. Hazen Co., 1887]
BENEATH all the great social questions of our time lies one of
primary and universal importance, the question of the rights of men to
the use of the earth.
The magnitude of the pecuniary interests involved, the fact that the
influential classes in all communities where private property in land
exists are interested in its maintenance, lead to a disposition to
ignore or belittle the land question: but it is impossible to give any
satisfactory explanation of the most important social phenomena
without reference to it; and the growing unrest of the masses of all
civilized countries, under conditions which they feel to be galling
and unjust, must at length lead them, as the only way of securing the
rights of labor, to turn to the land question.
To see that the land question does involve the problem of the
equitable distribution of wealth; that it lies at the root of all the
vexed social questions of our time, and is, indeed, but another name
for the great labor question in all its phases, it is only needful to
revert to first principles, and to consider the relations between men
and the planet they inhabit.
We find ourselves on the surface of a sphere, circling through
immeasurable space. Beneath our feet, the diameter of the planet
extends for eight thousand miles; above our heads night reveals
countless points of light, which science tells us are suns, that blaze
billions of miles away. In this inconceivably vast universe, we are
confined to the surface of our sphere, as the mariner in mid-ocean is
confined to the deck of his ship. We are limited to that line where
the exterior of the planet meets the atmospheric envelope that
surrounds it. We may look beyond, but cannot pass. We are not denizens
of one element, like the fish; but while our bodies must be upheld by
one element, they must be laved in another. We live on the earth, and
in the air. In the search for minerals men are able to descend for a
few thousand feet into the earth's crust, provided communication with
the surface be kept open, and air thus supplied; and in balloons men
have ascended to like distances above the surface; but on a globe of
thirty-five feet diameter, this range would be represented by the
thickness of a sheet of paper. And though it is thus possible for man
to ascend for a few thousand feet above the surface, or to descend for
a few thousand feet below it, it is only on the surface of the earth
that he can habitually live and supply his wants; nor can he do this
on all parts of the surface of the globe, but only on that smaller
part, which we call land, as distinguished from the water, while
considerable parts even of the land are uninhabitable by him.
By constructing vessels of materials obtained from land, and
provisioning them with the produce of land, it is true that man is
able to traverse the fluid-surface of the globe; yet he is none the
less dependent upon land. If the land of the globe were again to be
submerged, human life could not long be maintained on the
best-appointed ships.
Man, in short, is a land-animal. Physically considered, he is as much
a product of land as is the tree. His body, composed of materials
drawn from land, can only be maintained by nutriment furnished by
land; and all the processes by which he secures food, clothing and
shelter consist but in the working up of land or the products of land.
Labor is possible only on condition of access to land, and all human
production is but the union of land and labor, the transportation or
transformation of previously existing matter into places or forms
suited to the satisfaction of man's needs.
Land, being thus indispensable to man, the most important of social
adjustments is that which fixes the relations between men with regard
to that element. Where all are accorded equal rights to the use of the
earth, no one needs ask another to give him employment, and no one can
stand in fear of being deprived of the opportunity to make, a living.
In such a community, there could be no "labor question."
There could be neither degrading poverty nor demoralizing wealth. And
the personal independence arising from such a condition of equality,
in respect to the ability to get a living, must give character to all
social and political institutions.
On the other hand, inequality of privilege in the use of the earth
must beget inequality of wealth and power, must divide men into those
who can command and those who are forced to serve. The rewards which
nature yields to labor no longer go to the laborers in proportion to
industry and skill; but a privileged class are enabled to live without
labor by compelling a disinherited class to give up some part of their
earnings for permission to live and work. Thus the order of nature is
inverted, those who do no work become rich, and "workingman"
becomes synonymous, with "poor man." Material progress tends
to monstrous wealth on one side, and abject poverty on the other; and
society is differentiated into masters and servants, rulers and ruled.
If one man were permitted to claim the land of the world as his
individual property, he would be the absolute master of all humanity.
All the rest of mankind could live only by his permission, and under
such conditions as he chose to prescribe. So, if one man be permitted
to treat as his own the land of any country, he becomes the absolute
sovereign of its people. Or, if the land of a country be made the
property of a class, a ruling aristocracy is created, who soon begin
to regard themselves, and to be regarded, as of nobler blood and
superior rights. That "God will think twice before he damns
people of quality," is the natural feeling of those who are
taught to believe that the land on which all must live is legitimately
their private property.
Here is the explanation of the main facts of human history. In the
land question, we find the great key to the differences of political,
social, industrial, and even religious development, the reason of the
growth of monarchies and aristocracies, of the degradation of base and
servile classes, the cause of wars and tumults and social conflicts.
The equality of men is not a dream of latter-day visionaries. It is
the order of nature. Men come into the world of like shape, with like
members and like wants; and the differences of physical and mental
power among them are but individual variations from a common standard,
which, comparatively small in normal humanity, are largely, if not
entirely, offset by compensations. And nature treats all men with
strict impartiality. She will give to the noble no more readily than
to the serf. Fire will burn, and water will drown, the king as surely
as the peasant. The sun shines and the rain falls on the just and the
unjust alike. The first perceptions of man are always those of human
equality.
"When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?"
The man of gentle or noble blood, the man entitled to reap without
sowing, to consume while others produce, to command while others obey,
never could exist where the equal rights of men to the use of the
earth were acknowledged. He is the product of a system that makes the
land on which a whole people must live, the property of a portion of
their number. For they who thus become earth-owners are enabled to
levy a toll for the use of nature's bounty, to prescribe terms on
which alone other men can live. They become the land-lords, or
land-gods of these other men, beings who deem themselves of superior
mould, and who look down upon their fellows as born to a life of toil
for their pleasure.
"He that will not work, neither shall he eat." This is the
decree of nature, that with every human mouth brings two human hands
into the world, and ordains that human wants shall only be satisfied
by labor. But that selfishness which is the evil genius of man, has
always prompted the strong and cunning to endeavor to escape the
necessity of laboring by compelling their fellows to do their work for
them. Of the devices to this end, the two most important have been
that of making property of men, and that of making property of land.
Chattel-slavery, however, is but a rude and primitive method of
systematically robbing labor, profitable only in countries of sparse
population, or when it is desired to remove the laborers to another
place. Where the population is dense enough, the easier and more
convenient way of enslaving a whole people and of more conveniently
appropriating their labor, is to appropriate their lands, since they
can in this way be compelled to yield their labor or its produce in
return for the mere privilege of living. Thus the Norman Conqueror did
not distribute the people of England among his freebooters: he
distributed English land. Thus, the adventurers who, at subsequent
times, passed over into Ireland, did not seek to enslave the Irish
people, but to secure Irish land. Once masters of Irish land, the
Irish people were forced to beg permission to till it for them; and,
instead of having to chase runaway slaves, they had, in the power of
eviction, a means of coercion by which they could extract from the
laborer all he could possibly give.
The natural perception of mankind is that of the equality of rights
to the use of the earth; and it is probable that private property in
land, like chattel-slavery, has nowhere originated save in war and
conquest. But when this means of appropriating labor once obtains a
footing, it becomes a potent means for the enslavement, by the cunning
of men of their own blood. This process, of which the history of
ancient Rome gives us a complete example, has been going on in England
and Scotland for some centuries, in the appropriation of the
church-lands, the changing into individual property of the land held
on feudal rents by tenants of the State, the enclosure of commons, the
conversion of the tribal holdings of Highland clans into individual
property of the chiefs, and the substitution of large proprietors for
small freeholders. It is going on to-day in the United States, in the
fencing in of the public domain, and the steady relative decrease of
the land-owning class. That a man can draw an income of so many
thousands of dollars from the ownership of American soil, means that
so many American citizens must yield up to him the produce of their
labor, are virtually his slaves.
Land in itself has no value, and can yield no revenue, for land is
only the passive factor in production. Labor is the active factor, by
whose exertion upon land all wealth is produced. The owner of the
richest land could get no revenue from his ownership; all that he
could get from it would be what his own labor produced, until some one
else was willing to pay him for the privilege of living on it, or
working it. The moment this becomes the case, the moment others will
consent to give the land-owner a portion of the produce of their labor
for the privilege of using his land, his ownership will yield him a
revenue independent of his own labor, a revenue derived from the labor
of others. Thus land acquires a value, a value which increases just as
the growth of population and improvement increases the amount of the
labor-produce which permission to live on or work land will command.
Where population increases, or is expected to increase, the growth of
the selling-value of land, however, may to some extent precede the
growth of the power of obtaining revenue from its ownership, for the
same reason that in the days of slavery, a negro child had a value
before it could work, and, as the proverb ran, "A nigger's worth
a hundred dollars as soon as he hollers." So, around growing
cities, and in countries where population is rapidly increasing, land
is held and sold at prices higher than the owner could now obtain for
its use. But as in the case of the value of a slave-child, this
speculative value of land arises from expectation of the revenue which
it will in future yield, the basis of all land-values, actual or
prospective, being the amount of labor or labor-produce which its
owner may obtain without labor on his part by permitting others to use
his land. This, it is to be observed, is invariably true, as true in
the case of the little piece of land owned by the man who uses it
himself, and whose income is derived from his labor upon it, as in the
case of the great proprietor, whose income is derived from the labor
of those whom he permits to use his land. For, so long as the owner
can only get an income from his land by using it himself, the land has
no value. It is only when, if he were to stop using it himself, he
could, by selling it or renting it, get the produce of other people's
labor, that land has a value. The value of land, where land is made
private property, always means, therefore, the ability of the
non-producer to live upon the producer, the power, actual or
prospective, of the land-owner to compel labor to pay him toll.
Increase of land-values, where land has been made private property,
means simply that a larger and larger amount of the produce of labor
goes to non-producers; that labor must pay more and more for being
permitted the use of natural facilities indispensable to its exertion.
For though the giving of labor, or the produce of labor, for the use
of land has the semblance of an exchange, the transaction is in
reality on the one side an appropriation, and on the other the
payment, of a tribute. It is precisely such a transaction as that in
which the fisherman is required to give up fish, which he has taken at
the cost of labor and privation, in return for the privilege of using
the ocean.
Here we have the great cause of that unequal distribution of wealth,
which is apparent throughout the civilized world, and which increases
with material progress. Low wages, pauperism, laborers who cannot find
employment, goods which cannot be sold; a marvelous increase in the
power of supplying human needs, yet great masses of human beings
suffering from want; poverty seeming to spring from the very excess of
production; monstrous fortunes accumulating in the hands of a few,
while among the many the struggle for existence grows harder and more
bitter, just as the discovery of better methods and the invention of
better machinery make easier the production of the things necessary
for the maintenance of existence, all these phenomena, with all their
social, political and moral consequences, spring from one fundamental
maladjustment universal throughout the civilized world, from a primary
wrong, which destroys equality by dividing men into two classes: those
who own the world as their private property, and those who, having no
legal right to the use of the world, must buy the privilege of living
and of working.
It is not in the relations of labor and capital; it is not in the
greed of employers or the shiftlessness or intemperance of workingmen;
it is not in interest, or currency, or profits, or in monopolies, such
as those of railways and telegraphs, nor yet even in public debts, or
the waste of standing armies, it is not in any nor in all of these
things that an explanation can be found of the fact that the
workingman is everywhere the poor man.
All these are effects, or at most secondary causes. Given a country
where there were no railroads, no government, no machinery, no
currency, no capital; where there were no employers and employed, but
where each worker obtained subsistence from nature as directly as do
the birds; yet if the land of such a country were treated as
throughout the civilized world land is treated, and were made the
private property of but a part of the people, should we not see
essentially the came phenomena that to-day we see in the most highly
civilized societies, non-producers enjoying the fruits of labor, and
producers in poverty; men, possessed only of the power to labor,
compelled, in return for permission to exercise it, to give up the
larger part of all they produce, retaining for themselves only enough
to support life? Why, if the very birds could so far pervert their
instincts as to treat the earth as the private property of some birds,
so that others did not dare to peck fruit, or catch worms, or build
nests, without purchasing permission of some feathered earth-owner,
should we not see among birds just what we see among men, a few fat
and lazy birds, deeming it beneath them to catch a worm or carry a
straw, sitting amid great piles of wasting food, painfully gathered
and brought to them by miserable, winged wretches, half-starved amid
abundance?
Or, on the other hand, imagine civilized society in its highest
development, with all wrongs abolished, save the primary wrong
involved in private property in land. Let there be no standing armies,
no public debts, no wars nor preparations for war. Let the railroads
be run under the most perfect system, and with sole regard to the
interests of the public; let the wasteful "protective"
tariffs, which beget monopolies and hamper the trade of the world, be
swept away; let perfect purity obtain in politics, and governments be
carried on with absolute honesty and at the minimum of expense.
Imagine, if you please, all taxes abolished, and public expenses met
by the contributions of public-spirited citizens. Imagine employers to
share their gains equally with their workmen, and co-operation so
general that it should do away with the middle-man's profits; let
there be a perfect currency; and imagine, if that be imaginable, all
interest abolished. Imagine everybody prudent and honest, the craving
for liquor a forgotten taste, and the making of intoxicating beverages
a lost art. Yet if private property in land be retained, if one set of
men must still pay another set of men for the use of the planet, what
would be the gain to the mere laborer? All these social improvements
would, by diminishing waste, add to the wealth of society. But all the
other classes that prey upon labor being eliminated, the result would
be that the land-owners could get all the more of this wealth. Good
government, cheap railroad-fares, free trade, a perfect currency, the
abolition of the profits of middle-men, temperance and thrift, would
not enable men to live without land or to work without a place to work
on, and something to work up. And, this being the case, all these
improvements could make no improvement in the condition of the masses.
Laborers of more than ordinary skill or ability might, as now, get
more than a bare living; but men of only ordinary abilities and skill,
possessed only of the power to labor, and with nothing to use that
power upon, must still, by the inevitable law of competition, be
driven to give up all their labor could produce above a bare living,
for the sake of getting permission to live at all.
This impossibility of relieving poverty and securing an equitable
distribution of wealth, while the land on which all must live is made
the private property of some, arises from the very constitution of
man, from the fact that he is a land-animal, who must live on and from
land, if he lives at all. This being the case, there is no possible
reform, no possible improvement, no possible discovery or invention,
which can permanently raise the lowest class of society above the
verge of starvation, so long as private property in land exists. The
failure of the great improvements and discoveries and inventions of
the nineteenth century to eradicate want; the fact that poverty seems
to deepen with material progress; that the most wonderful
multiplications of the productive power of labor seem, instead of
lightening the toil of the laboring class, to compel even women and
children to work; and that, amid the greatest accumulations of wealth,
human beings die of starvation, does not arise from the fact that
these inventions and discoveries and improvements have not yet gone
far enough, but from that fundamental law of his being, which makes it
impossible for man to live, save on and from land, from that
fundamental limitation of his power which makes it impossible for him
to create something out of nothing, and restricts all his production
to the utilization of the pre-existing matter and force of the
universe.
And in this absolute dependence of labor upon land, we may see the
explanation of the paradox that poverty seems to spring from the very
excess of the production of wealth, and that the increase which
improved processes and inventions give to the productive power of
labor make the mere laborer more helpless. For it is manifest that,
were invention and discovery to go so far as to dispense with labor in
the production of wealth, all the wealth that they could desire could
be obtained by land-owners without the employment of labor, and that
mere laborers would become but cumberers of the land-lord's ground,
and could only escape starvation as paupers, supported by his bounty.
This is the direction in which labor-saving discovery and invention
must tend, wherever land is private property. And thus it is, that
want seems to arise from the very "over-production" of
things that satisfy want, and that as the productive power of labor
increases, the struggle for existence becomes more bitter, and the
number of men for whom there seems to be no place and no need in this
world becomes larger and larger.
That what is called the labor question is simply another name for the
land question; that all the ills which labor suffers spring from the
appropriation as private property of the element without which labor
is useless, becomes evident upon any honest attempt to trace these
ills to their source. The trouble with most of the clergymen, and
professors, and dilettante philanthropists, who are now directing so
much attention to the labor question, is, that they are not honest.
They are making believe to look for what they really do not want to
find; they are pretending to seek the remedy of a great wrong, with a
predetermination to avoid any conclusion which would offend "vested
interests," or disturb the "House of Have." They
deliberately turn away from the only road which could lead to the
explanation they profess to desire, and as a remedy for the most
widespread and gigantic evils have nothing better to propose than some
canting injunction that everybody should be good; some exhortation to
employers to be kind, and to workingmen to be industrious, temperate,
and, above all, contented; some two-penny scheme of co-operation or "profit-sharing."
There is nothing mysterious about the labor question. The cause of the
terrible competition in the labor-market which cuts down wages to the
point of bare subsistence, when not restrained by the combinations of
workmen, and of all the manifold evils to which this leads, is simply
that all the men who want work cannot find work, and that there is at
all times a great number, and in times of commercial depression a very
great number, who are anxious to earn a living, but cannot get the
opportunity.
Now, whence arises this difficulty of finding employment, this
seeming excess of the supply of labor over the demand for labor? With
every pair of hands that come into the world, does there not come one
mouth? Is there not demand enough for labor in the wants of those
whose power to labor is going to waste, because they can find no use
for it? Too little demand for labor! when even of those at work so
many are under-fed, under-clothed, and not half-sheltered; when the
great majority of men in all civilized countries are harassed by wants
they are unable to supply!
If there are more men seeking employment than can find employers,
what is to hinder these men from employing themselves? Did the first
man have to hunt around for some one to hire him before he could go to
work? Who was there to hire Robinson Crusoe? Yet did he lack
employment? Did the settlers of this country, or the men who ever
since have been pushing out into the wilderness, have to get
themselves employers before they could make homes and earn a living?
The only indispensable condition to the employment of labor is LAND.
Capital in all its forms, wealth in all its forms, is but the produce
of labor exerted upon land. Give labor the use of land, and all things
that man can bring into being can be produced. If, therefore, labor is
going to waste; if men willing to work to supply their needs cannot
find opportunity to do so, and must engage in a cut-throat competition
with each other for the wages of some employer, it is solely because
they cannot avail themselves of the natural opportunities for making
their labor available.
But this is due to no lack of natural opportunities. In the most
densely-peopled country of the civilized world, there are natural
resources which would suffice for many times the population. In our
own vast country, we have hardly begun to scratch the surface of
nature's store-house. Around every city there are vacant lots, on
which labor might find employment in building houses for an
over-crowded population. There are millions and millions of unused
acres, on which men who are becoming tramps might make themselves
homes. There is clay and timber and iron and coal, of which no use is
made. Of our agricultural land, that which is cultivated is but an
insignificant part of what remains to cultivate. If labor cannot find
employment for itself, it is not because of the failure of nature to
offer opportunities for its employment. It is simply because we have
allowed these opportunities to be seized and held by men who cannot
use them themselves, and will not allow others to use them, because we
permit what nature offers freely to labor to be used as a means to
extort blackmail from labor. Here is the one great cause of unemployed
labor, of depressed trade, of the competition which everywhere tends
to force wages down to the starvation point, and of widespread
poverty, conjoined with the most enormous powers of producing wealth.
The natural means of employment monopolized, men who have nothing but
the power to labor are driven into a cut-throat competition with their
fellows to obtain from some other human creature the "leave to
toil." Compelled to stint, unable with the produce of their own
labor to purchase the produce of other's labor, goods that cannot be
sold accumulate in warehouses while thousands suffer from want.
There is but one way of solving the labor question, of preventing
monstrous injustice in the distribution of wealth, and substituting
just and wholesome social conditions for those which it is now
becoming clear must, if unchecked, lead us to anarchy; and that is by
securing to all men their inalienable right to live and to work. This
can only be done by abolishing the private ownership of land, and
making the land of a country the common property of the whole people.
The doing of this does not involve any denial of legitimate
property-rights, any lessening of the incentive to build, improve or
cultivate; any interference with that security of possession which is
necessary to all the higher uses of land. It is only necessary to
treat land as the common heritage of the whole people, and individual
possessors as tenants of the community, paying a just rent for any
peculiar privileges they enjoy. And the easy method of accomplishing
this is to abolish all the taxes which now oppress labor and hamper
production, and by means of a tax, not upon land, but upon the value
of land, to collect for common uses that "unearned increment"
which now goes to land-owners. Were this done, it would become
unprofitable for any one to hold land that he was not putting to use,
and the city-lots, the mines, the unused fields, that are now held on
speculation would necessarily be thrown open to those who wished to
use them.
Thus speculation in the bounties of nature would be destroyed,
production would be relieved of all burdens, and that value which
attaches to land by reason, not of the exertion or improvements of
individuals, but by the growth and progress of society, would
constitute a great fund from which all public expenses could be met.
How this simple yet far-reaching reform would secure the farmer his
homestead, and give the tenement-dweller a spot he could call his own;
how it would relieve the dreariness of country life and the congestion
of over-crowded cities; how it would simplify government and purify
politics; how it would equalize the distribution of wealth and
enormously increase production, I have shown in detail in my books,
but cannot dwell upon in the space allotted to me here. But whoever
will heed the general principles I have here endeavored to point out,
must see that in the divorce which our laws make between men and the
natural element from which the means of life must be drawn, lies the
cause of that monstrous injustice which piles up wealth in the hands
of non-producers, and makes labor a suppliant for the very "leave
to toil;" and that, at whatever cost, to conform our treatment of
land to the dictates of justice is the only way in which our
civilization can escape such wrecking disasters as have overwhelmed
civilizations that preceded it.
There is in this world no necessity for poverty, and for the vice and
crime that springs from it. That so much of human life is a bitter
struggle for mere existence, is man's fault, not God's. The powers
with which man has been gifted, the potentialities which exist in
nature, are sufficient to give to the very humblest all the real
advantages that the richest can now enjoy, to make possible a social
state in which men should no more vex themselves about the
satisfaction of material needs than do the lilies of the field. But
the Creator has annexed to his gifts the inexorable condition that we
shall deal justly with our fellows. A system which denies their
birth-right to the children who come into the world involves a crime
which must bring its punishment.
|