CORRESP ONDENCE. 



407 



C0rt*c6p^0tidetxcje» 



CHARACTER-BUILDING AND THE 

 ENVIRONMENT. 



Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



SIR : Tour editorial entitled Necessity, in 

 the April number of the Popular Sci- 

 ence Monthly, attracted my attention, and as 

 a general statement this much of your con- 

 clusion commands my approval : " In every 

 well-balanced mind the thought of necessity 

 is habitually present, calling forth efforts of 

 self-restraint which tend to conserve and 

 consolidate the individual's happiness and 

 well-being. We contemplate, therefore, a 

 constant recognition of necessity, but a rec- 

 ognition which enables a man to meet it oa 

 ground more or less of his owa choosing." 



Your more special conclusion, however, 

 does not appeal to my reason as having any 

 great value as a practical proposition. I 

 refer to the following : " The problem is to 

 make more sound individuals ; and that 

 problem does not seem to be in its nature 

 insoluble — therein differing from some that 

 are set by social reformers." The value of 

 this proposition depends wholly upon the 

 meaning of the term " sound individuals." 

 If in defining this expression you include as 

 an essential characteristic of " sound indi- 

 viduals " a knowledge of the meaning and 

 application of the law of equal freedom, as 

 taught by Herbert Spencer, your proposition 

 is of unquestionable validity ; although it 

 would still be of no great practical value 

 without pointing out the specific manner of 

 making individuals sound relative to the 

 particular necessity they have to face ; the 

 necessity which you appear to have had in 

 mind in this case being their social environ- 

 ment. 



You say : " Socialist writers do not appear 

 to be at all of this way of thinking. They 

 have a noble zeal for remedying evils, but 

 they do not seem to allow anything for the 

 conditions which Nature itself imposes." 

 This is a blunder for which defenders of our 

 present semi-socialistic society are equally 

 responsible. There is no more imperative 

 and unchangeable condition imposed by Na- 

 ture than the law of rent. Henry George 

 has showTi, in Progress and Poverty, that 

 private appropriation of rent is the world- 

 wide cause of involuntary poverty. His 

 book has been before mankind nearly twenty 

 years, and there is not to-day a review of it 

 extant worthy of being classed under the 

 head of scientific investigation and criticism. 

 All attempt at criticism of Progress and 

 Poverty as a whole is mere pettifogging. 



Rent is a social product. The exclusive 

 possession of land is a special privilege 



granted by society. Society should realize 

 one hundred cents on a dollar for its re- 

 sources. Instead of so doing, it squanders 

 them, gives them away. In throwing away 

 its resources Government pursues a course 

 that would bankrupt any private business. 

 But, unlike private individuals, it has the 

 power to recoup its losses by force, by prey- 

 ing upon individuals — taking their property 

 without giving anything in return. In so 

 doing it violates all the laws of equity and 

 propriety fully recognized in private trans- 

 actions. Men in dealing with each other 

 give value received, or at least make a pre- 

 tense of so doing. Government, however, 

 does not even make the pretense, but takes 

 our personal property by force without even 

 claiming that the tax is in proportion to 

 benefits conferred. 



But this is the will of the ignorant mi- 

 jority, also of pretentious scientists and 

 teachers of morals. My first prescription 

 for making " sound individuals " is to teach 

 them the good old maxim, "Equal rights to 

 all, special privileges to none," and then to 

 show them the application of this principle 

 to society's administration of the land. 



Your criticism of socialism, and any 

 scheme whereby employers would be com- 

 pelled to hire the unemployed, is valid. 

 Single taxers, however, ask only that the 

 unemployed have eqvMl access to natural op- 

 portunities. Granted that those having 

 more capital can make better use of natural 

 opportunities, but where does capital itself 

 come from ? With equal access to the land, 

 whence capital is derived, men would quick- 

 ly employ themselves, and would soon pro- 

 vide themselves with capital ; if they did 

 not, they could make no reasonable com- 

 plaint. 



You say : " The more, for our own part, 

 we look into these questions, the more we 

 are driven back to the conviction that the 

 way out which is so much desired lies in the 

 improvement of individual character, with 

 consequent mcrease of individual power and 

 better adaptation to surrounding conditions. 

 As it is, we find that the well-developed in- 

 dividualities can take care of themselves 

 pretty well ; they have the power of adapt- 

 ing themselves to their surroundings, and 

 taking so useful a part in the world's work 

 that, even under the much-abused capital- 

 istic system, they thrive very well." 



When men arrive upon this earth, as 

 millions do, and find it owned and their right 

 to equal access to it denied, they are unde- 

 niably at about as great a disadvantage as it 

 is possible to conceive ; and it is worse than 

 mockery to tell them that "the way out 



