Heview of Reviews, 1J12/06. 



The New Individualism. 



549 



to do tile wiirk as a rule in the most efficient and 

 most econnniical \va\ . 



THK BETE NOIRE OF SOCIALISM. 

 The great fault underhing all Socialistic theories 

 is the failure tu realise the beneficence of competition, 

 and has led to the most chaotic and terrible results. 

 Therefore, they say, it should be abolished, and not 

 only competition but liberty too, and an artificial 

 state introduced which would be even w'orse, if that 

 Ihne possible, than the existing regime. Even Benja- 

 imin Kidd. who probed the social problem in such 

 .a masterly wa\ , and whose conclusions are generally 

 sound, took what I conceive to be an entirely wrong 

 view of competition, which he regarded as antag- 

 -onistic to the wellbeing of the communitv, or at 

 any rate as sacrificing the happiness of the present 

 generation at the shrine of a progressive posterity, 

 .and, consequently, as requiring the support of some 

 ultra-rational sanction in the shape of religion to 

 induce society at large to tolerate its continued 

 'Existence. Nevertheless competition rightly under- 

 stood, instead of being the greatest enemy of 

 society, is its greatest friend. The position of those 

 who, seeing how men are forced by competition to 

 the extreme of wretchedness, jump to the conclusion 

 that competition should be abolished was aptly 

 •compared by Henry George to that of men who, 

 seeing a house burn down, would prohibit the use 

 of fire. What is wanted is a grain of imagination 

 like a mustard seed to enable us to realise how 

 beneficiently competition would work if it were re- 

 stored to its natural condition. So long as the pre- 

 sent system of land monopoly is allowed to prevail 

 competition must continue to do harm, and the 

 workers must continue to be ground down. The 

 ■very first task of the New Individualist would be to 

 put his axe to the tree of land monopoly, not bv 

 means of a crudely-designed progressive tax, such 

 as that proposed by the Labour Party, which would 

 operate most unjustly against the large landowner 

 ■while it would allow the small landowner to go scot 

 free, but by means of a tax on land values, apart 

 •from impro\-ements equally levied, falling on all 

 alike in proportion to the amount of value-bearing 

 land (for below a certain line land has no economic 

 value), which has been appropriated from the 

 general stock. This would be not only just to all 

 .parties, to the individual no less than to the com- 

 munity, but would have the most beneficent and far- 

 reaching effects, since it would force unused or only 

 partially-used land into the market, and would en- 

 able the would-be land-user to employ himself. If 

 '> -such a just and equable tax were imposed, the good 

 nffects of competition would soon begin to appear, 

 inr the uidening avenues of emplo\nient would 

 r.ii)idly absorl) all the available labour, and em- 

 ])l()yers would be c(im|)eting against each other for 

 iMirkers instead of. as now, workers comjieting 

 iL;ainst each other for employers. Under the pre- 

 sent systeni. moreii\cr. uwing to the miserable in- 



comes of the majority (if the ]ieople, on]}- the 

 meanest and cheapest goods ha\e anv chance of 

 being sold, and the strenuous competition among 

 manufacturers' producers and shojikeepers for the 

 patronage of the masses necessarily leads to the 

 production of the flimsiest and shoddiest of wari s. 

 But under the entirely new condition of society 

 which would be produced by the abolition of mono- 

 poly, and which people as a rule fail to realise 

 for want of the necessary grain of imagination, the 

 competition among the employers for workers would 

 raise wages to a far higher level than is possible 

 under the present regime, and the competition which 

 would then ensue for a higher class of goods would 

 totally rex'olutionise the present shoddv methods of 

 production. 



OLD AGE PENSIONS. 

 In dealing with such questions as old age pen- 

 sions and compulsory insurance, the new Indivi- 

 dualist would be guided by a principle which can- 

 not fail. He knows that if the laws of wealth dis- 

 tribution were allowed to have fair play — if land 

 monopoly were rooted out, protective tariffs abolish- 

 ed, and preference to Unionists repealed — e\erv 

 able-bodied and intelligent human being would be 

 easily able to earn a living, cultivate his or her 

 higher powers, bring up a family in com- 

 fort, and provide for a rainv day. The 

 new Individualist, therefore, would concentrate 

 all his powers in the endeavour to obtain 

 those great reforms, the negation of which is at 

 the root of all the hunger and nakedness, all the 

 mi.sery and squalor, whicn are the dominant notes 

 of the existing regime. It is the paramount duty 

 of the State to see that every one of its able-bodied 

 citizens has an equal opportunity of earning his 

 living, which he would have if the existing uniust 

 laws were abolished, in which case the worker would 

 be easily able to insure his life against accident and 

 to provide for his old age. Let the State do its 

 duty in the one case, and there would be no need 

 for it to overstep its duty in the other. Old age 

 pensions are, of course, supported by very many 

 from a feeling of s\mpathy with the lot of the 

 workers, whom the present unjust distribution of 

 wealth has deprived of the share which they have 

 legitimately earned, and who have therefore been 

 unable to insure their lives and to provide for their 

 old age. Old age pensions also find their strongest 

 supporters among the landowners and capitalists, 

 who would divert attention from reforms that are 

 needed by throwing the workers a sop, \\l:ich the 

 Deakin-Lyne clique, at the instance of the land- 

 owners, are shrewd enough to make the workers 

 themseKes [)rovide by taxing their tea and kerosene. 



TUB NEW INDIVIDUALIST. 



The new Individualist would scnrn to ciutv 

 fa\'our with the masses by sujjporting principle's 

 \vhieli he beliexed to be unsound and contrary to 



