THE FARMER AND SOCIALISM. 420 



with the pledge of the whole that negotiations shall proceed 

 decently and in order, and with the power of the whole inter- 

 posed as a last resort. But as a farmer I object to a program 

 involving as its first step an act of injustice to me, and having 

 its ultimate end based on the fallacy that the interests of man- 

 kind are, or can become, identical, or that individuals and 

 classes will ever cease to seek their own advantage as opposed 

 to that of others, when, as a matter of fact, human interests 

 will always be diverse, and individuals and classes will always 

 seek to accomplish their own ends. No one can deny this to 

 be a just position for farmers to take, or that it has the 

 support of the farmers generally. Their numbers are and 

 always will be sufficient to prevent reconstruction of society 

 on irrational grounds, and their strong common sense, unim- 

 paired by daily contact with enthusiasts, will not fail to detect 

 the fallacies which lie at the bottom of Socialism. It is not 

 on such lines that society can be reconstructed. 



The ownership of ordinary land is mainly valuable to the 

 farmer in that it gives him steady work whereby, if he directs 

 his work well, he may obtain a livelihood. It is the improve- 

 ments on land which usually give it value, and these represent 

 the savings of individuals. The improved lands of the world 

 almost certainly could not be valued at what the improvements 

 have cost, or sold for what it would cost to replace them. The 

 farmer of moderate means is simply a laborer with the use of 

 somebody's savings invested in improvements, and the guar- 

 anty of steady work at small pay so long as he makes no seri- 

 ous mistake. Money paid for farm land or its use is usually 

 simply a bi)nus })aid in advance for a steady job. In so far 

 as value has been given to land by improvements for which 

 the ownev did not pay, he was not entitled to it and should 

 never have received it, any more than the owner of a city lot 

 sliould have received the increment caused by the movement 

 of population. Any method which for the future may conserve 

 such increment for the general benefit of society, should receive 

 the support not only of farmers, but of all men, and would 

 receive tliat of a vast majority. AVliat has been sequestrated 

 in times past, of this increment, is something lost, which, 



