Friday, April 29, 2016

Liberty is the Sworn Enemy of Titles - Benjamin Tucker 1881





Liberty is the Sworn Enemy of Titles by Benjamin Tucker 1881

Join my Facebook Group

See also 300 Books on DVDrom for Libertarians, Objectivists and Voluntaryists and Over 310 PDF Books on DVDrom for Atheists & Agnostics

The most deadly enemy of human progress is authority. It is incarnated in a million forms in every sphere of social growth. It arms itself with position, with titles, with heraldic emblems, with superstitions, lies, tricks, and trappings of all sorts Its source is human ignorance and credulity, and it is fed by the organized frauds who fatten on the spoils.

And yet authority, in itself, is not necessarily a dangerous principle. The great element of despotism in it lies in that false education which ignores the natural source of all true authority. The authority into which it is the purpose of Liberty to pour havoc and destruction is always an authority outside of the individual, never subject to his unconditional veto. To come to the point at once, the individual, and the individual alone, is the only true and inalienable source of authority, but can never assume to be authority to any one but himself without becoming a despot.

The first and foremost great fraud set up for purposes of plunder and slavery is God. Generally speaking, God is all things to all men, but, locally speaking, he is the particular thing for the particular field where the masses are to be gulled, robbed, and enslaved. Once settled that he is authority,—that his word is from the beginning and infallible,—and the theological putty-workers easily mould him to suit the various natives.

Now, nothing permanent can ever be accomplished in reform until this central figurehead, posited beyond the veto power of the individual, is demolished. If any man wants a companion God for his entertainment and instruction., let him have one. It would be a denial of Liberty to interfere with him. But the moment he attempts to set that God up as unquestioned authority for others, he becomes a public enemy and a spiritual pirate.

God himself, being a pure fiction, is of course harmless in himself. But the practical power for despotism lies in the theological putty-workers who lobby around the throne for office. These fellows are something tangible. They can kick, bite, scratch, handle a rack, play sleight-of-hand tricks with wafers, and extort at wholesale. They become sacrament-grubbers (spiritual landlords), pew-rent sharks (spiritual rack-renters), and despotic fee-fiends (spiritual "gombeen men") The success of the great spiritual steal is due largely to the decoration of their names with titles. It is Father A., Rev. Mr. B., Rt. Rev. Mr. C., his Reverence Mr. D., the Rev. Dr. E., Rev. Mr. F., D.D., etc , etc.


Chiefly from the fact that the central figure, God, overshadows their ecclesiastical petticoats, but largely from the mysterious trappings and titles with which they endow themselves, these fellows become recognized as God's cabinet. The pope is the Almighty's secretary of state. He is prime minister of the spiritual kingdom. The Catholic clergy may be said to be the religious stalwarts, and the Protestant pastors the half-breeds. Enough, these ecclesiastical office-holders become authority, but, nevertheless, s kind of authority that can be reached and made to earn an honest living, if their victims can be induced to abolish the bogus fiction, God, behind them.

But it is by no means in the theological field alone that authority suppresses progress. We have a mental hierarchy in society scarcely less dangerous than he spiritual, and generally in alliance with it. This intellectual popery has its headquarters in the colleges, and illuminates its tricks to stultify with that professional whitewash known as scholarship. By a skilful use of titles, scholarly uniforming, and learned posing, mediocrity, narrowness, and hypocrisy manage to usurp the places of the world's truly great thinkers and broadly-educated men. The colleges, and the tilled numskulls who run them, become authority, and the average man or woman who visits those public ignorance-nurseries called libraries must needs first consult the title-page of a book in order to gauge the depth of thought in it by the length of the author's titles and the standing of the college which endowed him with them.

Liberty is the sworn enemy of titles. It demands their immediate and unconditional surrender. Not that we deny the right of an individual (for himself) to carry as many titles to his name as he chooses; but no man who attaches Rev., D.D., LL.D., M.D., or any other heads and tails to his social kite has the right to ask anybody else to use them in addressing him. When the social heresy and mischief of such priestly and scholarly tricks become evident in the light of Liberty, these mental popes and priests will find it difficult to steal into the popular mind without paying Nature's required admission fee of merit.

Even outside of recognized orthodoxy in religion and education there is a numerous set of quasi liberals, who attempt to steal the livery of authority through what they choose to Call "culture." Abbot of the "Index" became so puffed up with culture that he finally went up and drifted away. Many of the present participants in the so-called Free Religious movement have culture on the brain, to an extent that renders them quite as worthless as, and vastly more contemptible than the learned dolts whom Wendell Phillips called to order last summer at Harvard College. The spirit of popery among professing liberals is more insulting than in any other place. This eternal harping on culture which has been the key note of the "Free Religious Index" since its rise is simply a surreptitious attempt to make culture an authority in the place of the D.D.s, LL.D.s and other devices of the orthodox. Abbot's attempt to organize his culture into a "consensus of the competent" was proof plain and palpable that he simply served the papal system of authority in the livery of a liberal.

Liberty insists that the individual is an authority greater than gods, hierarchs, professionals, culturists, purists, and all the other pretenders who, under one guise or another, attempt to steal into the human mind and soul through some scheme independent of their true merits. Whoever attempts to make a petty God, even out of so great a sham as Abbot's "culture," is an ally of the pope and a follower of his methods. Ho who sets up a "consensus of the competent," deifies purity, virtue, yea, Liberty itself, to the extent of making an authority of it, is an enemy of his kind. Purity, virtue, culture, — all these half-breed petty gods of the Free Religionists,—what are they more than somebody's undefined ideals, binding only upon themselves as individuals? This humbuggery of setting up ideals as authority was disposed of by Plato over two thousand years ago, and it is a poor comment on the "culture" of these theoretical purists that they have profited so little by his immortal dialogues.

No, there is but one way to Liberty, and all the other shifts of "advanced culture" are sure to lead to despotism in the end. That way is to accord to the individual full discretionary power in all matters of opinion, conscience, and the conduct of life. And that power is not accorded to him, when, by any means, fair or foul, he is asked to subscribe to any god, scheme, ideal, or fiction, with the implication that the given machine is in any sense authority. All we ask of God and all his hangers-on is to get out of our sunlight, mind their own business, pay their own bills, and save their own souls, so that we can save ours,—if we choose to. But even the right to go to hell, at our own cost and on our own merits or demerits, is a sacred prerogative of Liberty.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Socialism, Individualism and the United States by Rome G Brown 1917



Socialism, Individualism and the United States by Rome Green Brown 1917

Join my Facebook Group

See also American History & Mysteries, Over 200 PDF Books on DVDrom

The social and political theory upon which our Government is based is the very opposite of that of Socialism. Socialism means a direct and pure democracy in government,—a government by mob rule, a subjection of the individual citizen to the whim and caprice of temporary passion, a government without the intervention of courts or of representative, deliberative legislation. It means an obliteration of property rights and of individual liberties and rights, except as the citizen shall per se become a silent partner in the fruits, if there be any, of enterprises owned and managed by the State. Under Socialism, prosperity depends, not upon individual ambition, effort and thrift, but, rather, upon the displacement of competition and of the exercise of talent and of effort by the individual, by a subjection of individual talent, and enterprise to the direct control of the State. Individual prosperity and property rights are to be submerged in State control. Likewise individual, talent, incentive, effort and motive for effort and for thrift, and all their fruits,—all are to be submerged in State control. Property rights and personal rights and liberties are to be lost under the paternalistic and tyrannical sovereign power of the socialistic democracy.

Our Constitution was written as a manifestation of the world's greatest revolt, by a united people, against, not only the tyranny of monarchy but also against the tyranny of democracy. For the very reason that Socialism is radically democratic, it is even more susceptible of tyranny to the individual than any tyranny of monarchy.

BUY: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin R. C. Gutzman

The Magna Carta, wrested from King John at Runnymede, was the great protest of the English-speaking world against the tyrannical invasion of the individual rights and liberties of the citizen. Its real force, however, in English jurisprudence, was never adequately felt, until, in the form of the Bill of Rights, it became a part of our Constitution, wherein the enforcement of the individual rights and liberties therein declared was vouchsafed by express limitations upon the legislative power. Our Constitution declared individual property rights and liberties and at the same time safeguarded their maintenance by the fundamental law which was made controlling upon all law-making power of the States and of the Nation. Freedom from unauthorized search or imprisonment, freedom of religion, and, above all, the right to acquire and hold property, and the right of individual liberty in all social and business relations,—the efficient protection of these individual rights was, more than anything else, the purpose, and the accomplishment, of our Constitutional Government.

Of course, where the right of private property exists there must be inequalities of fortune, varying as the diligence, skill, effort and thrift of the individual varies. The socialist would level all inequalities of fortune, simply because he deems that such leveling would conduce to the welfare of the now less prosperous. He would accomplish that object by direct confiscation if feasible; otherwise by indirect means. He would ignore, and as soon as possible abolish, all constitutional guaranties by which private property rights are now protected.

In a recent case the United States Supreme Court said:

"No doubt, wherever the right of private property exists, there must and will be inequalities of fortune; * * * Since it is self-evident that, unless all things are held in common, some persons must have more property than others, it is from the nature of things impossible to uphold freedom of contract and the right of private property without at the same time recognizing as legitimate those inequalities of fortune that are the necessary result of the exercise of those rights. But the Fourteenth Amendment, in declaring that a State shall not 'deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law,' gives to each of these an equal sanction; it recognizes 'liberty' and 'property' as co-existent human rights, and debars the States from any unwarranted interference with either.

"And since a State may not strike them down directly it is clear that it may not do so indirectly, as by declaring in effect, that the public good requires the removal of those inequalities that are but the normal and inevitable result of their exercise, and then invoking the police power in order to remove the inequalities, without other object in view. The police power is broad, and not easily defined, but it cannot be given the wide scope that is here asserted for it, without in effect nullifying the constitutional guaranty." [Coppage vs. Kansaa, 236 U.S. 1, 17-18]

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Sunday, April 24, 2016

The Socialism of the French Revolution by W Lawler Wilson 1909

The Socialism of the French Revolution and its Consequences by W Lawler Wilson 1909

Join my Facebook Group

See also The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom and Over 300 Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics on DVDrom

The tendencies of the great proletarian movement, whose head interpreter was Robespierre, found expression in numberless speeches and acts of a communistic character, and in a series of measures of sheer State Socialism. The doctrine of equality preached since the beginning of the Revolution had generally been construed in a political and moral sense: the Jacobin-Communist party took the momentous first steps towards economic equality, and thereby founded the Socialist movement. Robespierre announced, in words which have been echoed in recent years by an English Socialist, now a Cabinet minister, that 'the richest of Frenchmen should not have more than a hundred and twenty pounds a year.' St. Just declared riches to be infamous. Marat, without realising the full force of his doctrine, had previously propounded the theory that 'equality of rights must lead to equality of enjoyments.' During the ascendency of the Jacobin movement, the economic tendency became more and more pronounced, and the Commune was particularly active in promoting Socialist measures.

The result was the establishment of a form of government resembling, as closely as human nature permits, the Socialist State. The omnipotence of the State over the individual in all the relations of life was the principle of the government. The State claimed the right of nationalising i.e. confiscating all forms of private property. It seized and doled out supplies of food. It attempted to prevent the appropriation of surplus value by sending capitalists to prison for the crime of making profit to the amount of six or ten per cent. It decreed the abolition of all life insurance societies and private share companies. It interfered with the investment of money, and with speculation in the staples of commerce. It endeavoured to stifle private enterprise in commerce and
industry, and to divert all private capital to the coffers of the State. It forced farmers and merchants to render schedules of all the provender they held in store. To check the rise in prices which its own expropriatary measures had caused, it introduced the hateful 'law of the maximum' which forbade traders to charge more than a fixed schedule of prices for their goods, whatever the loss to themselves. Projects of the most complete and advanced Socialism were canvassed. 'The idea was even entertained of seizing the material and the workmen alike for the service of the State, and converting all France into one vast manufactory in the employment of Government.' And, be it noted again, the reign of all these extravagant ideas, false principles, and tyrannous practices
was the direct and natural result to society of tolerating the early stages of a dangerous propaganda. Robespierre announced that 'Society must provide for the support of all its members' a piece of pure Socialism. In order to cope with the terrible destitution produced by the Revolution, public workshops were thrown open in Paris, and steady employment was offered at standard wages to all who required it: and they were many. Workers flocked to the capital, and the Commune was forced to find employment at the public expense for thirty thousand men. In the State Socialism of 1793 we have the true and undeniable origin of all Socialism which has been advocated since. In inviting Society to accept this scheme, Socialists are therefore, in effect, asking that
the State Socialism of the French Revolution shall be given another trial; or, in the alternative, that we shall be so foolish as to believe that a system which could only be introduced by intimidation and supported by terrorism, can now, after a short interval of a century, be tested without danger and brought in without bloodshed.

In another direction foundations were laid on which successive leaders of the Communist-Socialist movement have built. This was in connection with the institution of marriage. The emancipation of women was always a leading item in the Jacobin programme, and the form taken by the emancipation was necessarily hostile to marriage 'the sacrament of adultery' as it was viciously described at the time. For the proletarian movement was in general opposition to the established order, and marriage, as the keystone of that order, could not fail to be attacked. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that a great appeal to the Cossack appetite of the proletariat could possibly spare the Christian charter of womankind. St. Just declared that 'a man and a woman who love one another are
married,' and this idea was carried out in the remarkable Civil Constitution which he introduced to the Convention in Robespierre's name. In this there was Communism of the most fatal kind. Under the new dispensation a man and a woman were to cohabit as a preliminary to marriage, which would not become a binding institution until after the birth of the first child. Boys, at a certain age, were to be taken from their parents and brought up by the State.

Buy: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell 

Such were the acts, measures, and principles of the proletarian movement during the French Revolution. In that period every cardinal Socialist principle and every favourite Socialist palliative was put to the test. The omnipotence of the State over the individual; the nationalisation of land; the collectivisation of capital; the appropriation of the means of production; the State organisation of industry; the substitution of public for private enterprise; the adjustment of taxation to redress the inequalities of social wealth; the recognition of the right, and the enforcement of the duty, to work; the bestowal of extensive powers on the municipalities; the establishment of workshops for the unemployed; the distribution of free food all these articles of the Socialist programme were put into force and supported with all the energy of an absolute executive.

And what was the net result of these herculean efforts to ameliorate the lot of the working-classes, prevent the appropriation of surplus value, organise labour, and check social waste? In Alison's words, 'The aspect of France was that of universal destitution. One would have thought that the whole wealth which centuries of industry had accumulated, had suddenly been swallowed up.'

Human nature and intelligence revolted against the system. There was a violent perturbation of values. Private incomes fell to vanishing point, and public expenditure was inflated to an almost incredible degree. The capitalists and the middle class, indeed, were ruined; but the working-class was simultaneously reduced to beggary. Every economic stroke delivered at the luxuries of one rich man fell on the necessities of a score of workers. There was first an immense accumulation, and, later, an immense repudiation of national debt. It was found an economic impossibility to enrich the poor by impoverishing the rich. The system tended to intensify and perpetuate itself up to the breaking-point by its own vices. Thus as the municipalities throughout France copied the Paris Commune, they increased the distress and unemployment which they intended to cure, and thereby widened the breach between the classes. Their extravagance, their megalomania, their neglect of commonplace duties, and their trick of posing as Parliaments, contributed powerfully to the disorganisation of the country, laid the foundations of State Socialism, and eventuated in a state of municipal anarchy, from which only the steel hand of Napoleon evolved order.

In concluding this survey it is well to recapitulate the political articles as distinct from the economic already enumerated which the proletarian movement has transmitted to the Socialist party. These, in addition to the class war, and the sovereignty of the proletariat, are the spoliation of the Church; the secularisation of the State; the establishment of a serviceable instrument of insurrection, in the form of a proletarian militia not under military law; and the principle of local autonomy, with the Free Commune as the administrative unit.

The price paid by France the vicarious sufferer for Europe on that occasion for having allowed her municipal system to be made the stepping-stone to State Socialism, was heavy indeed. Social war,
national bankruptcy, municipal anarchy, and the Reign of Terror these great consequences are imprinted on the page of history as a permanent warning to European society against the light and careless treatment of a movement which, beginning as a plausible municipal and working-class reform, is terrible only because it has behind it the latent forces of expropriation.

In maintaining that the movement whose early development I have traced here is the true source of modern Socialism, I do not stand alone. Six authors cited in this section Gooch, Mallet, Helmolt, Rambaud, Lewes, and Alison separately corroborate this judgment, each from his own point of view. The position of Robespierre in relation to the movement is not the subject of quite the same consensus of opinion: its prominence is better appreciated than its significance. But if the movement of 1793 were in truth the parent of the movement of 1909; if, as I hold, the movement is one organic whole reappearing in successive stages pushing on blindly, tenaciously, terribly, despite all past defeats, towards a veritable Armageddon of European classes; then assuredly Robespierre, the master-interpreter of the original phase, must be regarded as the founder of the Socialist movement.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Friday, April 22, 2016

There is No Such Thing as Dishonest Wealth by Guy Morrison Walker 1922



There is no Such Thing as Dishonest Wealth by Guy Morrison Walker 1922

Join my Facebook Group

See also Capitalism in America - 100 Books on DVDrom  and The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

All wealth must have been honestly created originally. If it is in the hands of one who does not deserve it, it can only have reached there in a distinct way. One can steal that which another has produced but the world has always recognized thievery and punished it. The producer of wealth may have a gambler’s instinct and risk it in a gambling venture, as so many do, but it is impossible to denounce the winner in a gambling proposition and excuse the loser. The producer of wealth may be, as he often is, a spendthrift in which case he squanders it, or he may be incompetent in the matter of management and care or conservation, in which case he wastes it.

The existence of so many millionaires is in itself evidence of the extreme carelessness and improvidence of the mass of mankind. For if they were careful and thrifty and saved the surpluses that they make there would not be so much wealth scattered around for the tireless gleaners or the industrious scavengers to gather up. Remember the fortunes made out of the garbage business!

President Elliott of Harvard declaims with great force against “the abuse of great salaries in corporations,” and declares that the huge salaries of recent times enormously overpay their recipients, and he insists that the exaggerated salary is not really necessary either to get or to keep the best men.

How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present by Thomas DiLorenzo

In a corporation of which I have knowledge, a Vice-President drawing a salary of thirty thousand dollars a year, devised a new method of handling his company’s business that saved them six hundred thousand dollars in a single year. By his single device he saved that company enough to pay the entire cost of his services for twenty years, and no one can tell what he will yet be worth to the company in the future. The truth is that this man is not being paid for his services at all but he is actually paying 95 per cent of what he earns to the corporation for the privilege of serving it, and this is far less rather than more than what most men of brains pay to the mediocre mass of mankind for the privilege of serving the ignorant and unappreciative people, who declaim against them.

One of the great insurance companies, that has for years kept a record of dishonesty and breach of faith in business, has called attention repeatedly in recent years to the enormous growth of dishonesty among the masses of the people. It does not pretend to give a reason for this growth of dishonesty, but there can be no doubt that it is largely, if not entirely, due to the constant preaching of inequity, to a general repudiation on the part of the mass, of the property rights of the thrifty and saving in the product of their thrift and to the inculcation of the theory that what belongs to corporations or institutions belongs to anybody, and that the thief in stealing from them is merely taking back a part of what belongs to him.

What can you expect of the ignorant masses of people, when the Chief Executive of the Nation makes such a statement as this:

"They grew richer and richer until it became a national scandal.”

Are the masses of the people to be encouraged to thrift and persuaded to save a competence for their old age if it is a scandal to grow rich?

Senator Tillman, after spending most of his life in attacking wealth, in his old age realized his mistake, and in one of his last speeches said:

“Men with means have their place in the scheme of civilization, let them spend their money for works of art and bring them into this country free that they may be an inspiration to our own artists. If there were no inequalities of wealth we would have no palaces, no art, no progress, no civilization. Equality is found only among savages.”

Even William J. Bryan has seen a light. At a recent meeting of laboring men he said: “The reward of labor is increased by the man of executive ability. I recognize that there is a talent that may be called ‘executive talent,’ and that it is highly useful in the organization of industry, and it is entitled to its just reward. What is left over for labor is larger than what would be left if industry were not organized.”

The talent for organization and management is so rare that its possessor invariably secures enormous rewards no matter where he lives or under what laws or conditions he works.

As Andrew Carnegie well said: "The ability of a man, whose services can be obtained as a partner, is not only the first consideration, but is such a consideration that if he have the ability, his lack of capital is scarcely worth considering. For a man with ability soon creates capital, but without the special talent required, the capital invested behind him soon takes wings.”

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

America a Republic, Not a Democracy by Edward N. Dingley 1922



America a Republic, Not a Democracy by Edward Nelson Dingley 1922

Join my Facebook Group

See also American History & Mysteries, Over 200 PDF Books on DVDrom

IN AN admirable and patriotic address in the United States Senate on "Peace by Compromise," Henry Cabot Lodge said: "We intend to make the world safe for democracy. But what exactly do we mean by democracy?"

This is a question saturating the minds of serious and thoughtful people who care less for politics and more for country. What is meant by the phrase "making the world safe for democracy?"

There is no word in the English language more misused and misunderstood than this much-abused word "democracy." Born in ancient Greece, it has come down through the ages as a shibboleth of the self-seeking and a talisman of the unscrupulous. A synonym of the age-long struggle of humanity toward what we call civilization, it has well-nigh degenerated into a hackneyed word where familiarity breeds contempt, almost.

Solon's democracy in Greece was a failure, ending after thirty years of strife, in a tyranny more pronounced than ever. Solon's theory was admirable but his machinery would not work. However, out of the ruins came one good thing, namely an inspiration to a national spirit embodied in military glory. Thermopylae and Salamis will stand forth always as glorious achievements of democracy.

Pericles, a child of democracy, was a wise autocrat and shrewd statesmen. He carefully concealed the weakness of democracy under the cloak of his own unselfishness. Deposed, he was a victim of his own democracy. The age of Pericles was renowned not because of democracy, but because of the character of Pericles. At his death, political and social disease wrought havoc. Democracy was condemned; Solon and Pericles denounced. Socrates was the product of democracy, yet he was the victim of his own philosophy of government. In short, all the experiments in various degrees of democracy were tried at some time in ancient Greece; and the Hellenic Empire fell a victim to Rome.

At the height of its glory, when the legions of the Caesars stretched from Jerusalem to Britain, the Roman people never enjoyed the "blessings of democracy." Viewing the ruins of Hellas, the Romans did not believe in democracy. Unbridled democracy derives no comfort either from Athens or from Rome. Nor did the Reformation, a Parliamentary government or a Republic in the western hemisphere, have their origin in democracy. Personal liberty from tyranny in all forms was the moving cause.

Democracy--The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe 

The Continental Congress was purely representative. There was no thought of democracy. The Revolution was fought not to establish democracy, but to establish liberty from foreign political and commercial oppression. Thomas Paine, who in 1776 turned the scale in favor of the independence by publishing his "Common Sense," said not a word about democracy. Independence was the central and controlling thought. The Declaration of Independence says nothing about democracy; in fact the word does not appear in the entire document. The original Articles of Confederation said nothing about democracy.

When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, three facts loomed high and clear: First, a democracy was never thought of or suggested; Second, a representative Republic was essential; Third, a strong and powerful central government was necessary. Throughout the debates, there was no suggestion of a democracy. The thread of a Republic ran through the warp and woof of the entire instrument. The word "democracy" does not appear in the Federal Constitution. The first article and fourth section of that document recites: "The United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government."

Therefore from the days of Athens in all her glory to the hour when the Federal Constitution was framed, more than twenty centuries, democracy never prevailed successfully. Political and civil liberty advanced tremendously, but always through the instrumentality of representative government, and the extension of the right of suffrage. The English Reform Bill of Rights gave universal suffrage, but it did not make England a democracy. Popular sovereignty and universal suffrage in America does not make America a democracy. The checks and balances, the entire electoral system, run counter to a democracy. The steadily widening functions of the Federal government indicate a purpose to check the evils of too much democracy. The United States is, and always was, a Republic, not a democracy.

The French Revolution and immigration to the United States marked the beginning of the modern idea of democracy in America. Jefferson's party was called the "democratic party" in derision, for alleged sympathy with the French revolutionists. From that day to the present, America has been the scene of political and social controversies between factions, the one clinging to the form of representative government, the other seeking political power under the cloak of democracy. The great issue evolved into a struggle between national rights and state rights. This clash continued until the close of the Civil War, which should have settled the question finally whether America is a Republic or a democracy; but it did not.

In recent years the word democracy has taken on an entirely new and manifestly exaggerated meaning. In popular parlance, it has suddenly become the key to humanity's progress and the only hope of the world. The magic word "democracy" is brought forth on the lips of master magicians, and employed to fire the imagination of the unthinking. The cap-stone of this gorgeous structure is the phrase, "To make the world safe for democracy." It set in motion political, social and economic forces that, if unchecked, may lead to serious difficulties, if not disaster.

What is meant by "democracy" in the popular interpretation and in the public mind? Why is the word "democracy" so frequently and so loudly proclaimed to the populace? There is only one explanation — politics.

All the forces of disruption, all the isms and experiments long since tried and exploded, all the nostrums suggested by political quacks, have been trotted out under the shelter of "new democracy" and "new freedom." Is it not time for the Nation to stop, look and listen? Has not the hour for sober reflection arrived? Powerful forces are at work to bring about wbat is called "political, social and industrial democracy." If by political democracy is meant universal suffrage and participation in public affairs, we have it already, but in the form of a Republic, with representative machinery. If by social democracy is meant social equality, we should dismiss the thought, for such a thing is impossible in any nation or organized society. No frame-work of government, no law or fiat, can force equality of brains, culture, manners or blood. If by industrial democracy is meant the ownership in common of all the industries of society, and equality in the rewards of toil, it has been tried and failed.

Powerful forces backed by numbers have been set in motion by the careless and too-frequent use of the word "democracy." They may overwhelm the Republic if sober instruction and education are not undertaken at once. These forces are all linked together in a wild endeavor to bring about the millenium. We had a "social democracy" when the Federal government operated the railroads, the telegraphs, the telephones, the express companies, shipbuilding and many other private undertakings. All proved expensive failures, and the people are staggering under a mountain of debt and taxation due to these experiments in "social democracy."

A part of the program of "modern democracy" is a proposal to enter some sort of a society or association of nations "to maintain peace." It is said that the United States has outgrown its nationality, and that its destiny is in a new democracy of the world. Is this the democracy we desire? Must we surrender our national spirit and lay it on the altar of "new freedom" or "modern democracy?" Have the struggles and sacrifices of our forefathers been in vain? Is the destiny of the United States to be determined by a society of nations?

This Republic of ours is passing through a critical period, but it is still a Republic, not a democracy. It must remain a Republic if it is to survive. Yet a Republic can and will do justice to its citizens, reward all for services rendered, and correct evils as rapidly as possible. No society of men and women, no human government, is or can be perfect; but it is folly to burn the whole structure in order to mend a leak in the roof.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Monday, April 18, 2016

Labor's Role in Capitalism by Guy M Walker 1922



Labor's Role in Capitalism by Guy Morrison Walker 1922

See also Capitalism in America - 100 Books on DVDrom (Captains of Industry)

Join my Facebook Group

THE REWARD OF LABOR

The Laborer is Worthy of His Hire—But No More.
The common statement made by those who attack wealth that the rich have accumulated their wealth by robbing the poor, is not and never has been true. The poor never produce as much as they consume. That is the reason they are poor and have nothing of which to be robbed. While wealth is the surplus product of production over and above consumption.

Some men have imagination, vision, initiative, daring, executive ability, call it what you will, but it is that which leads them to dare and to do, while the great mass of men refuse to do anything unless somebody else takes the responsibility for it. The greatest and oldest game in the world is "Passing the buck.”

Wherever you go you will find two classes of people, those who are serving and those who are being served. There is just one reason for the difference between the two classes. Those who are being served either have themselves been thrifty and saved something, or they have had someone before them who has been thrifty and saved something, while those who serve have never saved anything nor had anyone to do it for them.

If the five per cent. of our people who have accumulated and were the possessors of most of the wealth in this country had not saved their surplus and in this manner piled up the wealth that made it possible for us to spend and lend forty billion dollars in winning the war, our whole population would have been enslaved, and most if not all of the laborers who are now condemning wealth would be engaged in involuntary and unpaid work for the German armies. It is a serious question whether thrift can be nourished and further wealth accumulated for the protection of the race unless the thrifty and the industrious are relieved from the taxation, forced upon them by the demands of labor, which has destroyed the many little fortunes and competencies which our previous American policy has encouraged as an evidence of good citizenship.

The injustice and uneconomic character of the attacks upon wealth have been proven by the fact that since we entered the war, the salvation of our country, depending upon making the best use of the wealth of the country and of the things created by and representing that wealth, has required of the Government the suspension of practically every law that it had previously passed, imposing these unjust and uneconomic burdens upon wealth. It is doubtful if the war could have been won if the administration had been compelled to observe the laws for the regulation of wealth that it had passed for the purpose of penalizing and plundering the private owners of wealth.

It is one of the curious things in connection with the attack on great business corporations and the efficient service which they render through their command of great ability and large capital, that they reduce prices. Their incompetent and inefficient competitors always claim that this reduction of prices is due to some sort of secret rebate, or is a deliberate underselling to force them out of business, and ignore the prime economic feature of the whole business, which is that the reduced prices inure to the benefit of the mass of people who are the consumers of the product.

It is strange indeed that these enemies of wealth and efficiency are able to command the hearing that they do when the thing that they ask is that people shall compel efficiency and capital to charge a higher price to consumers than is economically necessary in order to give their inefficient and uneconomic competitors a chance to exist at the expense of the people, who would be better served by the large corporation with its better product produced at a less cost.


Practically every law that has been passed in response to popular clamor against wealth has been to declare criminal some practice that was economically sound and morally just, in an effort to handicap the efficient and economical business operations of able men and give the incompetent, the little and the mean, an opportunity to live off of the necessities of the poor. What is needed is not a reformation of business methods, but a repeal of unjust and uneconomical laws that are hindering and preventing the able and the efficient from giving the masses of the people the benefit of economic production and cheap distribution.

The legislation which has prevented this and kept alive the expensive, inefficient and uneconomic little business men, is the thing which above everything else has raised and keeps up the cost of living.

Few people realize how the great developments which have made possible the luxury and comfort in which they are living are due not only to the existence of wealth but to the courage, foresight and real beneficence of wealth.

Our people have so long been relieved from the primitive methods of harvesting and are so ignorant of the use of the hand-sickle, or of the flail, or of the threshing floor, that they do not realize how much of labor has been saved and how much of wealth has been created for the farmers by the invention of harvesting machinery.

The money made by the harvesting companies is a small percentage of what their devices and machinery have saved not only the farmer but all the people who consume farm products; yet our people have been taught that the International Harvester Company is the last word in plundering practice, thievery, and unfair tactics.

Andrew Carnegie, in his “Gospel of Wealth,” called attention to the great changes in the standards of living brought about by modern manufacturing methods based on the use of great capital. In the primitive days before wealth in large quantities existed, articles were manufactured at the domestic hearth, or in small shops, which formed part of the household. The master and his apprentices worked side by side. The apprentices lived with the master, and when they rose to be masters in their turn, there was little or no change in their mode of life, and they in their turn educated in the same routine, their apprentices.

The inevitable result of such a method of manufacture was crude articles at high prices like the handmade nail. Today, with machines made possible by wealth; with manufacture in quantity made possible by large capital, the world obtains commodities of excellent quality at prices which even the generation before this would have deemed not only impossible but unbelievable. The result is that the poor today enjoy what the rich of those times could not even afford. The luxuries of those days are the commonest of our necessities today. The poorest laborer lives with more comforts than were possible for the richest of men a hundred years ago. The advance is due entirely to accumulated wealth and to its use as capital in production, and he would be indeed a foolish student of social conditions to claim that the masses of the race have not benefited thereby.

The real truth is that competition as we know it never existed, and never could exist, under the conditions that prevailed before the introduction of modern transportation methods. Each community was more or less self-supporting and it was impossible for any distant iron merchant to compete with the local blacksmith, who manufactured such iron horseshoes as were necessary for his local customers, but with the development of modern transportation along with modern industrial efficiency, true competition has been developed. Whether the law of competition be good or evil, it is here. Evolution is competition! We must recognize it and adapt ourselves to it.

It is idle to pretend that competition can be preserved in some things and eliminated in others. In an effort to preserve competition, our laws have been drafted to prevent combination or the adoption of devices by wealth or capital, that would eliminate competition, but when individual men or bodies of men organized into labor unions find themselves compelled by the operation of the same law to work at high tension or to starve, they protest bitterly and cry out against competitive conditions, and endeavor to stop the operation of this natural law. The law of competition may seem hard or cruel in its operation in individual instances yet there can be no doubt that it is best for the race. Labor was not indulged in by the savage for it took little effort to satisfy his wants, and although we have traveled far from savagery, there are still but few individuals among few races who have learned to work voluntarily. The law of competition, therefore, has operated and will operate to insure the survival of those who have best developed the habits of work.

No man in the world can possibly consume all that he can produce, and if he works steadily at production he is bound to create a surplus. The only thing that prevents any man from piling up a surplus and so accumulating more or less wealth is his indisposition to keep up effort and to continue work when his consuming power is satisfied, or to take care of his surplus of production properly when it is created.

Political economists pay little attention to one of the greatest necessities for the constant production of surplus and the accumulation of wealth. Much of what we call wealth exists in the buildings and improvements that have been created out of surplus labor in the past, but these buildings rapidly deteriorate and depreciate or become obsolete and unfit for the location where they are, and must be destroyed and removed in order to replace them with better, more modern buildings suited for the needs of the community. This is only possible by the constant production of surplus wealth to cover or replace the wealth represented by the old buildings which must be destroyed, and to provide the surplus necessary for the erection of new. This constant deterioration and wasting away of wealth is a thing which has been given little notice, and yet it is true that there are not over two or three conspicuous private fortunes in the world today over one hundred years old.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Friday, April 15, 2016

Historic Failures in Early American Socialism by Daniel J Ryan 1920


Historic Failures in Early American Socialism by Daniel Joseph Ryan 1920

Join my Facebook Group

See also Over 300 Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics on DVDrom

In American history, at its very beginning, we find an experiment in socialism which by its failure forms the first lesson for Americans. When the company of adventurers sent out the first settlement to Virginia, it was conducted as a socialistic community, and it was the first attempt in this country at communism in labor and supply, in which all personal interest was eliminated and of which the common result of dissension, shiftlessness and insubordination resulted.

Dr. William Robertson in 1788 wrote The History of the Discovery and Settlement of America, in which he gives the history of Virginia to the year 1688. He describes the situation thus:

"During the interval of tranquility procured by the alliance with Powhatan, an important change was made in the state of the colony. Hitherto no right of private property in land had been established. The fields that were cleared had been cultivated by the joint labour of the colonists; their product was carried to the common storehouses, and distributed weekly to every family, according to its number and exigencies. A society, destitute of the first advantages resulting from social union, was not formed to prosper. Industry, when not excited by the idea of property in what was acquired by its own efforts, made no vigorous exertion. The head had no inducement to contrive, nor the hand to labour. The idle and improvident trusted entirely to what was issued from the common store; the assiduity even of the sober and attentive relaxed, when they perceived that others were to reap the fruit of their toil; and it was computed, that the united industry of the colony did not accomplish as much work in a week as might have been performed in a day, if each individual had laboured on his own account. In order to remedy this, Sir Thomas Dale divided a considerable portion of the land into small lots, and granted one of these to each individual in full property.

"From the moment that industry had the certain prospect of a recompense, it advanced with rapid progress. The articles of primary necessity were cultivated with so much attention as secured the means of subsistence; and such schemes of improvement were formed as prepared the way for the introduction of opulence into the colony."

The socialistic experiment of Virginia was applied to the settlement of New England by the Puritans. They, like the settlers in Virginia, were sent out by a company similar to that which settled Virginia and "a similar attempt at communism of labor and supply was made, this time under the most favorable conditions, among a people conscientious and bound together by strong religious enthusiasm." It was a dismal failure and was abolished by Governor William Bradford. In his History of the Plymouth Plantation he thus desribes the experience of the Pilgrim fathers:

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanite of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times—that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this communitie (so fare as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to worke for other mens wives and children with out any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, than he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe service for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongst men yet it did much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition."

The United States in the first half of the nineteenth century was a fertile ground for isms of all kinds. Its free institutions afforded a planting ground for the seeds of all sorts of doctrines and philosophies. During this period there were transplanted from France and England visionary projects, attempting to carry out the socialistic ideas embodied in the literature of centuries before. Cabet, the French author of Icaria, in 1848 contracted for a million acres of land in Texas, and planted thereon "Icaria" the city and community of his dreams. The individualistic sentiment of humanity that rests in every human heart broke loose in Icaria, the result of which was, after disappointments, harsh experience, bitter dissensions, the experiment was a pathetic failure. Cabet himself was expelled from the Society. It struggled on, however, in one form or another until 1895, when the last vestige disappeared.

There were two other Frenchmen who created, during this period, a most profound sociological impression in the United States. These were Compte De Claude Henri Saint-Simon, generally referred to as SaintSimon, and Charles Fourier. In addition to these was Robert Owen, an Englishman, who stands easily as the first of this grouping of Utopians, and he is generally known as the "Father of Modern Socialism." The doctrines of Saint-Simon were never practically applied in the United States, except as under and through the influence of Fourier. The associations formed for the purpose of carrying out community of life in this country came under these two divisions: the Owen movement and the Fourier movement.

Robert Owen came to this country and commenced his experiments in socialism in 1824. This was the beginning of a national excitement which had a course somewhat like that of a religious revival or a political campaign. Owen was full of zeal for the improvement of society; he conceived that he had discovered the cause of its evils in the law of meum et tuum; and that a state of society where there is nothing of mine or thine would be a paradise begun. He brooded on this idea until he was ready to sacrifice his own property, and devote his life to his fellow men upon this basis. Too discreet to inaugurate the new system among the poorer classes of England, whom he found perverted by prejudices and warped by the artificial forms of society there, he resolved to proceed to the United States and among the comparatively unperverted people, liberal institutions and cheap lands of the west to establish social communities founded upon common property, social equality and the equal value of every man's labor.

Buy: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Jean-Louis Panné

Fourierism was introduced into this country by Albert Brisbane, father of the celebrated editorial writer of to-day, and Horace Greeley, in 1842. Their communities were known as "Phalanxes." They established a community at Brook Farm, Massachusetts, and to this community there fled for refuge many of the most brilliant minds of that day, among them being Horace Greeley, of the New York Tribune; Park Godwin, a noted journalist; Charles A. Dana, afterwards of the New York Sun; Nathaniel Hawthorne; Ralph Waldo Emerson; Theodore Parker; Thomas W. Higginson, James Russell Lowell and the two well-known Unitarian ministers, George Ripley and William Henry Channing. Outside of the anti-slavery movement there was never gathered in New England a more remarkable galaxy of leaders of human thought. Brook Farm lasted five years. It fell to pieces largely on ac- • count of the strong personalities that formed its control.

We can well understand this, when we consider a small community in which Charles A. Dana and Horace Greeley were in constant, daily contact, or Henry James and Ralph Waldo Emerson. A writer of that period who was familiar with the operations of this community, says that it died from the "gift of tongues"—in other words, the eternal tendency of authors with ideas to express themselves, broke out here. If there is any one thing that cannot exist under and is absolutely incompatible with socialism it is the freedom of expression either by tongue or pen. Cabet was wise in his plan for "Icaria," when he forbade newspapers to exist within his settlement.

It is impossible to devote the time to a treatment of the operation and history of these experiments individually, but for the purpose of accuracy a recitation of these attempts, with their time of existence, forms a catalogue of the failure of applied socialism that is a great lesson to the student of this question.

The experiments of the Owen epoch are as follows:

1. Blue Spring Community; Indiana; no particulars, except that it lasted "but a short time."

2. Co-operative Society; Pennsylvania; no particulars.

8. Coxsackie Community; New York; capital "small;" "very much in debt;" duration between one and two years.

4. Forfestville Community; Indiana; "over 60 members;" 325 acres of land; duration more than a year.

5. Franklin Community; New York; no particulars.

6. Haverstraw Community; New York; about 80 members; 120 acres; debt $12,000; duration five months.

7. Kendal Community; Ohio; 200 members; 200 acres; duration about two years.

8. New Harmony; Indiana; 900 members; 30,000 acres, worth $150,000; duration nearly three years.

9. Nashoba; Tennessee; 15 members; 2,000 acres; duration about three years.

10. Yellow Springs Community; Ohio; 75 to 100 families; duration three months.

The experiments of the Fourier epoch are as follows:

1. Alphadelphia Phalanx; Michigan; 400 or 500 families; 2814 acres; duration two years and nine months.

2. Brook Farm; Massachusetts; 115 members; 200 acres; duration five years.

3. Brooke's Experiment; Ohio; few members; no further particulars.

4. Bureau County Phalanx; Illinois; small; no particulars.

5. Clarkson Industrial Association; New York; 420 members; 2000 acres; duration from six to nine months.

6. Clermont Phalanx; Ohio; 120 members; 900 acres; debt $19,000; duration two years or more.

7. Columbian Phalanx; Ohio; no particulars.

8. Garden Grove; Iowa; no particulars.

9. Goose Pond Community; Pennsylvania; 60 members; duration a few months.

10. Grand Prairie Community; Ohio; no particulars.

11. Hopedale; Massachusetts; 200 members; 500 acres; duration not stated, but commonly reported to be seventeen or eighteen years.

12. Integral Phalanx; Illinois; 30 families; 508 acres; duration seventeen months.

13. Jefferson Co. Industrial Association; New York; 400 members; 1200 acres of land; duration a few months.

14. Lagrange Phalanx; Indiana; 1000 acres; no further particulars.

15. Leraysville Phalanx; Pennsylvania; 40 members; 300 acres; duration eight months.

16. Marlboro Association; Ohio; 24 members; had "load of debt;" duration nearly four years.

17. McKean Co. Association; Pennsylvania; 30,000 acres; no further particulars.

18. Moorhouse Union; New York; 120 acres; duration "a few months."

19. North American Phalanx; New Jersey; 112 members; 673 acres; debt $17,000; duration twelve years.

20. Northhampton Association; Massachusetts; 130 members; 500 acres of land; debt $40,000; duration four years.

21. Ohio Phalanx; 100 members; 2,200 acres; deeply in debt; duration ten months.

22. One-Mind Community; Pennsylvania; 800 acres; duration one year.

23. Ontario Phalanx; New York; brief duration.

24. Prairie Home Community; Ohio; 500 acres; debt broke it up; duration one year.

25. Raritan Bay Union; New Jersey; few members; 268 acres.

26. Sangamon Phalanx; Illinois; no particulars.

27. Skaneateles Community; New York; 150 members; 354 acres; debt $10,000; duration two and onehalf years.

28. Social Reform Unity; Pennsylvania; 20 members; 2,000 acres; debt $2,400; duration about ten months.

29. Sodus Bay Phalanx; New York; 300 members; 1,400 acres; duration a "short time."

30. Spring Farm Association; Wisconsin; 10 families; duration three years.

81. Sylvania Association; Pennsylvania; 145 members; 2394 acres; debt $7,900; duration nearly three years.

32. Trumbull Phalanx; Ohio; 1500 acres; duration two and one-half years.

33. Washtenaw Phalanx; Michigan; no particulars.

34. Wisconsin Phalanx; 32 families; 1,800 acres; duration six years.

A recapitulation of the foregoing shows this: That the communities established by the Owen group of socialists were as follows;

In Indiana 3; in New York 3; in Ohio 2; in Pennsylvania 1; in Tennessee 1.

The Fourier groups were located as follows:

In Ohio 8; in New York 6; in Pennsylvania 6; in Massachusetts 3; in Illinois 3; in New Jersey 2; in Michigan 2; in Wisconsin 3; in Indiana 1; in Iowa 1.

The two groups combined were distributed as follows:

Ten in Ohio; nine in New York; seven in Pennsylvania; four in Indiana; three in Massachusetts; three in Illinois; two in New Jersey; two in Michigan; two in Wisconsin; one each in Tennessee and Iowa.

None of these associations lasted very long; and most of them died before they were two years old.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Wealth Created by Brains not Labor by Guy M. Walker 1922



Wealth Created by Brains not Labor by Guy Morrison Walker 1922


See also Capitalism in America - 100 Books on DVDrom (Captains of Industry)  and The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom


Join my Facebook Group

THE world has not been without great minds in the past, but Solon and Lycurgus, A though great law-givers were unable to invent the steam engine. Socrates, Plato, and Confucius, were great in the realm of ethics and metaphysics but they were unable to conceive electricity. Archimedes, Aristotle and Caesar, founded mechanics, logics and military engineering, but they were unable to invent the telegraph, the telephone or armor plate. Galileo, first conceived of our solar system, but he never dreamed of the mechanical devices of these times with which we measure the distance and light of the stars and determine the metals that constitute their physical makeup.

Social philosophers have ignored the most extraordinary thing that makes for human inequality, and that is, the diversity of ability and quality in the human mind. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary brains put to work on the identical problem can not solve it unless the problem be one within the comprehension of any single one of those thousands of ordinary minds. And, if it is within the understanding and comprehension of any one of those thousands of ordinary
minds, any one of them is just as good for the solving of that problem as the united efforts of the hundreds of thousands. But if the problem be beyond the understanding and comprehension of the ordinary mind it must wait for its solving for the rare appearance of one of those great minds of unique quality, who is able to solve it and who it sometimes seems is born for the purpose of solving it. One who when sent solves it for the benefit of the whole race. Those extraordinary brains constitute such a rare treasure for the world that when they appear the world should subsidize them and reduce their struggle for existence to a minimum so that these extraordinary brains can devote their whole energy to the intellectual effort of solving the heretofore unsolved problems of the race.

With all the great minds that the world has had from the beginning of time, it labored along with only man-power and animal-power, until Watt discovered the expansive force of steam, and substituted steampower for man-power. With all the great minds of the past, the world had to go along without steam locomotion until the extraordinary brain of Stephenson began the annihilation of space that is now well nigh accomplished. With all the great minds of the past, the human race was only able to invent a written record for itself about 5,000 years ago, and so we know nothing of the history of the race for the hundreds of thousands of years thru which it struggled up until then.

For nearly 5,000 years, the only way its greatest and best minds were able to make such a record was to chisel a few inscriptions in clay or on the face of stone, or to laboriously transcribe them by hand on skins and barks. With the reproduction of books possible only by long-hand transcription, it was impossible for knowledge to become diffused or for education to become general. Not until Gutenberg and Faust adapted the Chinese art of printing to European alphabets was it possible for the carefully copied ideas of the world's best minds to become generally distributed.

With all the great minds that the world has produced the race struggled along in physical darkness while fear and superstition peopled the night with demons and ghosts, until a Rockefeller made artificial light possible to the poorest being on earth, by the economical production and cheap and general distribution of petroleum, which in its turn is now being superseded in all civilized communities by electric lights, which are being constantly improved until it is now almost a scientific fact that they rival the light of day.

With all the great minds of the past, the world never realized the necessity or possibility of a pure water supply or the epidemic infections due to water contamination that decimated cities and killed millions, until modern bacteriology was discovered. And this knowledge has not yet become the possession of two-thirds of the population of the earth, for the millions of people in Africa and in India and in China are still without pure water and suffer terribly from epidemics that are now no longer known in Europe and America. Contagion and infection are so little understood that the populations of Egypt, India, China and the Philippines, absolutely refuse to recognize the attempts of modern administrators to enforce quarantine.

When you consider the attitude of the best educated men toward labor from the beginning of the race until the middle of the 18th Century, it is not surprising that statesmen and historians regard wealth as purely material.

Through all this long period the labor of the race plodded clumsily along, undirected by its men of extraordinary ability, for it was considered beneath the dignity of intellectuals to interest themselves in such material things as production or the creation of wealth.

Until this time intellectual effort was therefore confined to the writing of religious works, theological speculations, histories, annals, and the production of poems. Until comparatively recent times it was considered a gross prostitution of mental abilities for a man of education and brains to write a novel, or to record events of other than political or moral significance.

The primitive attitude of the intellectual and educated men toward labor and production is nowhere better exemplified than in the exaltation of formal literature by Chinese scholars and statesmen down to the overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty in 1911.

Europe has but slightly broken away from its prejudice against the participation in industrial production or trade of its educated men, and only the knowledge of the extraordinary rewards that have followed the exercise of intellectual effort in this direction in our country, has induced some to defy the prejudice against it that still exists throughout Europe.

Not until comparatively recent times has intellectual effort been directed toward industry, production, and the creation of what we recognize as wealth. It is barely 200 years since the first engine was devised as a toy, but it 00was not until 1780 that Watt devised the first real operative steam engine, began the revolution in labor saving modern industry and inaugurated a new era of production and wealth creation.

As we look back over the record of human accomplishment from the beginning of human records up until 1780, we are not so much astonished at what the Race accomplished, as we are appalled by the prodigal waste of human energy and the reckless spending of human life in doing it.

The “Pyramids” are a wonderful monument of human labor but it is appalling to think of the expenditure of human energy and the waste of human lives expended in their creation. Every stone in those Pyramids was cut by human hands from the quarries, moved from their place to the site of the Pyramids by human labor, and raised to the place where they now rest by human energy.

The “Great Wall of China,” remains one of the wonders of the world, but when you think that every a one of its bricks was made by human hands, transferred to its place by human labor, and that not one single labor-saving device such as we now know, was used in the erection of this monumental wonder, you cannot help but be oppressed by the thought of the millions who were driven to its erection.

BUY: The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America by Burton W. Folsom

The same thing is true of the “Canals of China,” the canals and so-called “wells” or “tanks" of India, the enormous structures raised as temples to appease the angry gods, and this includes the wonderful cathedrals of Europe.

This country of ours is the only one on the face of the earth unmarked and unmarred by any gigantic structure raised by undirected, unrewarded, human labor.

In 1782, when the Independence of our country was recognized, two years after the invention of the steam engine by Watt, the entire wealth of the world was not over 100 billion dollars. This represented the entire unconsumed surplus created by the undirected labor of the race, from its beginning up to that time, and the values of the used lands of the earth based on their then use by the peoples of the earth.

I do not intend to enter into a discussion of the increase in the standards of living, or the relative values of human life, now and 140 years ago. But I wish to call your attention to the fact that at that time there was practically no house on earth with glass windows; that ventilation, sewerage, and pure water supply were unknown; that education was within the reach of but few and was still entirely classical and religious in its character. That the largest ship in the world at that time (1782) was the then newly built English Battleship, the “Victory,” the flagship of the famous Lord Nelson, which measured 186 feet in length. The largest ship that sailed in trade between Europe and the American Colonies before our Revolution was 120 feet long, 34 feet beam, with a tonnage of about 600.

The founders of our United States realized as had no other political thinkers in the world before, the value of men's brains in production. From the first, we have recognized to a degree unequalled by any other nation or people, the property rights of men in their inventions, devices, and ideas, while by our almost immediate and universal use of such inventions, devices, and ideas we have made it worth while for our intellectuals, our men of brains and of genius, to devote themselves to that character of human effort, namely, intellectual, that has enabled labor in this country by seeking and accepting the aid, direction and leadership of our best brains, to reach a unit of per capita production that has never been dreamed of by the peoples of any other country in the world.

I have called attention to the fact that the values of lands on the earth depend on their accessibility. This was well known and recognized by the men who undertook the development of this country.

The first ship not driven by human hands or the winds was Rumsey’s steamboat that made a successful trial on the Potomac in 1782. The first successful steamboats of the world plowed our Western rivers, and within forty years, long before the first steamship crossed the Atlantic, were going far into our West, up the Missouri, the Arkansas and the Red rivers, making them more accessible and nearer in point of time to our Atlantic coast than was Europe.

The first power loom was not invented until 1785 and was not commercially successful until 1835. Until that time all our clothes were homespun and home woven.

The first sewing machine was invented in 1830.

Railways, which first supplemented and finally superseded the canals and rivers, were not invented until 1826. By making the remotest acres of our country accessible and their products easily marketable, our railways have done more to increase the wealth of our people than any other single instrument.

The electric telegraph was not invented until 1835.

The first power press was not invented until 1814, and it was not until 1845 that Hoe first invented the fast press which has made possible the modern diffusion of knowledge and news by our daily press.

I remember in my boyhood in the Orient, seeing the native blacksmiths laboriously making nails, hammering each one by hand, and I was astonished to find that being wrought, they could not be driven into hard wood, but that they always had to have a hole drilled in the wood before the nail could be used. The first nail-making machine was invented by Reed in our United States in 1786, but it was not until forty years later that his device really came into general use, and that cut-iron-nails superseded the old hand-made wrought-iron-nail.

Adam Smith, the first political economist of England, uses the manufacture of pins as an illustration of the benefits of specialized labor. Within fifty years after he wrote his “Wealth of Nations” the first pin-making machine was invented by Wright here in our United States (in 1824) and the specialized labor, so much admired by Adam Smith, went into the discard along with the political philosophies founded on his illustration.

The first rolled iron beam for building construction was not made until 1855, and the first elevator, a slow moving hydraulic one, was not invented until 1865.

The first electric light did not glow until 1866, and then only in a laboratory. It was almost ten years later before it began to get into commercial use.

The first steel ship was not built until 1870. This invention opened new possibilities in world commerce, by enormously increasing the unit of freight in foreign commerce, and reducing the cost of world transportation.

The telephone was not invented until 1876. While submarines, wireless telegraphy, automobiles, gasoline motors, aeroplanes, X-ray, and wireless telephony, are practically all the inventions or developments of the past twenty years.

While the value of lands depends upon their accessibility, their accessibility depends upon the railroad, or steamship transportation facilities available for the transportation of their products.

The rewards of labor are dependent upon the market for the products of labor, and from the beginning of time until the invention of railroads and steamships, it took labor a day’s work to transport a ton of its product only one mile away. But with the brains of the Race devoted to relieving labor from this enormous handicap in transporting its products to where they can be consumed; our brains have devised methods of transportation that enable us now to transport the products of labor a ton-mile for one-three-hundredths of a day's work, and this has left to labor 299/300ths of what it used to spend in carrying to market the products of its labor. The saving to labor by the invention of transportation facilities alone has enabled the ordinary laboring man to double his per capita production.

It is plain to be seen from the record, which is there for anyone to read who will, that it has not been human labor in the physical sense that has relieved itself of the original limitations imposed upon it by nature, but it has been the thought and devices of extraordinary individuals, who have devoted themselves to the task of saving their fellows from the burdens imposed upon them by nature.

It has not been "labor” that has produced the wealth of the past 150 years but BRAINS. It is not labor in the physical sense that is producing the wealth today but BRAINS, and it never can be anything but human intellect devoting itself to accelerating production and directing the less endowed members of the race in their labor that will produce the still greater wealth of the future.

The literature of the past has had much to say about the conflict between Capital and Labor, but it is only lately that the peoples of the world have begun to realize that this element of brains is more important in the creation of wealth than is either labor or capital.

Political economists have not yet discovered the value of brains in production and wealth creation, but today we have the astonishing spectacle of capital, which knows it has no brains, and labor which realizes its inability to direct itself, eagerly competing for the use of brains, and offering the possessors of this scarce article almost anything they demand to accept the management of capital or the direction of labor.

Capital would generally be idle and waste away if it were not for the brains of some thinker who finds a better way to use it than it is being used. And labor would often be idle if it were not for this same thinker who devises, invents and creates, undreamed-of opportunities for labor. By holding before capital the greater profits and rewards in a new venture, the thinker secures the support of capital, which labor would not be able to secure for itself.

Social economists claim that there is only one source of wealth-Labor. Political economists insist that in addition to Labor-Land and Capital-must be classified as additional sources of wealth. But they both deny the economic value of that which is the greatest of all in the production of wealth-BRAINS. The ability to see the relation between cause and effect, the ability to see why labor expended in one way produces little, while labor expended in another way produces much. Why one crop is a failure on a piece of land while another crop produces prodigally. A farmer once was asked how much land a man needed in order to make a good living? And he replied, "If a fellow’s got brains enough all he needs is enough land to stand on."

If labor complains that it does not get what it is worth, it should reflect upon the fact that there is nothing cheaper than capital. If safety can be assured to capital, the use of it can be purchased for two or three per cent. The great fortunes are made not by the possessors of capital but by men of brains, men who purchase the use of the capital for a small per cent. and use it with their brains to build up great industries. Rockefeller was a great borrower. It is brains that make the difference between two and three per cent, and the profits that are made in modern business. The attack, therefore, upon the creation of wealth is primarily an attack upon brains, and it is just as well that we should recognize frankly the fact that the great mass of mediocrity is attempting to make it a crime for a man to have any sense.

There are still those in this world who believe it a sin to have anything. They may be found stalking naked with their bodies smeared with ashes and their hair uncut in greasy wringlets everywhere throughout India, and some of their unwashed and unkempt disciples may be found in all parts of the world. The idea was prevalent, even among people of our race, in the Middle Ages, and there were many who took the vows of poverty, but thanks to an enlightened conscience and a saner economic philosophy, our race at last has come to realize that man with his heart and his mind and his soul was not to spend his life like brute creatures in satisfying only the necessities for existence, but that it was his duty to do, to make, and to have, more than the individual needs for himself.

Do you think there would be any happiness in a world where you were barely able to find enough to keep alive and where you were constantly engaged in a struggle to satisfy the pangs of hunger? Only by producing more than he needs, does the individual create a surplus, and only by having more than his immediate necessities require can the individual secure the leisure that is necessary for contemplation and thought, for study, discovery and invention.

Many have toiled in useless and purposeless tasks without creating wealth, and there is no greater economic crime than to spend useless toil on work that need never have been done. The greatest conservators in the world, and on the whole, the poorest compensated and paid, are the Thinkers, those who study and scheme to devise ways and means of saving their fellowmen from useless work.

The idea seems to prevail that when the leader or inventor or the resourceful manager of property by some device, or invention, or method, is able to increase the output of his product, or to reduce the amount of labor necessary to produce the same output, that he should divide this increased production among those whom he has directed in its production, but if the individuals working under his direction do no more work than they did before, it is hard to see what part they have in the increased production, or why they should be given any share of the increase. Not unless there is something done by or delivered by the worker himself that contributes to or helps make the increase of production, or to decrease the amount of time necessary for the same production, can the worker or laborer maintain any claim to a share in the increased product. You might as well propose to pay the machine instead of the inventor of it.

One of the first principles of economics is that consumption is limited but that production is unlimited. Let a demand for anything be created and the supply to satisfy that demand will increase at a steadily decreasing cost. The demand of labor for higher wages has exactly the opposite effect from what labor desires. Labor seems to think that the high wage that it receives is conducive to prosperity, but the truth is, that as costs rise consumption falls, factories cannot sell their products, employment becomes limited and wages either fall in order to decrease the cost of production and stimulate consumption, or else the factories close down entirely and wages cease altogether.

I remember once dropping into the office of Mr. Dodd, the famous solicitor of the Standard Oil Company. I found him sitting at his desk, tipped back in his office chair, his feet up on his desk, while he gazed out of his window over the Bay. He seemed to be thinking, so I started to back out of the door, when he, glancing over his shoulder, motioned to me to come in. I walked slowly across the room from the door to his desk, then Mr. Dodd spoke, saying: “I was sitting once, just as you found me now, when Mr. Rockefeller opened the door as you did. Glancing in and finding me in this attitude, he stepped noiselessly across the room to the back of my desk, placing his elbows on the desk he leaned over toward me, and said in a hoarse whisper, ‘Dodd, is this what I pay you for?’ Without changing my position, I looked up at Mr. Rockefeller and replied: ‘Did you think you paid me for working?’ Every time I attempt to leave for a vacation, the evening of the first day finds at least a score of telegrams from you, saying, ‘Dodd, what about this? Dodd, what about that? Dodd, come back quick.’ If I do the thinking for the rest of you, I am doing all that can be expected of me.”

A New York paper some time ago pretended to show how the one-hundred-time millionaire was made. It started its description with declaring that there was a small nail mill with only $75,330 cash capital put in but it made money and made so many nails and sold so many nails and turned its capital over so many times in a year, that somebody came along in a few years and paid them one million, two hundred thousand dollars for the little wire nail factory that had had only $75,000 invested to begin with, and the Editor declared that this constituted watering the stock. Now there were a number of other nail mills, which the Editor did not mention, that had more than a hundred thousand dollars invested in them and which never made a dollar, and which were abandoned and rusted away or were dismantled and were mostly or entirely lost.

The two mills had exactly the same opportunity, they had bought the same kind of machinery, they used the same material and they had the same market, but there was no buyer for one, while a million two hundred thousand dollars was paid for the other. This was not because of any water, you could have pumped as much into one as into the other. It was because one mill had $75,000 plus brains and industry, and in the other instance it was one hundred thousand dollars minus brains and industry.

The essence of Socialism and of the Labor dogma is to deny the unequal gift of brains or ability to individuals, and to demand the assassination of the individual with unusual gifts, if and when he appears, as a danger or a menace to the mediocre ability and brains of the common mass. This has been and is a feature of the Soviet government in Russia, which has frankly declared war on all so-called “intellectuals” and has hunted out and exterminated all the educated men and women that it could find. But it is easy to see where this will lead for the mass, which has always profited by and benefited by the inventions of the brains and ability of these extraordinarily gifted individuals.

Denying the rights of individuals to possess extraordinary gifts, Socialism refuses to inventors any rights in their devices that would give them any reward over others. If they should succeed in their propaganda, inventors, or those with the ability to invent, knowing that the mediocre mass would appropriate their discoveries and that they would get nothing more out of them than would the veriest lout who never had a thought, would refuse to exercise their extraordinary gifts. They would stop trying to think and would cease to invent, and the world would be the loser. The essential weakness of Socialism is that in destroying the incentive for improvement and progress, it destroys the possibility of improving the conditions of the ignorant and mediocre and that in its efforts to cheat extraordinary ability out of a fair compensation, it robs itself of all benefit that it would derive from the exercise of the gifts of its most intelligent individuals.

Remember, it is always the individual who is the pioneer and who blazes the way for the multitude. All progress has been through these individuals, who have had the vision to look through the time-killing methods of their day and the courage to break with conventionality and precedent, and to use their newly discovered ways and methods. Only by the preservation and encouragement of individual initiative is the germ of progress kept alive or induced to flourish. Kill individual initiative and all progress will cease and civilization die.

To teach men that the ignorant are as good judges as the educated or that the ordinary and mediocre are as efficient and useful as the extraordinary, is cruel because it is so utterly false.

For a list of all of my disks, with links, click here