Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/110

 the point; but there is one misconception, which must be emphasized again—the more sentimental economists, while recognising that land is the confining area of human effort, insist also on adding persuasion to their logic. Oil, coal and metals, the rearrangements of matter; drainage, reclamation and fertilization, the contributions of past effort—these are added by some of them to the calculable factor of area, obviously enough, in a few cases, for the purpose of making immediate community control more tempting. It is very much as if an engineer were to try to tempt prospective investors in a power-project by stating that the waters flowing through his water-right were delicately flavored with sugar and lemon, that his water-pipe was painted red, or that he knew where he could tap a few fish-ponds, and for these reasons arguing that the horsepower developed would be vastly better worth control. He would get more credit as a promoter than as an engineer. In licking their chops over the good things in land, the sentimental economists are contributing nothing to a sound solution of our problem. Many of these values, whether they are called “site value,” or “social-product,” are already appraised by the flow of population: others are capital, and being capital are not only already owned, but are subject to unexpected duplication and inevitable depreciation. They cannot be regarded as fundamental economic factors, but, as put forward in this way, are simply the pseudo-reformer’s vague inventory of possible loot. Scientifically they are not basic value, but rank with the conditions which help to localize value. The facility provided by a conductor of energy, such as low resistance, is not energy, but it does go toward ensuring a greater net realization of value, if the essentials of that value already exist.

From the standpoint of pure economics, the control of land area is control of the basic factor of national value. Population is not controllable except under autocracy, or under such bureaucracy as the modern reformer vainly dreams of. For this reason, since we are now interesting ourselves in the values arising from political freedom, we are compelled to take cognisance of land-area which defines one of the impersonal limits of this freedom. From a scientific standpoint, it is more than