Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/57

 These three primary considerations show as briefly as possible the reason for contending that normal individuals, as they have succeeded in dispersing sovereignties inimical to their freedom, and have endeavored to command security through accretion of value, have instinctively converted their accretions into land-ownership or control of territory. Economic cycles, the commencements of which were contemplated by long-buried ancestors, have driven the lesson home. Communicating the sequence by tradition, a family or community, through many generations, has jointly seen the unit of economic power expressed in terms of force, superstition or convention, and from each of these practices has slowly withdrawn approval.

With the guidance of the historian we can see more sharply that, no matter how modified by the restraints of the community or by environment, the conventional “unit” of economic value has changed from the club, as wielded by the primitive savage, to the man-at-arms, as utilized by the brigand and baron: from the superstition manipulated by the magic-man, to the domination of the church; and finally from the money, issued by the king and his concessionaires in the days of arbitrary political power, to the conventional tokens of vague value adopted by democracy; and realizing these changes we can appreciate the fact that the final repository of value is land-area. The reason for this is that land is limited in quantity; and is not subject to unexpected and distressing duplication, such as, by a stouter arm, upset the calculations of the primitive man with his club: by surprise and ambush played havoc with the man-at-arms: by successful schism destroyed the domination of the priest; and by dilution or debasement of the value of money sapped the power of those who put their trust in it.

The same review of economic history also indicates why the resentment against unrestricted taxation of land has been so deeply rooted. Here is the lèse majesté of democracy, though we feel this rather than perceive it. In effect, it is a proposal to permit the community to debase, for any whim or desire, our hard-earned individual security. Without clearly defined and adequate guarantees, it is as easy to persuade land-holders, large or small, joint or several, to acquiesce in the sole taxation