Page:David Atkins - The Economics of Freedom (1924).pdf/73

 silent partner: Labor, even in its so-called golden era, operated through closely-guarded guilds that made, gratis, a few shoes or nose-clouts for the king, and made economic fools of everyone else; Capital was reinforced by autocratic franchise and was brazen, or it was unprotected and secretive. It was at this point that the political-economist started in to assemble his “scientific” data, with a courage and optimism that almost moves one to tears. Every factor was vitiated by an unknown arbitrary component.

Suddenly, at isolated points, the smouldering fires of revolt blazed out and swept away the underbrush—a purging fire doing much immediate material damage but letting in the sunlight on dangerous bogs and loathsome thickets. A great deal of so-called majesty, grace and royal highness was swept away; and it might have been possible at that time to get down to fundamentals and do some sound measuring; but all was not lost to the old order; the ritualists came back with all their formulæ intact, and built up again the sequence of their creed. That few save unfortunate and unwilling school-children or older neophytes have ever attended their carefully intoned services has never bothered this type of ritualist: it was enough to definitely impress a few superstitions on the young mind to act as an automatic check to clear thinking in any later emergency, and thus maintain their position.

As a matter of fact, it would appear that the valid and measurable factors were either ignored or obscured; but, from time to time, some zealous nonconformist has gained a following, by realizing and emphasizing the importance of a single factor. These contributions were occasionally vital, but more often were colored by a notion of advantage to a particular class, or by some vain desire for a miraculous amelioration of the lot of all humanity.

In this way the Physiocrats emphasized one phase of land—namely its productive power. Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill emphasized the vital importance of all land to organized society, and questioned the validity of individual title. Henry George saw its power of domination, though he added to the primary economic significance of land-area many