Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

3. JOSHUA K. INGALLS AND THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND
The later anarchist position regarding the nature
of land and its ownership also constitutes an advance
bey 0 n d the 0 rig ina 1 War r en i t e ideas. On e 0 f Wa r r en' s
central principles was "cost, the limit of price."
Ea chi n d i v i d ua I wa sentit led tothe produe t 0 f his own
labor, no more, no less. This means, said Warren, that
tt Nat urea c k now led g e s n 0 0 wn e r s hip 0 reon t r 0 1 i n rna n
save as a result of exertion •.•. Sbe recognizes no
claim but that of labor."(52) Thus, while "Every individual
has the right to appropriate so much of the common
natural wealth as is requisite to the supply of his
wants,"(53) one could not justly acquire another's
we a 1 thex c e p t b y g i v i n g an·e qua 1 am 0 un t 0 f 1abor i n
ret urn. The 0 n 1 y "ren t" wh i c h the own e r cou 1d jus t 1Y
colle c two u I d the ref 0 rebe for the rna i n tena nee 0 f the
premises. In fact, argued Andrews, if the tenant left
the prem i s e sin bet t e r s hape t han wh en he a r r i ved, the
owner would actually owe "rent" to the tenant. But
since under a sys t em of labor exchange there would be
"no advantage in owning land which one does not want
for his present uses" it was not only believed that
"all temptation to monopolize the soil" would be
"ex·tinguished," but also that no great inequalities of
wealth could even arise.(54) Hence, it is not too surprising
that Warren did not devote much time to clarifying
the nature of ownership. But with the emergence
of industrialization, large corporations, and the business
tycoon in the post-Civil War period, anarchists
had to fa c e the prob 1em 0 f own e r s hip. Th e i r wr i tings
constitute not so much a departure from the thought of
War r e n a s the f u lIdeve I 0 pmen t 0 f the idea s t hat we r e
expressed only more or less implicitly in his labor exc
han g e s y s tern • The p ion e e r i nth i s area wa s J 0 shua
Ingalls, whom Martin refers to as the William Greene of
land reform.
Ingal Is premised his entire argument on the belief
that "The whole produce of labor belongs to the Iabore
r, and ish i s nat u raIrewar d . " Gr 0 un d- r en t wa s the r e ­
fore unjust, since it was the acquisition of wealth
without labor. It was exploitive because it deprived
the worker of the full value of his product. Hence, he
con c Iud ed, a bs en tee - own e r s hip wasacI ea r vi 0 I a t ion 0 f
the labor theory of value.(55)
Rent, he continued, was not an economic but a polit
ical concept. Whereas David Ricardo had argued that
it was the 'increase in populat ion that produced rent by