Is it possible in as few words to include a greater number of dangerous errors? At this rate a fourth or a third part of the value of human subsistence is due exclusively to the power of nature. And yet the proprietor is paid by the farmer, and the farmer by the corn-consumer, for this pretended value which remains after the work of man has been remunerated. And this is the basis on which it is desired to place Property! And, then, what becomes of the axiom that all value comes from labour?
Next, we have nature doing nothing in Manufactures! Do gravitation, the elasticity of the air, and animal force, not aid the manufacturer? These forces act in our manufactures just as they act in our fields; they produce gratuitously, not value, but utility. Were it otherwise, property in capital would be as much exposed to the attacks of Communism as property in land.
Buchanan.—This commentator, adopting the theory of his master on Rent, is pressed by logic to blame him for having represented it as advantageous:
“In dwelling on the reproduction of rent as so great an advantage to society, Smith does not reflect that rent is the effect of high price, and that what the landlord gains in this way, he gains at the expense of the community at large. There is no absolute gain to society by the reproduction of rent. It is only one class profiting at the expense of another class.”[57]
Here the logical deduction makes its appearance—rent is an injustice.
Ricardo.—“Rent is that portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil.” [p253]
And, in order that there may be no mistake, the author adds:
“It is often confounded with the interest and profit of capital. . . . . It is evident that a portion only of the money annually to be paid for the improved farm would be for the original and indestructible powers of the soil, the other portion would be paid for the use of the capital which had been employed in ameliorating the quality of the land, and in erecting such buildings as were necessary to secure and preserve the produce. . . . In the future pages of this work, then, whenever I speak of the rent of land, I wish to be understood as speaking of that compensation which is paid to the owner of land for the use of its original and indestructible powers.”[58]
M’Culloch.—“What is properly termed Rent is the sum paid for the use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil. It is entirely distinct from the sum paid for the use of buildings, enclosures, roads, or other amelioration. Rent is then always a monopoly.”
Scrope.—“The value of land, and its power of yielding Rent, are due to two circumstances,—1st, The appropriation of its natural powers; 2d, The labour applied to its amelioration.”