“The ownership of the home in the competitive system does not make the owner so careful to avoid waste as our system makes the tenant. As I have said, the occupant, be he owner or tenant, can enjoy only the use of his house during his life.
“In the competitive system how many owners waste their houses? Some are drunkards and mortgage them and waste their value in drink. Some are gamblers, and lose the value at the gaming table. Some insure them and burn them to get the insurance money. Some go into business, mortgage the home for money or credit, fail and lose the property. Thousands of houses stand idle and go to waste in every competitive state, while thousands of homeless people walk the streets in every large city or tramp the country roads. In our system the state cares for every home and make a home for every man. The man knows his home is permanent. It cannot be taken from him without his consent.”
“But he cannot convey it to his children,” said Charlie.
“No. He cannot compel his children to take it whether they will or not. But if the children desire it, when the occupant dies or departs, they may have it on the same terms if they are members of the Industrial Army that their parents did. Let me say, however, that when the children marry they generally present a design of a house which suits them better than the old homestead and the Association builds them a house to suit them. Is not that better?”
“So much for the home,” remarked Charlie. “I am almost satisfied with your explanation. It at least gives me the cue so that I can study the subject fully. Now, I have long felt that you were asking a man to be a slave and give up his personal liberty by entering the Industrial Army. Why is not that true?”
“Charlie, are you a slave to-day?” I asked.
“No, indeed!” exclaimed Charlie, almost indignant.
“Is a government official a slave?”
“Of course not.”
“How about a soldier in the regular army?”