Production has laws; distribution is ours to arrange
Is the way wealth is shared out as fixed as the way it is produced? Mill says no, and on that answer rests every proposal for reform in the book.
The laws of production, Mill writes, partake of the character of physical truths, while distribution is a matter of human institution: once things exist, society can place them at the disposal of whomever it pleases. Custom, he adds, has settled shares far more often than competition has. Private property is therefore one arrangement among others, to be judged by its results. If the choice lay between Communism and the present state, he says, the difficulties of Communism would be as dust in the balance. He would limit what anyone may inherit, and he praises peasant ownership in Arthur Young's words: the magic of property turns sand to gold.
- production
- property
- property rights
- land ownership
- peasant proprietorship
- land tenure
- agriculture
- rent
- political economy
- division of labor
- productivity
Enter a dialogue
- The laws of production, you write, are like physical truths, while distribution is a matter of human institution. What does that distinction open to change?
- An Irish cottier rents his patch at whatever competition forces him to bid, and gains nothing by working harder. What would you change in his position?
- You quote the traveller Arthur Young: the magic of property turns sand to gold. Why does owning a small plot change how a peasant works?
- If a society shares its wealth differently, people may also work differently. How free is distribution really, if it reacts on production?
- Compared with the present lot of most workers, the restraints of Communism would be freedom, by your own verdict. Why did you still decline to choose it?