.

It is no infrequent opinion that the present economic crisis and its vast unemployment are mainly a result of over-population. If a good number of people cannot get employment and sufficient food, the simple conclusion may be, that it is because we have too many people. And if population is increasing so rapidly as has been the case in many countries, during the last century, the first thought is, that this cannot continue without reaching a point where the number of people has grown far beyond the area of hind at its disposal and the means of subsistence available.

Arguments against this opinion are easily to be found: at the same time, as we speak about over-population, we speak about over-production too; corn has been burned, coffee has been sunk in the sea and other good things, useful for the maintenance of life, have bees destroyed in similar ways. And during late years it has been one of the chief occupations of the politicians to restrict production, diminish import, raise prices, fix quotas and in other ways make hindrances to production and exchange. In face of the increase of population it would appear to be a clear political task to enforce an increase of production. But the common policy has done just the opposite. As long as we -are carrying on such a foolish policy we have no right to speak about over-population, because it seems obvious that we have not too many people but we have too foolish politicians.

Further reference may be made to the decreasing birth-rate, which to-day in many countries is transforming the problem of over-populations into the opposite problem of nations dying.

Or we can refer to the huge amount spent in armaments. If but", fourth or a third of this amount, now spent in means of destruction, were to be used for providing means of production, we should be able to provide a livelihood: for many more people. And as long as we are wasting our economic power in making means of destruction, it is absurd to speak about over-population.

But studying the problem we may find facts which cannot be swept away by arguments like these. Japanese friends have told me about the conditions of Japan as follows : Japan is a very over-crowded country. The area of land fit for cultivation is comparatively small because barren mountains occupy more than 80 per cent of the country. Owing to this, the holdings, particularly in the southern part of the country, are very small - from scarcely two to about four acres each. In the hot climate the farmers of the South are able to harvest twice a year. Nevertheless it is impossible to divide the land into still smaller parcels, if the farmers are to be able to subsist. The farmers are working in a primitive but generally in a very clever and careful way too, and the output is not likely very much to be raised by procuring modern machinery.

But the population of Japan is increasing by about 700,000 a year (to-day, a million a year) "and," said the Japanese, " if we are to be able to provide maintenance for more people in the future, we have to develop our industries and get markets in foreign countries, where we can sell our product getting food in return. Otherwise the day may come when some of our people run the risk of dying from starvation.''

Furthermore, it is to be remembered that Japan is in need of some raw materials: coal, iron, oil, and other things quite necessary for its industrial work and development.

At present the Russian population is increasing by about 3-1/2 millions a year. If this continues with the same rapidity it would exceed 100 millions within the next 30 years. Russia is but a poor nation in many respects living at the stage of the Middle Ages. If it is to be possible for the Russians to provide livelihood for an increase like that, it surely will be necessary for them to develop their whole economic system up to the stage of modem time. Can it be regarded as possible within 30 years to provide the huge masses of capital needed and to educate the nation, making people able to manage the new economic order ? And can it be avoided, that the neighbouring nations will feel the Russian increase and development as a threat of invasion and war?

As a threatening background of this overwhelming task of the Russians we have the proclamation of Mr Hitler in his book Mein Kampf: That the excellent German nation ought to increase to a number of 250 millions. Looking forward to such an increase, Mr Hitler regards the present area of natural resources of Germany as too small for such a number of people, and he frankly proclaims the right of Germans to conquer land from the Russians, who are of the Slavonic race, and possessed of Marxian ideas too, and consequently, as a matter of course, may be regarded as an inferior nation which the excellent Germans have a clear right to expel.

During the last century most of the European countries have had a unique increase of population. From the year 1800 up to the present time the population of all Europe has increased three times, and in some countries, for instance, Denmark, the populations have increased four times. A simple calculation shows, that it seems quite impossible to have an Increase going on with the same rapidity in the future. Thus, during a period of 780 years, Denmark, for instance, would have about 14,000 millions of inhabitants, and the population of all Europe would reach an astronomical number. We may consider such a calculation as being a good joke, but it tells the remarkable fact, that it is impossible to expect the increase of population to go on with the same rapidity in the future as has been the case during the last century, and thinking of the future we must take this fact into our considerations.

As mentioned, the decreasing birth-rate at present is confronting some nations with just the opposite problem. But that only makes the situation more complicated, because this phenomenon is not to be found in all nations. It cannot be stated as a law of nature, that as soon as a nation has reached a number of people to which its natural resources are adequate, the birth-rate will automatically decrease in an adequate Way. The decreasing birth-rate is no world-wide phenomenon, and it is quite possible that, for instance, Russia, India, China, Japan and nations inspired by a Mr Hitler or a Mr Mussolini, may have continually a rapid increase of population while others are stagnating. If that be the case, it may give rise to many difficult problems.

How are we to face all these complicated and difficult problems? In the short time at my disposal I can mention only a few fundamental points of view:

1. Increasing population demands more land for homesteads, dwellings and industrial enterprises and a wider access to raw materials too. Accordingly, the first problem emerging is, how to secure everybody this access in a just and proper way. The prevalent land system is doing just the opposite. By the right of private ownership the access to land and raw materials is a monopoly of the privileged landlords, and all other people have to pay the landowners for the access to these things which are of fundamental necessity for work and life. As the land is not expanding along with the increase of population, the increase inevitably must raise the price of the land available. In this way the present land system is a barrier hindering the people from living and working on fair conditions, and, note well, this barrier is automatically growing higher and higher along with the increasing population. Consequently, such a system is automatically a barrier to the increase itself, a barrier which easily leads the pressure of the growing population into channels of expansion and militarism.
   
   By the Taxation of Land Values we are able to establish a system securing equal right for everybody in respect to access to land and raw materials. Its constructive idea is, that when the individuals demand land to be used for then-private purpose, they are demanding for themselves the possession of what all other citizens have an equal right to possess. Excluding their fellow-citizens, they have the liability of compensating the rest for the deprivation caused. That can be done simply by their paying to the community, to be used for the commonweal, a rate adequate to the value of the land they dispose over. By this system equal right is secured to alias well as to each individual. Long ago, when the Jews were living in Egypt, one of the Egyptian kings tried to settle the problem emerging from a very rapid increase of the Jewish population, by commanding all new-born Jewish boys to be drowned in the Nile. As good Pastor Ghf> Notfcto Christians we find this to be a very sinful proceeding. But when, by our present land system, we are barring the way of the people to land and work, we are in fact throwing many of our fellow-men into the river of unemployment where many of them are drowned by idleness and distress. I think, that in the Judgment of God this shall not be regarded as less sinful than the procedure of the Egyptian king.
   
   We must have a new land-system if the land question caused by increasing population is to be settled in a just and proper way.
   
2. An increasing population demands a production of more commodities. Consequently, the only adequate policy must be a policy of forcing and stimulating the production. Political history tells us, that the best way to do so, is to establish freedom to produce in accordance with the law of supply and demand. But most of the nations to-day are carrying on nearly the opposite policy. We are seeking to diminish production, raise the prices and prevent exchanges by means of restrictions, quotas and tariff-barriers. In spite of the increasing population we are carrying on a policy which diminishes the mass and enhances the prices of the articles needed for the maintenance of life. Such a policy is directly hostile to an increasing population. As long as we prevent free trade in these ways, we are preventing the economic development needed.
   
3. Increasing population and growing civilization demand a constant development of the productive system. Such a development requires capital ready for investment, and, in accordance to the law of diminishing return, the requirement of capital must be expected to increase with a growing rapidity. Capital does not grow on every bush and is not in other ways to be found in abundance, but it must be created by work and savings. Especially in poor countries it may be no easy task to procure sufficient capital. It is obvious that increasing population demands economic development. But then it is obvious too, that the increase to a certain extent depends upon the amount of capital at disposal. Here we are facing a very serious economic law: the increase of population needs a proportionate increase of capital if want and distress shall not be the result.
   

If the nations would agree to disarmament we should be able to save much capital for production of commodities. But we should not exaggerate the result of disarmament in this respect. It is always easier to make means of destruction than means of maintenance of life, because in the last ease we have to co-operate with Nature itself. By cleverness and capital we can get more and more corn from a certain area of land, but we cannot shorten the time needed for growth. Armaments mainly are made of things which do not grow. Means of subsistence mainly are things which have to grow. That makes an important difference, and it would not be wise to think, that by disarmament the problem of capital is immediately solved. It will always be our responsibility to make harmony between the increase of population and the increase of capital if the increase shall not result in disorder and distress.

Some nations are increasing their populations very rapidly, others very slowly, while still others are stagnating. Some nations are very progressive in mind, others are very conservative in respect to habits and traditions. It is nearly unavoidable that the stagnating and less progressive nations should feel the risk of being invaded or exploited by the others. When; for instance, the German nation has a rapid increase of population while the French stagnate, we may well understand why France is fearing an invasion by the Germans. And that may be felt as a real menace long before the Germans have attained the 250 millions proclaimed by Mr Hitler. Or - when the Arabs of Palestine at present are revolting against the Jews it is easy to see the economic interests of the Arabian landlords behind. But that is only one of the causes of the revolt. Another one is, that the Arabs certainly feel that if the Jews grow numerous in Palestine, the Arabs cannot compete with them, and then the result at least may be, that the Arabs may be expelled from a country, which to-day they consider as their native country. When most of the nations at present prevent foreigners from getting work and land within their boundaries such feelings surely are the chief motives.

That presents to us some very difficult and burning problems: What does an equal right to the land in respect to the different nations mean? Is it only within the boundaries of the respective country that the people have an equal right? If we maintain the idea of an equal right to the land regardless of the nationality does it then mean, that nations, who have a progressive and increasing population, have a clear right to invade and settle hi countries with stagnating populations?

Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher, once has said : that the first of all gospels is, that a lie cannot live for ever. The history of mankind tells us as another gospel of an equal importance, that unjust social orders cannot live for ever. It is one of the best traits of the character of man that he always reacts against injustice and iniquity. Among all the different opinions about what is to be regarded as injustice, we always find as a general opinion, that inequality in respect to social conditions is considered as an evident sign of injustice and iniquity and therefore is always to be opposed in the most powerful ways. This natural attitude of men against inequality makes it obvious, that equality of social conditions is the only firm foundation upon which a lasting social order, able also to be the basis of effective co-operation and fellowship, can be built up.

We, therefore, are in a close contact with the law of nature ruling the social order, when we proclaim the system of Land Value Taxation and Free Trade as being the only firm foundation of a social order, able to meet with the demands emerging from increasing population and able to secure co-operation and fellowship.

A firm foundation is of the utmost importance, but it is not the whole building. Increasing population is presenting to us important problems of economic, international, racial and moral character, which are to be settled by means that are hi accordance with their nature.

We are confronted with the problem of making harmony between the increase of population and the increase of capital necessary for the economic development needed. I wish I could characterize this as being a pure economic problem, but as far as I can see, it comprehends a very serious moral problem too, because the harmony mentioned also depends upon the self-control of man. Thinking of the international or racial problems referred to, it seems obvious that to a large extent they are psychological or moral problems to be settled by education and information, by which the contradictions are reconciled. But let it be added, in the most emphatic manner, that if we do not endeavour to secure a true base, all such work is done in vain.

Fading all these different problems we must understand, that if the movement for Land Value Taxation and Free Trade is to be able to lead mankind into the domain of peace and justice, it must be the herald of that wider view, comprehending all human affairs, which was formed by the prophet of Galilee in the words : " Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you." Working in the spirit of these words we may be able to contribute to the building up of a new world where peace and righteousness prevail.