REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH 315Lin Hsiin of the Southern Sung, who counted on the division of property among
heirs and a limited-field plan as the means for a gradual transition toward equal-
ity of landownership. Lin tolerated private ownership but Yu ruled it out.
Could Yu have possibly believed that wealthy landowners would have regarded
confiscation as little more than a slight modification of existing land relations?
Was this simply a case of naiVete or a rationalization forced hy his hasic unwill-
ingness to use force against the landowning class? In fact, how much chance
was there that a kongjon system could be achieved without confiscation?
Yu refused to accept the suggestion that landowners be compensated with
sinecures on the grounds that it would continue to stimulate competition among
the people for accumulating property. Creating special considerations for cer-
tain people would also be contrary to the method of the sages for establishing
institutions designed to benefit the public at large. If a total system such as his
plan for nationalization and redistribution were adopted, "then every man will
obtain his place and rest secure in his share. It will not he necessary to twist the
law in order to henefit [certain] people."9
As we will see, however, Yu's ideal social system contained a number of reg-
ulations supporting inequalities. He could only have meant here that landown-
ers were not entitled to special privileges just because they owned land or were
wealthy.
The adversary then switched to a different tack. Although he agreed that pri-
vate property had led to the accumulation of large holdings by the rich and the
pauperization of the mass of the peasantry, because of the attachmein of private
owners to their land, land reform could only be achieved by recognizing private
ownership and limiting the size of holdings as in the Han dynasty. "Those who
have too much land will be permitted to sell it off, and those who have too lit-
tle will [ohtain] sufficient amounts by buying it."lo
Yu, however, rejected this statement of the ideas of Tung Chung-shu, Su Hsiin,
Lin Hsiin, and others on hoth practical and moral grounds. Yu's practical argu-
ment was that government officials would not be able to keep up with the changes
in population and ownership ofland under a system of free purchase and sale,
and "the corruption and deceit [by those seeking to avoid registration] will be
too bothersome.'" I This point was ohviously reminiscent of the fears of Tu Yu
in the T'ung-tien. Under a system of national ownership, however, the officials
would be able to lay the foundation for accurate record keeping at the outset by
rectifying land boundaries and registering households and adult males liable for
military service despite shifts in population. '2
Practicality was not the only consideration, however. Yu also believed that a
land limitation system could not work because private property itself provided
the opportunity and stimulus for man's greed: driven by avarice, man would
find a way around thc law and not even the use of punishment would ensure
compliance with a land limitation system. In fact, to set limits on landholdings
and fix penalties for violations while allowing the people to continue to engage
in purchase and sale would be tantamount to entrapment, and if and when the