POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE SINGLE TAX.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1820, 5 August 1913, Page 6

POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE SINGLE TAX.

Sir,—Mr. Withy, in your issuo of 2Stli instant, thus writes on the question: "The touching faith of Mr. A. Hunter and Mr. W. J. Jiirch in political economy as a corrective for tho 'single tax' argues considerablo ignorance on their part of political economy or tho single tax, or of both." And ono may well reply (judging from Mr. Withy's letter) that his definition of "political eoonomy" argues his absolute ignoranco of the subject. Mr. Withy defines political cconomy as the science of making a living—and from this definition evolves tho principle "that mankind can mako a living only by labour and only on and from tho land." If a basic statement is mado 011 faulty promisesit follows that the deductions from 6uch premises must bo but a series of errors. Political economy, I submit, is not what Mr. Withy says it is—"the scienco of making a' living." If it is so the Australian black and tho Pigmies of Central Africa are political economists. Mr. Withy says all men liavo equal rights to havo, equal rights to tho uso of the oarth. Does Mr. Withy mean that when a man has a farm he has 110 right to it becauso other people want it. Wliilo thero are hundreds of millions of teres unused and unoccupied in tho world tho alleged right of' man is not interfered with. Mr. Fowlds and Mr. Withy may be said to bo the groat apostles of singlo tax in New Zealand, and yet they malco diametrically opposite statements, showing that their ideas are fallacious, and have not tho origin of truo reason. Mr. Fowlds, in a letter to the "Farmers' Union Advocate," said: "It is absurd to say that the produce of tho land in New Zealand as produced by tho farmer pays for all tho expenditure in New Zealand." Mr. Withy says (inferentially) that it is so. Ho also says all men havo equal rights and that to secure to tho public tho earnings of tho public, and to tho individual tho earnings of tho individual is a squaio deal. The public as a public do not earn anything tho individual does, but each individual has a different earning powor, and therefore their rights aro not equal, and it is not, as Mr. Withy says, a square doal to take from the hard worker and force him to share with tho more or less physically incapable. Paraphrasing Mr. Withy's opening remarks in his letter, one might say "the touching faith of Mr. Wit'liy and Sir. Fowlds in single tax as a corrective for lack of industry and the euro of all ills_ argues considerable ignoranco of tho truo inward* ness that goes to build up a nation—l am, etc., EDWARD N. LIFFETON. Wauganui, July 30, 1!)13.

A CLAIM FOR STATE AID. Sir,—Emboldened probably by tho overflowing condition of tho Dominion Treasury, tlio widow of a lato member of Parliijjnent has petitioned Parliament for a further sum of ,£3OO, and tho case is now under consideration. It behoves members "to go cautiously in this matter. Tho lady has hersolf already been very handsomely treated by Parliament and the Ward Government. Six out of soven of her sons liavo been found employment in various branches of the Public Service. One holds a good position in the Defence Department, another (an active, looal politician and an aspirant for Parliamentary honours) lias an excellent billet in the railway goods office at New Plymouth, and a third is on tho clerical staff in. tho station here. A fourth is employed in the Lands Department, a fifth. (who. had graduated as a butcher's assistant) was created Registrar of Births, Marriages, and Deaths by tho Scddon Government, tho samo duties having been previously performed by tho postmaster for .€2O a year. Tho Registrar was relieved of his office some years ago, and now poses as an inventor and metallurgist, ho and a sixth son working between times at the railway station. This is a very fair record for one family, and it would probably be hard to match it — I am, etc,, A LIBERAL. New Plymouth, August 2, 1913.

MR. WITHY. Sir,—l want to protest aeainst your inserting any letters from Mr. Withy. Ho lias evidently never read any economics, and what ho writes is merely nonsenso. To malco this clcar to any young person who has leisure to attend, I will tako Mr. Withv's letter in your issuo of July 28. "Mankind can only make a living from the laud," says Mr. WiWiy. This is a truism. He proceeds to say: "Thereforo. all men have a right to uso the land." No

grown-up person could bo misled by Bucli a silly argument. but a boy or girl might, and i'or tlieir sako I explain that though "mankind" needs laud, an individual man docs not. ~ , , Savage tribes have little division oi labour, and each man (I suppose) must have a claim to berries, or roots, or fishins grounds; otherwise ho, starves, Wo aro not savage; therefore, it is enough if ono in ten 'has land aud produces meat, grain, and the like. Tho rest have no uso for land; tlioy make clothes, or build houses, or arc doctors, or clergymen. Please noto that I am not '*i)ickinc a hole'' in Mr. Withy's letter. The above is the central contention; tho rest of the letter is written round it. I proceed to eay that a man has just as much right tq a piece of laud as ho has to a bag of or a motor-car. That is, if he wants ono ho must earn tho money and buy it. What Mr. Withy is blindly groping after, I suppose, is that every man has "a right to work." That is quito a different matter. .Most advanced economists now say ho has, but with reserves that Sir. Withy would not understand if I wrote columns.

If ho could go and read economics under tlio nearest professor for a few months, ho would 60011 fiud out that all tlieso yearn lie has just been blundering along in ignorance.—l am, etc., WAIIIUNA. Tano, Eketahuna, July 2-9, 1913. THE UPPER HOUSE REFORM. , Sir,—Tho Reform Government is committed to tlio reform of tho Upper House. It is certainly a question aii'ecting tho fundamental principles of government, bmt it has been discussed by tho people of this country for tho last quarter of a century. Twenty years ago tho late Sir John H'Kenzie, and all tho politicians on his sido of tho Houso in his palmiest day, were favourable to tho i-eform of tho Upper House. They realised that thero were idifficultiea in tho way, and then in tho first few years of tho great Liberal reign it was seriously proposed that tho brat way to reform tho Upper Houso was to let it dio out. It was therefore tho determination of the Balianoe-Seddon Administrations not to make any fresh appointments. How long did this resolution last? Soon Premier Seddon discovered that lio oouild not get his polioy Bills passed, aud first to do this ho mado up liis mind to make tho creation of now Cards—not for lifo, but for seven years. They then argued that as appointments were for a fixed period tho Ojiper House could bo abolished by refraining from making any now appointments. Then camo tho ora 'of political patronage, and tho Upper Houso 1 was found to be mighty handy for the purpose of rewarding the docile, subservient, defeated followers of a party at tho expense of the . general taxpayer. History repeats itself in tho present hour; but with this difference: While Prime Minister has chosen sov oral back-number politicians as honour* ables, yet ho lias determined to mako tho Upner 'House elective,, and this is the best and most domooratic system of reform yet proposed. Lot it bo carried out.—l am, et °" ELECTOR.