Page 4 Advertisements Column 4

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1984, 21 January 1907, Page 4

THE LAND QUESTION AND THE SINGLE TAX. (I3y Gcorgo.) 11. I feel much indebted to tho ablo editor of this .journal for his excellent nrtielo on my contribution. IJo puts tho question of Siuglo-Tnx m tho category of “extravagant forma of belief,’’ such as spiritualism; calls my attention to tho wise words of Horace and “tho teachings of sound philosophy”; accuses mo of having “adopted a stylo' of dogmatic! assertion that is so contradictory of itscll as tb prove tho want of thought so necossary •to a logical conclusion ; represents mo as contradicting myself, and of having built my theory on “a series of errors in reasoning ; but—and I call special attention to this fact—ho makes no serious attempt to .demolish my facts and arguments. There is one thing only tot which I will plead guilty, and that isj the offence of “dogmatic assertion. People who feel deeply convinced that they are writing or speaking the truth are naturally dogmatic, ’there is room for dogmatism in this flabby ago, and especially on ethical questions, for this question on which i am writing is a purely ethical question. It is emphatically a question of right or wrong. Our economic system is a terrible violation of the commandment, “Thou sluilt not steal,” or it is no violation at all of that commandmont. Tho contention of all Single-Taxers, oducated and uneducated, is that tho economic systems of Christian countries (so-called) do most fearfully violate moral law, and this without protest from any of tho churches collectively, although, to their honor bo it said, there are many individuals, and some distinguished porsons, in these religious communities who are as profoundly convinced of tho justice of the Single Tax and quite as dogmatic in their assertions as any members of the New Zealand Single Tax League. In regard to tho newspaper press.it is now beginning to tolerato Single-Taxers. That is a hopeful sign. There was a time, and it is not so long ago, when they would not allow us any .space in which to 1 discuss our “mad theory,” as some of the learned editors were pleased to call it. Tlioy constantly questioned whether we were sano beings or dangerous lunatics at largo. Others, again, suggested that we were very wicked porsons, and so serious a monaco to tho peace of society that wo ought, on conviction, to bo sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. Tho cause has, indeed, made great progress, when wo are allowed ample space to advocate and dofoud our theory in the leading newspapers of tho colony, and . when all that wo have to endure for so doing is an occasional editorial lecture on “tho teachings of sound philosophy.” Some of the editors might, perhaps, support us were they free. Where is there a free editor ? Are tlioy not all chained to tho chief monopoly? Aro they not all compelled to bow down and worship before mammon the god of tho monopolists? Why, if they dared to support the Single-Tax proposal more than half their advertisements would disappear, and their circulation would also have a great fall. I pity tho editors; they arc chained hand and foot; they are under tho heel of monopoly.

IMPORTANT STATEMENTS BY TWO LEADING ECONOMISTS. I will now proceed with my case for the Single-Tax, and first of all quote the important declarations of two of the world’s leading political economists:— “The law of human progress, what is it but the moral law ? Just as social adjustment's promote justice, just as they acknowledge the equality of right betweon man and man, just as they insure to each the perfect liberty which is bounded only by the equal liberty of every other, must civilisation advance. Just as they fail in this must advancing civilisation come to a halt and recede. Political economy and social science cannot teach any lessons that are not embraced in the simple truths, that were taught to poor fishermen and Jewish peasants by One who eighteen centuries ago was crucified—the simple truths which, beneath the warpings of selfishness and the distortions of superstition, seem to underlie every religion that has over striven to formulate the spiritual yearnings of man.”—Henry George. “If, therefore, the choice were to be made between communism, with all its chances, and the present stato of society with all its sufferings and injustices; if the institution of private property necessarily carried with it, as a consequence, that the produce of labor should bo apportioned as we now see it, almost in ail Inverse ratio to the labor—the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work grows harder and more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labor cannot count with certainty on being able to carp oven the necessaries of life; if this, or communism, were the alternative, all the difficulties, great and small, of communism would bo but as dust in the balance. But to make the comparison applicable we must compare communism, at its best, with tlio regime of individual property, not as it is, but as it might be made. The principle of private property has never yet had a fair trial in any country. The laws of property have never yet conformed t‘o the principles on which the justification of private proper! y rests. They have mado property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property whore only a qualified ' property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly betweon human beings, but liavo lioappd impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities and prevented all from starting fair, in the race. . . If the tendency of legislation had been to favor the diffusion instead of the concentration property would have been found to of wealth, the principle of private have no necessary connection with the physical and social evils which almost all socialist writers assume to be inseparable from it.—(John Stuart Mill, “Principles of Political Economy,” Bk. 2, cli. 1.)

THE SINGLE-TAX. Tlio Single-Tax is not a happy name for our proposal; still, it expresses exactly wliat we mean. By the Single-Tax is meant a tax on tho unimproved value of laud, and not on any land improvements. Therefore property owners would be relieved of all other taxation. That would be a big gain to them. In appropriating the unimproved value for public use, the people arc simply appropriating their own, lor as they make that" value by their presence and industry it is quite as much their own as are tho wages of a workman his own, or the profits of a shopkeeper his own. Therefore, tho landlords’ cry of “confiscation!” is nonsense. In taking the unimproved value for public uses we are only putting a stop tq thp landlords’ " daily confiscation of the nation’s earnings. “Confiscation 1” Good. We shall answer it with the cry of “Restitution !” THE LANDHOLDERS AND THE “UNEARNED INCREMENT.” The unimproved value of land is called “unearned increment.” This name was coined h.v Mr J. S. Mill. What ho meant by it was this—that it is an increment not earned by the landlord. ITo did not mean, as some speakers and writers would have as believe, that no one had earned it, for Mr Mill was incapable of making such an idiotic statement. There is no such thing as an “unearned increment.” The increment in the value of land is, of course, earned, and earned by the hard toil of the producers of wealth. This is undeniable.

landlords say: “Wo have bought and paid for the land; therefore it is ours, and being ours ive have a right to its rent revenue, less our fair share of taxation.” In reply to this we may say that what the landlords really bought—many of them paid precious little for it; a few bottles of whisky, or blankets —was the privilege of’ levying a private tax upon the landless for graciously allowing them to live on God’s earth. This is privilege to steal—privilege to steal the freedom and the earnings of their poorer fellowcreatures, who have as good a right to ho on this planet without paying toll to any private individuals as their landlords have. Such a privilege, however much had boen paid for it, would he condemned by any Court of Epuity; any claim based upon this privilege would not only be scouted, but the Court would order that all monies of which the landless people had been defrauded by such a privilege bo refunded to them. It will bo said that a Court of Fruity would do nothing of the kind, because the people, through their representatives, have sanctioned the unjust privilege. If the people have sanctioned it, it Is fair to assume that they did it in ignorance; but the truth is, the question was never put to them whether they would give about half tlieir earnings to landlords. Therefore, they cannot bo said to have sanctioned the arrangement.