SINGLE TAX THEORY.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9350, 20 January 1909, Page 2

SINGLE TAX THEORY.

SIR,—I am sorry that yon should bavo. so misunderstood me as to think that I means my fifty “Q OU oi ? *'o iahuni could live there 'y’ t, ' ,( ; afc “coil,” without working He » v 0 ! tauitici ones could, of course. because they claimed the island as *^ lu 8 their own private property (they were the Landed Aristocracy yon know) and made all the otiisis work and slave for them, and to such an extent that they (the landless fcfortyfive)had little time left' to procure food for themselves, and look after their own comfort and requirements. To make the matter plainer I will carry the imaginary situation a little further and fsnppose that after a while, Jthe forty-five plucked up courage and resolved to put up with the injustice and tyranny of the five no longer, and that they made a combined attack on the five and disarmed them. How altered things are now. There is no longer a pampered <few fed on the fat of the island, and keeping the forty-five others busy most of their time danoiug attendance on them, but now instead each one is at liberty to work where he likes and get all he requires to provide himself with shelter, food, etc., and the five can do the same. But as long as there is enough for all on‘the island all will have enough, and the only way poverty can come about is by some convulsion of nature or had season causing a scarcity of fruits, nuts, and other things, and this poverty would affect all alike. You conclude your remarks about the castaways by saying “it 1 would make no difference whatever who nominal owners of the island.” I think I have shown that it made a lot of difference on the island when the five were disarmed. And do you mean that it would make I no difference whatever” who were the nominal owners of the British Isles. A few Lords, or the people as a whole, having each of them an equal right to the soil of these British Isles? “No difference,” why it would make all the difference. I must also remind you that I am not advocating Socialism, and I know nothing about the experience of the socialistic settlements you refer to. You assume that under the Singletax the few only will be landowners as they are now, but the fact is, it would be just the reverse. The great majority would be land users. Almost everyone in a few years under Single-tax would have a house of their own. All the business people would occupy sections in the towns and villages besides, and the number of small farms would he increased enormously. The Small Holdings Bill in England is an unqualified success—l3,ooo persons approved by one Council, but with duly enough land to supply 595. The only obstacle appears to be the difficulty of coming to terms with landowners fast enough. And the earth-hunger here shows what numbers there are anxious to get on the land in New Zealand, and how soon the whole colony of New Zealand would be dotted over with small farms when they could be obtained so easily and so securely held, under the Single-tax as they would be. But supposing thejimpossibility, that under the Single-tax the minority would he landowners and have to pay the taxes and would, therefore, be the only ones to vote, still how can yon ignore the axiom that “the obligation to obey the laws, carries with it ths right to have a say in making the laws?” It would be a useless and fruitless task to attempt to answer the thousand and one hypothetical difficulties opponents invent and raise up in opposition to the Single-tax. As I have said before, the great thing to decide (every one for himself) is, is it right, or is it wrong? and I think all searchers after truth in this matter should read some of Henry George’s works on the subject j and judge for themselves. And I w,ill aeb once more is John Ballance’s Id iu the nound land tax now In force

an evil thing, and is the rating on unimproved value in local rating a bad thing? All you say in reference to this is that “there are some dis-

tricts in jvhioh it (the Rating on Unimproved Values Act) would work to the injury of the majority.’' But you give no reasons. The “wail” hitherto has been at

the decrease in the birth rate and if I am not mistaken you have joined in this wail, but now yon seem to think otherwise, and that if it were not for “the checks now

supplied by the struggle for existence, the population it is more

than possible would tend to increase faster than the means of existence. ’’ I’ll leave this part of your article without comment. How I can have

led you to believe that I denounce the laws against trespassing I can’t imagine, for under Single-tax there would be ten thousand times the number of people to tresspass upon,—the land users would be so much more numerous, and of course trespassing would have to be made illegal as it is now under land monopoly.—l am, etc., JAMES GROVE. Marton, January 15tb, 1909.