Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The independent. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 1, 1903)
THE NEBRASKA INDEPENDENT OCTOBER 1, 1903. The Philosophy of Freedom An Open Forua for Single Taxers THE DODGE-WAKEFIELD DEBATE (Mr; Dodge, haying the affirmative, confends that the single tax is based on an unsound foundation. Mr. Wake field denies this. Ed. Ind.) THE SINGLE TAX BASED ON AN UNSOUND FOUNDATION. In view of the very numerous fol lowing which the single tax has and the many prominent men who sub scribe to its doctrines. It would almost seem presumptious that anyone should at this late date dare to question the soundness of the economic basis on which that philosophy Is grounded. Nevertheless a close scrutiny will re veal the fact that not only is it based on unsound premises, but that it is of most questionable justice, and instead of the manifold blessings that are supposed to follow in its wake, great er evlli. in all probability would result thercirom. That land monopoly is an unmiti gated evil no rignt-minking person who has at all studied the subject can honestly deny. The landlord, there fore as far as he may claim any rights on the premises, deserves no consid oration and the only question Is, wou.d such a tax be just to all par ties, and what effect would it have on society as a whole? Single taxism is based on the as sumption that land values, as embod ied in the rent, which the landlord can exact from his tenant, are. an unearned Increment, created by the mere pres 5nce and needs of the community, and are, therefore, justly communal prop' erty. That the landlord, however, in virtue of his monopoly of the land is enabled to divert them Into his own pocket. That the chief evil resultant therefrom is the impoverishment ot the landless masses, who must use his land, since no one can exist without it, to such an extent that they can only make a bare living for themselves and those dependent upon them. Henc-j the single . taxers propose, and they claim they are justified therein, to tax away this so-called unearned incre ment, and appropriate it for com munal use. The Inconsistency of this position must be apparent when we consider that if the rent which the landlord ex acts from his tenant is really com-f munal property, then that tenant, as such merely, cannot be wronged there by, but only so far as he is a mem ber of that community, and his indi vidual loss cannot be so very great It leaves entirely unexplained the re sultant" poverty therefrom, unless the wholly untenable position is taken, that his mere presence and need cre ates more wealth than his actual labor produces. Moreover, this would leave '.he whole community, the landlord ex cepted, in the same fix. We must, therefore, come to the conclusion that. !t is the tenant's substance which th landlord absorbs. But, if so what right has the community to appro priate that for its own use? There a hitch there somewhere. Let us see on which horn of the dilemma the sin gle taxers are impaled. 1 Self evidently from the land all wealth must spring, but land is a pas sive factor, it yields no wealth suit able to satisfy man's needs unless he by his labor extracts It therefrom. The reproductive forces, inherent in the land, may be called nature's store room, from which man must labor iously draw the raw materials, to be fashioned by him into the finished product, ready for his consumption. Since all wealth must have this stamp of labor upon it, it follows that an- un earned increment of wealth has no ex istence in fact, and thus its main prop Is knocked from under the single tax. The rent which the landlord pockets, though nominally paid as a rule in money; in reality represents labor's pioduct, or else no one would want it. If this, therefore, is really communal property, then the tenant; if produc tively employed, must, by so doing, be stealing it from the community. Or else how does he come by it? Just consider: Here Is a philosophy which tells us in substance that so far from labor having been robbed of its just deserts all through the ages, Tt has been the original robber right along; that the laborer has no right to pro duce wealth on land made valuable by the community, not by anything that the community has done to improve that land, but by its mere needs and presence, unless he hands over to that community an equivalent of what a landlord can exact from his tenant. That the landlord Is a robber and an unmitigated nuisance at the best, Is held by all progressive thinkers, but Henry George certainly has found a legitimate use for him In so far as that landlord is persistently relieving the producer of his ill-gotten gain, and thus drawing the world's attention to these iniquitious doings of productive labor, which but for him might never have discovered it. Here is the fatal blow in the single tax philosophy, which no amount of casuistry can explain away, and con clusively substantiates the claim that Is based on false premises. Why, if put in practice, it would at one fell swoop officially nullify the fundamen tal principle of the Declaration of In dependence, that man has riirht to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi ness, for how can he have such right if he can be justly debarred from the use of the land, without which ex istence is impossible, unless he pays tribute to the community for that privilege? This, then, is my ground for oppos ing the single tax. It rests the right of taxation, not on services rendered by the community to the individual taxed, but on that Individual's imperi tive needs. By what ingenious sophis try Henry George disguises that fact, what discrfmination and consequent injustice it would involve, what mis chief would result therefrom, and last ly, what part money, that root of all evil, plays therein, to confuse even the author of Progress and Poverty, cannot all be explained in one paper. As it is possible, moreover, that I may be entirely mistaken, that there is a naw in tne Indictment, I will close tms article right here. Hoping, if it u bo, mat my opponent will point i out; t A. DODGE. Chicago, 111. A REPLY TO ' DODGE'S ARTICLE. Only clear thinking can lead to clear and consistent expression. Tried by this test, Mr. Dodge's article fails to meet the demands of a logical, coher ent argument. Denouncing landlord ism, he denies existence of unearned increment, yet unearned increment (reciept of vajue without giving value) is the essence and offense of landlord ism. v Using but . part of the factors in volved in the problem he attemrtts to solve, Mr. Dodge's conclusions abound in non-sequiturs and cul-de-sacs. If there is no unearned increment whence come the multi-millionaire fortunes made in mining xands, city lots, lum- Der iorests, rigbts of wayretc? , Were they earned by labor, though to do so would require wages of tens of thou sands of dollars per day? The fanciful idea that the tenant is injured only to the slight extent of his interest as a member of the commun ity loses its little force when his loss i3 multiplied by the number of per sons in the community and the result multiplied by the years of landlord ism's existence, and this second result multiplied by the sum of all taxes paid during the time, all of which must be done to reach the truth. . Unable to reacL the conclusion, that. it is the tenant's substance that land lords absorb: Mr. Dodge fails to sav whose substance, or if any substance, 13 absorbed, yet he denounces tne landlordism that seems to absorb noth ing. This is confusion of thought His vague idea is that if it was the tenant's substance absorbed, then the unearned increment which does not exist should belong to the tenant ex clusively and not to the landlord ov to the community, though the land lord's rights to it must equal the ten ant's right and neither can have any greater right than any other member of the community. This brilliant idea seems to have "died a-bornin'." Mr. D. likens land to nature's store room from which all wealth must be drawn by labor, which is correct, though strangely enough he sees no wrong in giving landlords the right to lock this storeroom until labor agrees to give half Its earnings for access to this raw material. Then, with startling inconsistency," he denies the right of the community to exclude labor from access to the unearntd Increment which he says does not exist and de nies that demana for land caused by the presence and needs of the com munity (competition for use of land) creates land values. First with savage cruelty he "knocks the prop" from under the single tax and "lets it fall" a mangled corpse, after which, with fiendish glee, he impales it on a one-horned dilemma and shakes the gory corpse aloft until H is all very dead except the ideas of Justice in it and a few hard facts which refuse to be killed. It is difficult to deal seriously with once who denies the existence of un earned increment and that population ana civilization c: ates land values, facts attested by economists of all schools and confirmed by all observa tion and history. A few years ago the New York city papers told in big scare heads of the'sale of a lot on the corner of Broadway and Wall street at the rate r of seventy-six mill Ions of dol lars per acre, exclusive of improve ments, and not long ago a lot in Kan sas City was exchanged on even terms for seventeen thousand acres of well improved and fertile farm lands. Was iiic6 HO UDearHeu ilicfelaeiit. nor val ue caused by condensed population and business, in these examples? Did Rockefeller earn the six nundred mil lions he has taken from the people for the use of oil and mineral lands and rights of way, or Baer create an thracite coal by his labor? From the tenor of his argument I take Mr. Dodge t be a socialist, hence not versed in political economy, for no good politico, economist can ever be a socialist. It i3 on 'the land ques tion that socialists always "fall down and stand on themselves." That labor pays all rent and taxes in wealth pro duced by labor all single taxers con tend, labor being all useful exertion of hand or brain. That labor should have access to land upon equitable terms and should have for its own use, untaxed by land lord or state, nation, municipality, its entire product, is tiie fundamental idea of the single tax. Because "labor," as such, produces wealth we would give it the. wealth it produces, and because the community, as such, does produce land and other monopoly values, ana labor does not, we would take such so cially produced values for social (pub lic) purposes, thereby relieving "la bor" of the burden of any and all tax ation upon his wealth product. To do the latter without first doing the former is clearly impossible. Mr. Dodge entirely dodges the ques tion of taxation, and the single tax is first of all an equitable system of ob taining public revenues, land reform being an incident and result of this tax reform. If, as I suppose, Mr. Dodge is a socialist, he should not dodge the Question of taxation, for under social ism taxes would be greatly increased, owing to the greatly increased num ber of officials rendered necessary and the losses of many unsuccessful gov crnment enterprises. Mr. Dodge seems to imply that labor should have access to land free of rent or tax that he would abolish rent altogether. As rent is a physical fact of nature, founded in a law of nature, we are curious to know by what pro cess he would eliminate it from na ture's laws. How would he equalize the use value of the fertile bottom and the stony ridge, tie. village lot and one on lower Broadway, the poor farm and the coal, gold, copper, or other mine? Even socialism will find Mother Nature very "sot in 'er ways." Mr. D. says landlordism is a curse and an unmitigated pest, yet his plan of letting labor use land rent free would only be substituting one land lord for another. The effects would not be changed by calling one a la borer and the other a land-owner. A lfcnd-owner need not have a tenant to secure rent or unearned increment, though he usually does have one when he has absorbed enough to be above work. The object and purpose of the sin gle tax is to secure to all men their natural equality before the law to se cure that justice which freedom im plies and that freedom which justice must ever produce. To do this it con siders man both socially and individ ually, taking for social uses all so cial functions (public utilities) and so cial values, or rent, and thus securing to each and every individual equal and equitable access to the bounties of na-' ture and the products of his industry untaxed by the state or nation and un tolled by any monopoly. Has Mr. D. a nobrer ideal or a bet ter plan of reaching it? Whv de nounce a good plan without stating a better one? W. H. T. WAKEFIELD Mound City, Kas. fanticide by killing the "rag baby" (greenback) and that "baby" their own progeny. I then became one of the many who united to save the life of said "baby" and became its foster par ents, - and strove to save it from the murderous hands' of the party that gave it birth. I organized and assist ed in organizing the first greenback clubs in southwestern Iowa. Later, listening to the siren voice of other parties that promised to give us what we asked, we fused with them; that is, we became the tail end of those parties until we were, as a party, switched out of existence. . From that time until the Omaha convention I af filiated with the anti-monopoly and in dependent' parties, as the same reform party was called in the different states in which I resided. My political course can better be judged by stating that since . 1880, the only presidential candidates for whom I, have voter were Peter Cooper, James B. Weaver twice, and William Jen nings Bryan twice. If any one can show a straights reform record for forty-three years I want his name. As a. populist have made school house campaign speeches; have, since 1892, been a worker in county, repre sentative and state committees and county, district and state conventions, and although 76 years of age am ready to do all in my power for the success of the cause. One of the best means of success is foreshadowed in the ac-' tion of the recent Denver conference, which I most heartily indorse. Fusion has weakened us. Anti-fusion is the only tonic that car give us strength. On this subject would say more, but having given what you asi?ed for and having, as I think, exceeded the pre--scribed 300 words. I will desist. E. E. T. HAZEN. Holyoke, Colo. The sieel Trust Graft That the steel trust has a chance to oppress and rob in consequence of the tariff is fully set forth in a letter, written by Schwab to Frick, under date of May 5, 1899, which has recent ly been published. Mr. Sch-wab says:; "As to the future, even on low prices, I am most sanguine. I know positively that England cannot pro duce pig-iron at the actual cost forN less than $11.50 per ton, even allowing no proSt on raw materials, and cannot put pig-iron into a rail " with their most efficient works for less than $7,.5( per ton. This would make rails at net cost to them at $19. We can sell at this price and ship abroad so as to net us $16 at works for foreign business, nearly as good as home business has been. What is true of rails is equally; true of other steel products. As a re sult of this we are going to control the steel' business of the world. You know we can make rails for less than $12 per ton, leaving a nice margin on foreign business. Besides this, for eign costs are going to increase year by year because they have not the raw material, while ours is going to decrease." When one reflects that the trust has , held rails at $28 a ton continuously since its formation, it can be easily seen that the tariff is a shelter for it whether it is for any of the others or not. ... . The railroads of Nebraska pay about one-sixth of the taxes. Farmers pay considerably more than half the taxes. About 17 per cent of all males, over ten years of age, in Nebraska are engaged in "trade and transportation." Over 55 per cent are engaged in agriculture. The railroads now have Judge Sedg wick representing them on the supreme bench. Why should they also have Judge Barnes? Colorado Old Guard Editor Independent: Although the task Is a difficult one for an old "hay seed granger," yet I shall, in my rus tic way, attempt to comply with your recent request for old "war horses" to give a biographical sketch, stating date of birth, former political affilia tions, etc. I first saw the light in New Jersey in 1827. In young manhood was a democrat for the same reason the darkey gave for being black: "because father was." Later, up to 1863, was a democrat from principle, giving my last democratic vote for S. A. Douglas. In 1863 entered an Indiana regiment Lio assist, in settling a little contro versy between the north' and south. Returning In 1863, I. later, moved to Iowa. - Found no political home un til the republican parly attempted in- 5 ljr St The date at which vnnr suh- & scription has txpired or will S expire is printod plainly with 5 the address on the wrapper of 3 the paper each week. It is sufficient notice to all readers of The Independent as to the t condition of their account. ..4 Examine the date on the jt. wrapper of YOTjR paper. If 6 it is past your subscription is "j delinquent. '& Jt g Jt & & The farmers' national congress met at Niagara Falls, September 22. Ad dresses were dv. vered by Governor Odell, Mayor J. D. Purse of Savannah, Ga., Secretary Cortelyou and O. P; Austin. The body declared against the ship subsidy and is opposed to Cuban reciprocity. LIY8 VrST?A Stock Sr Commission Kys & Buchanan Go, SOUTH OMAHA, NEBRASKA. Best possible service in all de partments. Write or wire us for market! or other information. t , Long distance, telephone 2303 , fa