THE NEBRASKA INDEPENDENT
NOVEMBER b, l90rf.
The Philosophy of Freedom
An Open Forum for Single Taxers
THE DODGE-WAKEFIELD DEBATE
MR DODGE'S SURREJOINDER.
4 Unless Mr. Wakefield will admit the
tingle tax to be a fraud, In which case
I agree, always with the editors per
mission, to debate socialism or any
other Issue with him, as single tax is
our subjeci, . and I am not nearly
through with my objections to it; we
must stick to our text Why will he
twist plain statement from their ob
vious meanings? Let him read my
definition of value, and then state
that I contend that the individual who
tisps land, alone given vr.lue to that
land.'
, To test the single taxer's conten
tion that the community as a whole,
by its mere presence and needs create
the land values, we must take a sip
positious case. This city of Chicago
has a pretty large community and
land values are pretty high. Now,
suppose that this industrious, striving,
scheming, pushing crowd should go to
a more advantageous location and be
replaced by all the loafers7, tramps,
hoboes and paupers our country con
tains, to be supported here by pubHc
charity, the community would be just
as large, if not larger, their needs
would be the same, but where would
the land values be? .Again, what I am
contending for is, that it is tne spolia
tion of labor which Is the basis of the
value of all those privileges and as
such are not an unearned inceraent
of wealth, but ability to extort it.
I am well aware that the prospect of
exploiting prospective labor is almost
as potent to boom the value of those
privileges as is present exploitation
thereof. To quote me, then, as ask
ing: "If a dollar of wealth can be
produced from a mine before labor
had been applied to it," when my
plain statement was, "If no labor had
been, or ever would be, applied to
.those mining lands, could a dollar of
wealth acrue therefrom," Is very like
setting up a man of straw, and then
knocking the everlasting daylight out
of him. Let him play fair, whatever
ho does.
I only mentioned the three billion
dollars of fictitious wealth .as one
method by which labor is exploited,
the variations of which are legions. A
, few years ago, for instance, Philip
Armour cleaned up seven millions in
one pork deal, here on the board of
trade. How could the single tax stop
these legal and illegal robberies, which
the authorities seem to be unable or
:unwilling to deal with now? Don't
say. the single tax would do it, but
give us the modus operand. I might
say taxing moonbeams would do it,
but would that be any proof thereof?
In his first paper, Mr. W. accuses
me of dodging the question of taxa
tion and contends that it is the pri
mary object of the single tax to ob
taia an equitable system of taxation.
He thereby shows himself to b a very
"poorly informed disciple of Henry
George, who distinctly states in his
'writings that seeing poverty going
hand in hand with progress made him
first study the subject, when he dis
covered that land monopoly Is at the
bottom of the phenomenon. Then
from reading a treatise on the subject
entitled "Le Impot Unique," written
by a Frenchman in the eighteenth
century, he was led b- believe that
taxing, away the land values would
remedy the evil. Hence, the reverse
of Mr. Wakefield's statement is the
truth.
But let that pass; let us see how
equitable and just the single tax would
be as a fiscal measure. As the com
munity is an aggregation of Individ
uals banded together for mutual ben
1 eflt, and as such is bound by laws
which all must obey, and as these
laws will not enforce themselves and,
moreover, as certain functions can
either not be looked after by the In
dividual at all. or ela-j only in a per
functory manner, therefore govern
ment la necessary to rarry them Into
effect. Hence U derived the justice
of taxation, bring payment for ser
DON'T READ THIS
Nrtf Mh'lr tt titjr to jrcHl bn?fW
am ine MttH!tjtnrtM oiMrorsji,
Tbi intrfti! 1ti.rf pf lh Vh rrnttirr;
titm viif for Hit ttrvfttllil tt l r.iu
lit ,1at. wMi'tt ltiril tfk ll full
fuiir nl I wrt'i I Mr, TV r tH'Ule, kk
your tlf"KU, nr m nl bf ntr- en nrvll (
ALPluE MEDICAL CO.,
1,1 53 MyrtU Avf llrooklyn, N, Y,
vices rendered. Now, as one ofhe
most Important functions of govern
ment is to protect the. individual's be
longings, not alone from the elements.
but chiefly from the predatory portion
of society, therefore the larger the in
dividual's holdings are which the gov
ernment must protect, the higher
ought to be his tax. That this tax
should not exceed . governmental ex
penditure economically administered
goes without saying. Measured by this
standard, how does the single tax
compare? Truth to tell, It ignores it
in toto. Not alone does it not limit
that tax to governmental needs, but
it proposes to levy that tax on the in
dividual's need of the land, to say
that it is based on land values is a
mere subterfuge, since the user of that
land must pay it under any circum
stances. Hence, this tax would fall ir
resistibly, chiefly directly or indirect
ly, on the producer, for he mustuse
the most land.
Take, for instance,' the bondholder
who never from his cradle to the grave
need do one tap of useful work, but
exists as a parasite on his fellow man,
yet the cream of everything falls to
his shaYe, while the real useful citi
zen, oi) whose labor he exists, can ob
tain only the skim-milk and very of-'
ten scant measure of that. How could
he be made to pay his just share of
taxes, since all that could be collected
from him would be only on that small
patch of land on which his dwelling
stands, and as taX-dodgJng is the pro
verbial sin of that class, we may be
sure that that would be in some subur
ban retreat, where bare land can only
be assessed on the acre plan. Yet this
class derives by far the largest benefit
from organized society. As there are
some forty odd billions of dollars'
worth, national and municipal, or
those bonds extant in the civilized
world, here Is an army who could
virtually escape taxation altogether.
But, say single taxers, whenever
you attempt to tax that class, on its
personal property, it is sure to hide
a large portion thereof, and will per
jure itself as lief as not in order to
escape it. Therefore, why not permit
that class to enjoy In quiet the ser
vices society - renders it, unvexed by
taxation, a3 long as you can obtain all
and more than is needed by taxing
the land from which the masses must
draw their subsistence by their labor?
They cannot hide that. This is rich!
Bemuse this wealthy class Is such an
t.rconscious tax dodger, therefore we
must virtually exempt It legally. Queer
notion of justice, that!
One word more in regard to the
community creating the land values.
It is true, if there were no people there
could be no land value, incidentally
nothing else of value either. Chicago
for instance, instead of being the large
go-ahead city it is, would vstill be a
dismal swamp. Why don't single tax
ers claim everything In sight? Why
content themselves with the land val
ues? The one is just as much and as
little a communal product as the
other. A. DODGE.
Chicago, 111.
MR. WAKEFIELD'S REBUTTER.
It is my understanding that this
"rebutter" closes our,- discussion,
this being the limit set by the editor
of The Independent in his 'announce
ment of it. It is, perhaps, as well to
stop now, for certainly the 'discussion
so far has not been of the highest in
terest nor traveled fast toward any
logical conclusion. Mr. Dodge's meth
ods of discussion have been so unusual
t.nd peculiar as to confine us to a nar
row range and slow progress.
Mr. D. complains that I do not treat
Hme of his statements seriously, but
this has been true if at all-only
when they did not admit of serious
consideration, such as comparing a
highwayman's booty to rent, lots nev
er to be use'd, or Chicago's population
entirely replaced by an equal number
of thieves, vagabomls and paupers.
How can any one talk seriously of
tish Snsans vagaries of things that
rever did nor can happen?
Mr. I), has confined his argument to
one or two objections many times re
peated, and ! have found difficulty In
comprehending Mi exact position or
meaning, but have tried to be an cour
teous and fair as hlo vsicuenc al
lowed me to b and to meet every
alld object Ion squarely and fully. Ho
veiled and obj ure ha been his state
ments and ho undefined hi own pol
tlon that thli lm not been enay to do.
With all due deference to hl learning
and ability, I doubt f Mr, I), quite
comprehend th sttiRle tat vr hi own
olton with reference to It au to
It tlofly related factor of economU
adjustment. Thin la evident when he
objects to non-taxation of bondhold
ers, a question that belongs in the
kindergarten stage of economic dis
cussion, and one never heard from one
having an understanding of the single
tax. Single taxers believe there would
be no necessity for bonds and none is
sued under the single .tax in operation,
that bonds are a scheme to tax the
many for the benefit of the few, or to
tax future generations for the benefit
of the present one; that their only
safe basis Is land values and power
to tax them and to, tax labor, all of
which would practically disappear. un
der the single tax.. Certainly the
power to tax labor and its products
(same thing) would no longer exist,
nor would the power to tax land val
ues except by the public for" public
purposes. As It would take but 60
per cent of present rent values to
equal all present national, state and
local taxes it is evident no bonds
would be needed, but if they were the
taxation resulting would be equitable
and not inequitable as now. Certain
ly railroads could not issue bonds to
cover value of their rights of way, as
they now do, nor coal or other mine
owners their land values, for all these
would be public values, not private
ones. Do bondholders pay taxes now?
Mr. D. seems to think they do not, and
I know they do not, so it seems a very
puerile argument he makes that the
single tax would let them escape what
they already escape. If it were possi
ble to assess and tax bonds, notes';
mortgages, etc., equitably, it would
not be any relief to producers, exper
ience having demonstrated that the
interest would rise, to include the tax,
a tax which only a few strictly honest
or unskilled in. dodging would pay,
the others receiving the enhanced in
terest, but not paying the tax.
Mr. D. says I do not agree with
Henry George as to the'reason for the
single tax, but he reaches this conclu
sion by careless reading of my last ar
ticle, mistaking my quotation of oth
ers' position for my own. At the best
this is an unworthy quibble, since the
object of the single , tax whether it
. Independent School
FIXING TIIF VALUE OF MONEY.
Of the many good things in Del
Mar's works there is probably noth
ing of, more importance than the
following: "He also showed that the
function of money was to definitely,
measure value; and not merely pres
ent and local value, but, tc some ex
tent, also past and prospective value,
and value generally: that therefore
money was related to equity, or to the
maintenance of equitable relations be
tween capitalists and laborers: that,
like other measures the most neces
sary and essential characteristic of
money was specific limitations; in
other words, that to measure with
precision and with justice, the whole
sum of money must be fixed at some
more or less constant ratio to the vol
ume of exchanges."
Mr. Del Mar has studied the history
of money, and the science of money;
but he has not attempted to formulate
a plan for a scientific money system;
and how to fix "the whole sum of
money" at a "constant ratio to the vol
ume of exchanges" is a problem that
many think it impossible to solve.
Still to those who believe in the
"Reign of Law," as a universal piin -
ciple of nature, it must seem pos
sible. Now, the volume of exchanges is
continually changing, consequently to
preserve the ratio between the whole
volume of exchanges and the whole
volume of money would require a sys
tem of money that would expand and
contract with the requirements of
trade. Such a system cannot be based
upon any commodity for no commod
ity increases, and diminishes in quan
tity in exact ratio to the whole volume
of exchanges, end no commodity is
always of the same value. Some peo
ple advocate a pnr capita system for
limiting the amount of money; that 3
they advocate the Issue by govern
ment of a certain number of dollars
for every Inhabitant and as popula
tion increases to !nTei the circula
tion in the same ratio. I can boo two
objections to thnt plan, the first la
that It Is Imposrlbl to tell how much
money Is In circulation. My second
objection Is that even If it could be
carried out the plan would 'not be a
rood one treatise In progreHlvc coun
tries wealth Increase fter thin imp
utation, and the amount of money In
circulation should tie kept at a "con
stant ratio" to the volnii e of ex
change and that I a very different
thing from keeplntc It nt a roiiHtant
ratio to the number of the Inhabit
ants.
Another plan that has teen propone.)
I to regulate t! amount of money In
limitation by th price of the prin
cipal artUtes of exchange. It Is pro
be a reform of land tenure or of tax
ationcan be attained only through a
change of tax laws to shift the burden
from useful exertion to the specially
privileged landlord. However, I dis
tinctly stated that the best reason for
the single tax was Its justice in dis
tributing social .burdens to holders of
special privileges so as to absorb tne
latter for public use, equitable access
to us-of land values being the result
. Mr. D. assumes an Impossible posi
tion when he denounces landlordism,
yet denounces the only method ever
devised for its destruction. He takes
another impossible position when he
says that land values are the result of
a competition of many different indi
viduals for the use of a particular
piece of land, but not of the presence
and needs of the community as a
whole. Either this is childish trifling
with words or a hopeless confusion of
thought, since one-half his argument
kills the other half. His effort to
make a distinction between the com
munity and the individuals composing
the community is simply nonsense.
So far as I can decipher Mr. D.'s po
sition, he seems to profess to speak
in favor of labor of the producer.
As the only aim and purpose of the
single tax is to give to labor (useful
effort of hand or brain) its entire prod
uct, untaxed by government and un
tolled by monopoly, for labor's own
use and enjoyment, we presume Mr.
D. must have a plan to give labor
mere than its total product, though
it Is generally thought there i3 no
more to give.
That the sinple tax will do this is
admitted by all the reputable econ
omists of the world and by all ex
ploiters of labor, the latter admitting
it by their bitter and malignant oppo
sition. Evidently Mr. D. does not dis
tinguish between capital used in pro
duction and monopoly used to toll or
tax production, yet such distinction is
the beginning of economic wisdom.
W. H. T. WAKEFIELD.
Mound City, Kas. ,".
of Political Economy
posed that the government make a
list of say one hundred of the prin
cipal articles of commerceand find the
average price of certain quantities of
them, government officials would
watch 'the markets and whenever the
average prices were found to be fall
ing more money would be issued. I
think - that that, might be done and
that It would be a great improvement
on the present system; yet, it is not
perfect, it is too complicated, and
prices do not ri3e immediately with
the expansion of the currency.
The rate of interest is the indicator
of the scarcity or excess of money in
circulation. As soon as the need for
more money is felt interest rises; and
as soon as the need is supplied in
terest falls to its former rate, and if
more money continues to be issued, it
will fall still lower. Does not this
fact point to the possibility of reg
ulating the amount of money in circu
lation by regulating the rate of inter
est. If "the whole volume of money"
could be fixed at a constant ratio to
the whole volume of exchanges, the
rate of interest would never vary, for
the rate of interest only varies when
itne ratio is changing. Attempts have
frequently been made to regulate the
rate of interest by passing usury laws,
forbidding lenders to charge more than
a certain rate, but as such laws neith
er lessen the demand for money nor
increase the supply they have always
been evaded. The government can
regulate the rate of Interest by fixing
the rate, and suj plying the demand at
that rate, and by so doing they will
not only prevent usurers from obtain
ing a higher rate, but they will at tho
same time give a scientific money,
that will always maintain the name ra
tio to the volume of exchanges. If
there Is anythln- In this theory that
Is not In harmony with Del Mar's
teachings I would like tc have It
pointed out. More than that, I can
quote passages not only from Del Mar,
but from numerous other writers, that
will strengthen my position; but as I
have tal en up considerable space I
must let that go for the present.
J AH. H. I'ATON.
1335 J st.. Fresno, Cat.
HEADAGHE
2 lm .St.
Mention The Independent,
I At ft J tut "
kimmt I II IWWi