The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-04-11
ONE-SIDED COMPETITION.
Henry George Discusses the Existing Inc
qualities Between Capital and Labor.
Ills Plan for Abolishing Ownership in Land,
and System of Taxation To Be Sub
stituted for the Present

lecture on Property in Land was of the same
character and largely composed of the
same individuals as formed the audience
at his Wednesday night lecture, and was,
rs the previous ore, intelligent and appreciatve.
AT the conclusion of the lecture Mr. George
asked those in whose minds any questions might
arise to state their objections or put their ques
lions, and he would endeavor to answer them.
Mr. Philip Rappaport read four lengthy ques-
TONS
Mr. George will answer the gertleman's last
question, because that is the briefest His ques-
ton involves the theory of socialism. to give the
land. machinery, capital, everything to be the
property of the whole community. do not
ahink that is necessary The beginning of
inequality lies in this adjustment, which de-
This great difference in the first place between
rapital and lard. Capital IS the result of human
labor applied to land. Land is the ele
ment without which human labor could
produce nothing Give them land and
they can produce capital. Man came
into the world without capital. Give men land
and they can produce capital but give them
all the capital you please and they cannot pro-
duce land. Applause. Make men equal as to
their rights in the universe, their rights to
land, then you will have produced condition of
things in which the ownership of things, as the
ownership of capital, would very rightly adjust
itself. The effect Of opening material opportu-
mites to labor would be this No man
he could make by working for
himself If man could make good living in
tbs most primitive state of the earth, not merely
for himself out those whom nature has made de-
pendent upon him, a man might have all the
capital he pleased and he could not got any body
to work for him for less than good living.
Capital must compete with capital. 1t does so
compete even more quickly than competitive labor
with labor Make labor free to land and
this competition Of capital with capital
would constantly, as capital improved in its
power, compel it to offer higher price for labor
The difficulties that arise in the present social
state do not arise from competition.
Competition is not responsible for what we see
today-people battling against each other for
barely enough to live upon. Competition is not
responsible for the fact that little children who
should be at school are crowded into factories.
1t is one-sided competition. 1t is the compe
tition of deprived of their natural rights, of
their opportunities to make living for them
selves
Mr.. Rappaport-I am fully satisfied with your
answer.
monopolies than the monopoly Of land When
we right that primary monopoly then
1T will make easier the abolition of
the others-or rather their absorption
by the state. Any business which is in its ma
ture monopoly is really function of the state,
and should be carried on by the whole people
for the benefit of the whole people. The plan
that | propose would immensely simplify the
government The tax upon land values is all
the tax assessed and collected. You would get
rid at once of the great horde of tax collectors
and other functionaries who necessary un-
der the present system.
Mr. Edward Pope-If the land belonged to the
state, how is man to secure a homea
Mr. Geprge-There would be the same induce
-@est as now. Il propose to help things To let
the man who calls this land his to-day, continue
TO hold his right-to have the right to sell or be-
uueath, 90 make no change except In the incl
dent of taxation. The result would be that -as
you abolish taxation on personal property and
improvements and put it upon land values
alone, the return which the mere ownership of
land would give would be less and less, and that
would continue, with the advance of taxation,
until you got to the point where you would take
the whole value for the benefit of the commu-
nifty.
A Voice-Please illustrate that
Mr.. Georgia. man has a house and lot. z He
Is now taxed on the value of his lot on tho value
Of his house. and he bears great many indirect
taxes which add TO the price l would abolish
all those indirect taxes. would abolish the tax
on his house, on his improvements, and tax him
only on the value Of his lot, and this man who
has built house, or bought himself house and
lot would have no more taxes to pay than the
man next to him, who has a lot of equal avail
ability on which there is no house. APP
plause.l Here is a farmer who has improved 160
acres He has planted orchards, built houses
and barns, etc. i would tax him no more than
would the man who would hold another 160
acres vacant beside him for higher price Now,
the benefit of that system of taxation would be
this You could only go little distance when
you would make it difficult and Improbable to
hold land on the mere expectation of future
increase. You would not go very far until
one could afford to hold land unless he wanted
20 use it. TIE land not in use could be had by
any one who wanted to put it to USE
0t1n TT -faw 1ox odd hx.sl1
one house after another, what would you do in
shat cases
Mr. George-I would let you build all the
houses you wanted Jo-the more you built the
better. The more houses there are to rent, the
easier for men who live in rented houses to get
house. | would not charge you one penny for
building, but would consider you public bene-
factor
Mr.. c. p. Jacobs--Why should rot the govern
ment or state supply capital, furnish funds to
those desiring to borrow and be the only lender!
Mr.. George do not think the furnishing of
funds is a monopoly. There is plenty of com
petition between the holders of capital, so that
in the competition interest has gone down.
Major Jonathan w. Gordon asked a long ques-
stion, in which he desired to know how it was
proposed to shift the taxation from personal &C
cumulations to real estate without injustice.
Mr. George-Ownership private property in
5and, has only reached development in modern
times. There can be no property in in
Justice. If you lave a right to give
away your own natural rights, you can
mot give away those of anybody else AS a
tenant of the earth, you can have no right to
sign away the rights of those who are to succeed
you That is principle of simple Justice. Each
individual has certain rights which are inaliena-
BILE, which are given to him by his Creator, and
&c is an injustice when he is denied them. There
can be no injustice in setting aside anything
which denies that right. The changes under
the plan which / propose would be
necessarily gradual 1t would be accom-
panied by an Increase in the general prosperity
of the country. 1t is only as great landowner
that any man could lose and the vast majority
of our people are not large landowners The
very rich would lose, but they, too. would profit
not merely by the increase in the productive
power. and the greater equality in the distribu-
tion of wealth, but by the elevation of moral
standards, by the increase in intelligence, and
the development of all that goes TO make life
happy. The case of gentle