The Louisiana Democrat., 1891-11-18

bers who secure better sites, and in
proportion to their advantage in this,
respect. 1t is mode of equalizing
common rights, adapted to, . civihza.
ton in which possession in common 10
impossible.
Thers is nothing in this to suggest
any analogy with the idea Of common
ownership OF machinery. Whatever
advantages man may acquire merely
by his ownership of machinery are
Justly his He takes nothing from 9th.
ers, as he does when his advantages
are, directly or indirectly, due to the
private ownership Of natural resources;
and there are no common rights to be
equalized as in the case Of land
The communication Of Evscustes A.
Phipson. published along with that OF
Mr.. Chancellor, illustrates the absurd,
ity of confusing. the single tax with
socialism,. Even Mr.. Chancellor will
be apt 10 smile when he reads 1t. It is
due to Mr.. Phipson, however. to re-
mind the reader that he writes from
England, where socialism, thanks to
the activity OF its advocates, has made
propaganda" in the land restoration
bodies, after the manner in which It
operates upon trade unions, both there
and here; and whore the single tax, as
that term. is understood. in this country,
has but Slight organized support, ex.
cept from the financial reform associa.
tions'a body OF free traders. When he
writes of the single tax. therefore, he
may really refer not to thessingle' tax,
but to the socialistic programme OF
substituting the government rs land
lord in place of private landlords, and
making everybody tenant whether or
no OF the essential principle of the
single tax, that there shall be no land
owners, neither the state nor individu-
| ais, and that land shall fall into two
classes occupied or private, and unoc.
cupied or common, Mr.. Phipson evil
IDENTIFY has no conception. @ q
The conditions in England, where
the tories. are taxing Englishmen 70
buy out Irish landlords for the benefit
of Irish tenants, regardless of the suf-
fcrings of Irish, peasants that arc NOT
tenants, may nationally account for Mr..
Phipson's idea that tho buying out Of
landowners, with full compensation,
payable In /, bond that is ultimately TO
lose Its interest,paying quality, Is .
/ plan that would como at within
| the domain of practical politics; but to
4 Americans twill read like the craziest
kind of political smalltalk
4 - But The most significant of Mr. Phip.
4 sons ill-considered criticisms Is his as.
! sumption that capital as well as land
\ can be taxed to the point of extinction
OF value. Land may be so taxed - tc
extinguish It's value. but not TO extin'
guish the land; and, conversely, II |,
supposable that capital may be so taxed
as to extinguish it, but not to extinguish
It's value SO long as, the capital itseli
exists. As II is obvious that Mr. Phip
son does not contemplate the extinction
Of the value Of capital by extinguishinl
capital, his consideration Of land and
capital in this manner proves his inca
pacity for the criticism he undertakes
1t is this ignorant and Needless disre
gard Of elementary truths-so simpl'
that they need but to be mentioned 4
be accepted-that makes discussion
with most socialists exasperating ane
proftlesa It is like discussing prob
lens in long division with boy wh'
; has fno appreciation of the vslne o
numbers. The Standard