Iron County register., 1891-11-12
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
SOCIALISM AND THE slneLErAx.

In his weiltempered criticism, pub
lished this week among Letters to the
Editor. VIM. e. Chancellor, of Pratt in
stitute, questions The Standards policy
of calling socialism the antipodes OF
the single tax. This is not sound OBJ
lection. The two are Numerically OPP
posed, and every attempt to identify
them makes an occasion for clearly
and emphatically restating this truth
And SO far from being in any wise
harmful or impolitic this is beneficial
1t tends to remove prejudice against
the single tax from the minds of men
to whom socialism-not socialism
the epithet, but socialism itself-is re-
pugnant; and it is to such men that sim
gle tax must appeal for support They
are its natural allies; socialists are its
natural enemies.
The single tax movement does not
want the support of socialists, as such.
This is said deliberately, but in no un-
friendly spirit However worthy Of
respect they may personally be, they
can be regarded in the great conflict
upon which society is about to enter
indeed, has already entered-only as
adversaries. The single tax and so
eialism, like free trade and protection,
or democracy and paternalism, are ir-
revocably at war; if they were enemies
in nothing else, they would be in the
fact that socialism aims to abol-
ish competition, while of the sim
gle tax competition is the corner
stone. It is one of the most important
conditions of warfare, a condition that
applies as well to this bloodless conflict
as to the sanguinary struggles of armed
legions, that each side shall distinguish
it's friends from it's foes; and this we do
for our side when we differentiate so
cialism from the single tax If social
lists take personal offense, we deplore
their morbid sensitiveness- If, ac-
knowledging the distinction, they re-
tire within their own lines and seek
association with other paternal sects,
we recognize their candor and respect
their powers of intelligent discrimina-
tion. And if, believing as some of them
do-our correspondent for example,
that the single tax is step in the di-
rection of socialism, they give US the
benefit of their influence and voting
strength, as we give ours under similar
circumstances to the free trade wing of
the democratic party, we are glad to
acknowledge their conduct as proof of
their sincerity. But if, processing to
believe that the single tax is step to-
ward socialism, they oppose us because
we deny it, how can they be regarded
otherwise than as pretenders? Either
their fealty to socialism, or their notion
that the single tax leads to it, or both,
must be but pretense, if they are
changed from friends to enemies by
such petty pride of opinion.
Mr.. Chancellor's conception of dem
ocracy, if he expresses himself correct
ly, is curiously distorted. 1t is not the
essential purpose of democracy" to
'level inequalities in mems positions
by the accident of birth" 1t would,
however, level the inequalities that
arise from special privileges conferred
by law; and since these privileges are
often inherited. our correspondent, by
an ellipsis of thought similar to that
which causes him to confound the sim
gle tax with socialism, may have
nothing but special privileges in mind
when he speaks of 'the accidents of
BIRTH But if. as his language implies,
he includes inherited wealth earned by
the ancestor; if he includes superior
mental or physical qualities, by means
of which their possessor, by production
and not by plunder, raises himself
above the less fortunate; if he means
that it is the essential purpose of dem
ocracy to do more than to secure equal
natural rights to all, with special priv
ileges to none, he mistakes the essen
tial purpose of democracy.
II society were producer, we should
agree that individual ownership of le
gal power to take increments produced
by society is at variance" with the es-
sential purpose of democracy. But so
ciety produces nothing. The contrary
notion constitutes the fallacy of all that
class who, like Mr.. Chancellor, identify
the single tax with socialism. They
regard society as distinct producer
producing by means of land, producing
by means of machinery; and its product
as something over and above what the
individual produces. To this class, be-
1ieving in the single tax because they
'5selieve first of all in socialism" the
sengle tax appears to be plan for Civ
ing back to society what society pro-
duces by means of land. 1t draws the
line at machinery; but, as Mr.. Chancellor
says, sit is socialistic in its result" In
other words, it is socialism as far as it
goes.
But when the law of rent is compre-
hended, this fallacy stands exposed.
Though society does not produce, either
by means of machinery or of land, there
is in the aggregate of individual pro-
duction what Mr.. Chancellor calls an
Increment" that justly belongs to
none of the producers individually, but
does belong to them all in common. It
is called economic rent. But economic
rent is not a product over and above
the produce of individuals 1t is not
Produced by society, but by individuals.
And if it does not in justice belong to
the individual who produces it, that is
because his producing site is more ad-
vantageous than the sites to which his
equals, on account of the scarcity of
sites like his, are forced to 60 He is
in Justice bound to compensate them for
this advantage, which he enjoys, and of
which, though their right is equal to
his, they are deprived.
If with given labor applied to two
different acres of land, fifty bushels of
corn are produced from the first and
only forty from the other, the owner of
the first has an advantage which does
not justly belong to him, and which he
should be compelled to equaliZe by pay
ing the difference of ten bushels into
common fund. But he, and not socie-
ty. is the producer of that ten bushels
The taking of it for public use is not