The herald., 1895-12-08

Single Tax Deficiencies
Editor Herald: There is not very much
difference IN the productive capacity OF
different individu entirely unaided by
cxtraneous ad vantages; so, before there
were any machinery and large Capital
used in wealth production the adoption
of the single tax would undoubtedly have
proved tenn porary blessing. Natnrai
resources would then in fact as we'll as
in theory have been accessible 10 all, ana
all would in a great measure have shared
in them. But in the evolution OF pro-
duction an entirely new factor has lnsid
iously crept in, so stealthily that its ad-
vent was, ana IS now, unsuspected by
MANY. which factor changes the situation
com pletely. From isolated production,
the loom and the shosmaker's bench In
every family, each providing TOT MS
own wants, or, at best, when the worker
owned his tools and went about working
as a master workman for those VINO
could pay him: from these primitive
conditions, where the individual WORKER
counted for something in producing, TO
the present condition. in which MASSIVE
machinery and unthinkable aggregates
of capital are the requisites or proauc-
tion; is a m lightly change, the true mean
ing of which has not yet penetrated the
mind of the single taxer. Mr.. Henry
George in his Land Question says shat
.when capitals OF thousands compete
with capitals Of hundreds of thousands
the smaller capitals will suocumb."
take it that Mr.. Miller considers the above
pretty good authority. | point out that
e o4a1 offort bnIIa pnnd
under any state of society. Capitalists
would combine and rent large tracts of
land, worked by immense and expensive
machinery, run night and DAY, and thus
be able to undersell the two-horse and
walking pillow farmer, no matter now
herocally the latter exerted himself. Re-
member also that Henry George says
that the amount Of tax ON particular
piece of land would be determined (prac-
fically) by the highest biuder. Now
there are innumera BILE branches of land
industry that cannot be carried ON sx-
cept by large capital and lifelong ex-
perIence. Such men, always on the LOOK
out for the main chance, could, ana
therefore would, confer with each ether.
as to now much they would bio. Then
where is Your free competition" Inc
inevitable result would be that com Dina
tions would ges the advantageous sites at
their own price and have monopoly OF
natural opportunities by virtue (or Vlcel
of their very magnitude. This Is the
proof that the single tax would be worse
even than the present disorder. If my
reasoning for q common ownership OF
the means of production is false, SO, then,
is the land theory Of single tax, Tor it Is
identical; and the foundation being re-
moved the whole pretentious superstruc.
ture falls to pieces.
h Every tola:able political economist
knows the difference between capital and
property. Watches, referred to by. Mr.:
Miller, are not means of production"
and are, therefore, not capital. Socialism
does not contemplate the common owner
ship of property. The objection IS there
fore wasted. Mr.. Miller says that social
ism is opposed to a man doing business
for himself Just look around over this
precious "inGividualistic" system and
you will note that all evidence of what
ever kind is on the side of men getting
each others help IN doing business. The
partnership is stronger than the indiyid-
ual and the firm is vet stronger, the
monopoly more so, and the new creation,
the trust, absolute Industrial king. No
man. singly, can meet this gigantic OPP
position sinlge-nanded. Com 5ine or
perish" is the ienexorabe law. The only
criticism the socialist makes TO this trust
idea is that they use the most powerful
force in this universe yet discovered by
man, corporation, for the advantage of
only few of the human race. We want
its blessings diffus ed to every creature.
Competition as an active principle in So
cial life. is exclusive-the less mum her
there are to complete the better SUCCESS.
Cooperation is inclusive, the greater
numbe engaged the better the results.
The one leads to point in the final sur
vival of the iittest one; the other is gen.
eral, upbuilding and embraces the world.
Now q few words about Mr.. MIiler's old
lam liar story. repeated again at the Give
parliament. A invents q net and lives off
of the rent pays him for its use. The
argument is that is entitled to that
rent as she reward of his abstinence. l
have an apple. l may 1t eat it today.
but | abstain, for what purpose? That [
may eat it some other tlnel The reward
OF abstinence, then. is present possession
or in antici patiOn of future consumption.
Mr.. Miller says, II have saved the results
of my labor and made machine; there
fore, have right to live by other peo-
pies labor You might as well say that
as four is twice as much as two, there
fore four inch plank is twice as
straight as a two-lnch plank. There is
no connection between his premises and
that which follows his therefore.
Mr.. Miller said that the laborer is en-
titled TO the iull prJduct OF his labor.
Very we'll, then, he cannot be entitled to
any more than that. Are the fishes b
cacthes with the net the reward of As
labor? Certainly not. On the plea OF
labor, no valid clam can be established
by A, for the results OF his invention ait
er 1t leaves bis hands. For instance, A
labors short while and makes the net
and lives IN idleness ever after. b labors
continuously with the same net and