The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-02-27
ENDED AT LAST.
The Single Tax Argument Con-
cluded in a Final Debate.
IT'S SOPHISTRIES ALL EXPOSED


a letter of George Sutherland on the single
tax, and comments thereon by 1gnauuS
Donnelly. If Mr.. Donnelly had not signed
his article | would not believe that he had
written it, it is SO full of misapprehenslon
of the facts. Will you permit me space In
your columns to say a few words on the
subject?
Every sentence that Mr.. Donnelly has
written in that article clearly shows that
he does not understand the philosophy OF
the single tax. He has evidently been
misinformed, as he fails utterly to grasp
the fundamental principle that single tax
stands for, which. briefly, is this:
Every being born in this world has the
right to live 1t therefore logically follows
that he has the right to that which is nee
essary to sustain life-land and air. These
natural elements are not the product or
man and cannot be made private property
without detriment to those who do not own
them The mere accident of precedence
in birth cannot give any one man a better
title to the earth than his successor. If it
does, does such precedence give the right
to bind genera tons unborn-partles TO
contract without any voice in the matter
by transfer of ownership in land?
If you will trace back every title to land
you will find that it is based on fraud or
force and if tine is a legalizer of title,
at what period of time does it become legal
at what rate per year does 1t grow!
(Now there are certain fallacies in all
this.
In the first place, 1t is not true that all
land titles are based on force or fraud.
Nearly all the lands in this country have
been obtained by purchase from the gov
eminent or by occupancy under the home
stead law Surely, the men who subdued
the Western wilderness, cut down the
trees broke up the sod and erected homes,
have some claims the fruit of their in
dustry above the idler who made no such
efforts AS a rule, the nation has paid the
Indians for their right of occupancy; and
surely a nomadic savage who requires 5000
acres to support him, has no right to ex-
clude the civilized man, who can support
his family on 100 acres
In the second place, the right of every
man to live does not entitle any man to
rob another of the fruits Of his Industry.
If our correspondent, by industry and
economy, had achieved modest home as a
shelter for those dear to him, would it
justify a mob of wandering tramps and
loafers in breaking down the door, and
driving him and his family out to starve?
The trouble with our friends is, they ride
off on glittering generalities like a witch
on her broomstick.
Neither can you place the earth and air
upon the same plane. The earth can only
support life by industry of some kind
while the air nourshes us without exer-
ton, save the mechanical spontaneous
operation of breathing, which we could not
suppress without a tremendous effort
l. d.
Can you conceive it possible for man to
live without land? Assuming that is is
possible for him to float on water all his
life and live on what he gets out of the
water will you not find land the source
from which he must have obtained that
which keeps him from sinking-a Ship
raft or a single stick? Or, assuming that
he can float without the ship, raft or stick
what would become Of the ocean if land
were not at the bottom of it?
You can live without those things which
l produce from land-clothing, shelter
food luxuries-if you have access to land
yourself. But if | own the land and re-
1use you access to 1t, you must get off
the earth, die or yield to my terms.
Now, If L nave established my right to
lve-the use of the earth-how am L to
secure to each his just right? Through
the single tax which means the abolition
of every tax from the product of labor
and the taking of that value (renO which
the community has given to land, or
rather, that value which attaches to bare
AdHu ny the growth OF a communication
the benefit of the community. This is
strictly in accordance with the order of
nature.
Of now your argument is right. access to
the land is essential to all men, with what
face can you demand that, as a pre-requi-
site to that access, those who get access to
the land, who hold use the land shall
pay not only their own legitimate taxes
out the taxes of everyone else? How dare
you attempt to defeat a great natural right
by imposing penalty on it's exercise? Do
you not see that you are sticking your
head in the sand like an ostrich, and leav-
ing the butt end of your fallacy sticking
out, for the wonderment of the nations?
II you have votes enough to confiscate the
Hand through overwhelming taxation, have
you not the power to condemn it under
tine right of eminent domain" and so use
1t as to give every Industrious man a
chahce Tor home, free from taxation in
stead OF being loaded down with all the
burdens of the community?-I. d.
Before the establishment of society. when
each family was self-contained, and men
wandered over the face of the earth. rent
was unknown. With the advent of society
"a community of interests), came the neces-
slty for fund to pay for public works
roads, schools, hospitals etc. This fund
nature has provided as 1 said before by
the value which attaches to bare land
through preference for site location. AS no
one individual alone can give value to land.
does it not logically follow that ali
have an equal interest in that which all
create, and that no one is injured when
this value TenD is taken for the benefit
of ALL
apply this:
Before the establishment of society there
was no demand for first-class houses
There were no masons to build the walls.
no axes to chop down the trees; no mills
to manufacture the lumber; no roads or
streets to obtain access by; no-police force
to protect the property; and as everything
the house is composed Of towit: Stone.
brick. wood, iron, glass, etc., came from
the land, which according to the single
taxi is the common property of all men.
therefore 1t follows that the house could
not have existed but for civilized society.
and would have no value without civilized
society: and is made up of materials Gre
ated by God. and THEREFORE the common
property of all men, therefore the house
belongs to everybody. and the man who
built 1t has no right to 1t that "a white
man is bound to respect" and If the COM
munity tax his hind legs off it is just what
he deserves. Selah!-L d.