The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-11-21
TO THE EDITOR
[Thc Herald under this heading prints cor.
munications. but docs not assume RESPONSE
bility for me sentiments expressed
Single Ink Criticised

Single Tax Criticised
Editor Herald:-During the civic par
Lament Clarence Miller. single tax cham
pion par excellence in this city, asserted
that land monopoly is the parent of the
whole litter OF monopolies. and if the old
cur were killed the whelps would starve.
Upon this point there is much doubt.
While believing almost everything the
single taxer says in regard to the land be-
longing to the living, not to he dead or
yet unborn. still the remedy they propose
may we'll be thoughtfully questioned.
How much land does the Rothschilds
banking house use, that it should drea d
the application of the single tax? What
difference would it make to that m onop-
oily il thar personal property tax was
abolished and som efhing added to their
land tax? Would toey thus be compelled
TO discontinue the curnering OF the
worlds money? What connection is there
between the land tax and usury taking2
Would the single tax operate with even
Justice between farmer who uses M och
valuable land ana a publisher or manu-
faoturer who uses very tile? Mr.. Fin
laysun sta ted that the railroad monopoly
did not consist in the capital used to
operate the road, not in Its rolling stock,
Uut III the laHu OH WulCu was Uuiis
This is but bold statement, uDaccOm-
panied BY argument. Sensible people are
not convince1 By that method. That aen-
tieman said that where there is compe-
ttion, there could be no monopoly. Com
petition between private personal inter
ests. is ev IDENTIFY inimical to personal
success. Example: l start in the sroc-
cry trade in heretofore 1noccupied terri
try and prosper. Does my sell interest
prompt me to seek to secure second
grocery man in the same rritort or not9
Assuredlv not. Then, if one does come.
there is clash of interest detrimental to
both that can only be terminated by an
agreement is open. easy and inevitable
and is the first aspect of all monopo-
lies. No one seeks competition TOR
himself. Never were competitors them
selves benefited by their own comreti-
ton. This. my single tax friend, is the
natural law that causes private separate
interests to com bine. Only a blind ad-
herence to a formulated politico-econorlcc
creed conld fail to discover this natural
law. Thea. as industrial enterprises grow
lager. more experienced and systema-
tlzed, so does the possibility to compete
with them by smaller undertakings be-
come corresponding less. Another law
il nature. s." ken OF by Henry George IN
Progress and Poverty, is taht the larger
number OF men engaged at the same
work, properly ordered, the creator the
rest 1t to each individual. For instance,
100 men CO operating at task do more
than 100 times as much as enc man could
do in the same time. Now, in the light
of this truth, could there be any hope for
the individual working alone in q g i'd
of labor already occupied by large capital
and machinery? Manifestly none, yet Mr..
Miller tells US that the wagewurker would
force bis employer to pay more wages by
! threatening to work for himself. Mr..
Nj Her says that no man can be the abso-
Lutte owner of the land, as he did not
make it By the same reasoning, which
is perfectly valid, no man can be the alb
solute owner of a machine. because in its
construction ne uses parts PREVIOUSLY in
vented bv men long since dead. Onis
very small part OF a new machine is real
ly new, so that tine absolute ownership
is scattered back on the track OF CEN
turtles. Then what bitter irony it is to
free the natural resources to all men
and leave the only means OF utilizlng
tnein in the hanus OF the few? The zig
gag thsory of the single tax, truth and
fallacy alternating, is we'll calculated to
captivate or puzzle all but the persistent
thinker.
". C. B. RANDOLPH,
Station d.