Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1895-02-16

for the sutferings Of the poor
And on page l07 Mr.. George shows
that to give away what laud he may
have would not do any good.
Does all this sound as if Mr.
George considered every man own
ing property 0and) AS guilty as the
man who holds stolen goods!
To be consistent, Mr.. Livesey tells
us. Single-TaXers should give their
land to the government. Mr.. Livesey
says he knows what the Single-Tax is.
IT that is true he must know that the
SlngleTaX plan not contain the prop
osition to take any land from ANYBODY,
either to give it to individuals or to the
government. Let me quote again from
the same book, page 8:
We do not propose to assert equal
rights to land by keeping land common,
letting any one use any part of it at any time.
We do not propose the task, impossible in
the present state of society, of dividing land
i'll equal shares: still less the yet more inn
possible task of keeping it so divided
We propose leaving land in the private
possession of individuals with full liberty on
their pant to give sell or bequeath it, simply to
| levy on it for public Uses a tax which shall
equal the value the land itself. irrespective of
| the use made of it or the improvements on it.
| And since this would provide amply for the
/ need of public revenues, we would accompany
| this tax on land values with the repeal of all
taxes now levied on the products and pro-
cesses of industry-which taxes since they
take from the earnings of labor, we hold to
be infringements of the right of property.
But perhaps Mr.. Livesey may say -
albright have it your way, Mr.. Single
| TaXer Pay. to he consistent, tax on
In, 90
it, irrespective of the use made of it or
the improvements on it," To which
would answer, that we will gladly do
it (such of us as have lanD if the
government City, County, State and
Union) will release us from all other
taxation. direct or indirect, for that is
Il part Of our plan. Tn ugl we would
not be Inconsistent. even if we were to
refuse to do that.
Mr.. Livesey. like so many others,
seems to be unable to comprehend the
difference between an institutional
wrong and an mdicMuai wrong. A
few examples will, ] hope, enlghten
| him
am Free Trader. Must |. to be
consistent, refuse to pay duty on any
dutiable article which | may bring
into this from a foreign country
Or must |, to advance the cause of
Free Trade, become a professions al
smugglere
am opposed to free books in
public schools. Must | then cause
my boy IL refuse the books sur piled
him with the rest Of the children.
while paying taxes which are used to
buy the books? Or, believe in free
books. Must |, to be consistent, knock
down the tax collector aud rob hlm of
enough money to pay for my boy S
books
There runs through Mr.. Livesey's
letter, like red thread. an insinua-
ton as if Single Takers IN general,
and MIR. Henry George and myself in
particular, had something to hide
That we talked Single Tax, but meant,
secretly, the abolition of private prop
erty in land. But that we did not
want the latter point to be too plainly
seen that we cautiously skipped over
this point.
Why, bless your innocence, Mr..
Livesey, don't you know that we a,e
proposing the Single-Tax for the very
purpose of destroying the institution
Of private ownership? And don't you
so | was plain about this in my
article where | quoted some author
tiles who, with me. believe that the
institution Of private ownership in
land is III just. Mr.. Llvesey must be
excused for not knowing that have fire.
quently and publicly spoken in meet,
ings and through the press on the SIN.
justice of Private Ownership of Land
Vide Cumberland Daily Ne,cS, May "a
26 and y. 1892; Times. September 5,
1892; report of Ministers Meeting,
Times, Sept. II, 1892 report of ADJ
dress to Young Mems Democratic Club
etc, etc
But Mr. Livesey cannot be excused
if he does not know that Henry George
is perfectly plain on this subject. He
says he has read "Progress and Poy-
erty." Now "Progress and Poverty
is, as stated on the title-page. book
containing ''an Inquiry into the Cause
of Industrial DtpreSsions and of In
crease of Want with Increase OF
Wealth. The Remedy" Inthe intro
duction he states more fully tne
piopltIl CpH'dlHtu III tut 'l'it' liz
then proceeds to examine the eXplana
tons given by orthodox political econ
omy. He shows that all explanations
are insufficient excepting this one,
viz that the institution of private
ownership of land, necessarily accom-
panied by speculation in land and the
keeping out of use of land, are ''tht
primary cause of recurring paroxysms
of industrial depressions." (Headlint
book V, chapter j. And in the seconC
and last chapter of his book, 'The
Persistence of Poverty Amid Ad
vancing Wealth." he states:
The reason mhy !" spite IF he increase o
BrOductiDe pO,eer, "dgeS constantly tend to {
0dnin.u,1 Which mW gi0G hM a bare Noin8, j.
nut, "jM increase Of productive po~er geh
tends to eoen greater increase thus producing {
co"Stah tendency to the forcing do~" Of ~o9es.
Book vi is entitled "the Remedy
In the first chapter the remedies usual
, ly proposed are examined and shown
: TO be insufficient, chapter ii, and last
containing this statements:
This, then is the remedy for the unjust an,
unequal distribution of wealth apparent il
modern civilization, and for all evils which
flow from it.
We must mahe luna c0nui'o" property.
The italics are Henry Georges, anI
and thus does he hide his true pur
pose.
Book vii Is an examination of the
, "Justice of the Remedy" chapter Ii