The herald., 1896-12-30
SINGLE TAX EXPOSITION

sirable land which is about the same
| thing. Then the non-land- owning renter
must produce the amount he pays as
rent, must he not? So what grounds have
| opponents of the single tax for saying
that the land owners have produced all
| land values?
Every honest worker who produces
! something valuable, either with his head
or his hands, helps to increase the value
of land Truly, they contribute toward
| this in unequal degrees but the single
tax is not a scheme for leveling down
| and dividing things up equally. 1t is a
scheme for making opportunities equal,
but not for equalizing wealth 1t con-
templates giving every one all he pro-
duces, but not more. 1t proposes to
leave to the individual all he can poss-
IDLY produce as an individual, and what
the community produces, which is meas
ured by land values, it proposes to take
in taxes, to pay the expenses of the
community.
1t may be said that the man who man
ages and controls some great product
i've enterprise does much more toward
increasing land values than the average
mantle men who are working under
his direction, for instance-and this Is
true; but does he not get his compen-
sation in more wages, either as a salary
or profits? Why then say that he should
have the increase of land value which
he by his enterprise has created? Why
the probability is that under our present
system he does not get it. 1t is more
likely than not that this very man is a
renter and not an owner of land, in which
case he would have to hand over the
value he himself had been producing to
some one who had been doing compai a.
lively little-perhaps nothing--toward
increasing land values, some one who is
simply drone in the hive living on the
labor of Others
Under the single tax this man who
had been paying rent would still have
to pay, but he would virtually be paying
it to himself, for it would be used for
paying public expenses and to defray
the cost of public improvements.
His business would be absolutely freed
from all sorts of direct and indirect tax
alton, and he could produce without let
or hindrance, and without being fined
for it as though he were public nuis-
ance.
The other man, to whom he had been
paying rent before the single tax was
brought about, would have to go 10
work and become producer too, for he
could no longer draw on the earnings
OF others for his support
so business would flourish all around.
Every capable man would be expected
known that if he did not do so it was
his own fault, for the opportunities for
so doing would be wide open.
An incapable and a criminal class we
should still have and these would still
be burden on the better classes of soci-
ely. But we may feel positive that these
classes would rapidly decrease. Indeed,
u would probably be seen that this bad
cement is not nearly so large as at pres
ent under our monopolized opportuni-
ties seems to be the case.
But some one will meet this by saving
that this man who is renting his land to
the procrucer, although he may not him
sell be a producer now, has probably
been one in the past. That he has work
ed and produced and saved in order to
buy that land, and therefore he has now
a right to live from the revenue derived
from it, just as man might live on the
interest of money which he had loaned.
Now, If he could do this without injur-
ing anyone, single takers would have no
objection, and the reason for their exist
ence would be gone. But they have dem
onstrated that land cannot be rightfully
MADE private property any more than
human beings can. This same argument
was made not SO very long ago. all over
this country in defense of negro slavery.
But even while this objection to the abo-
Ition of slavery was being most persist
emily urged the forces were gathering
which finally set them free. Their own
ers got no compensation, nor did they
ask for any, but they still owned the
land of the south and the negro is still
pretty much of a slave, while millions of
white people are tending more and more
toward the same condition. And this
state of things must continue until the
earth is recognized to be the common
property of all, just as air and light are;
and just as freedom from slavery is sup
posed to be in this country
But l have conceded too much. In
country where all useful land is monopo-
lized even air and sunlight are not free,
but must be paid for dearly. A man cam
not breathe unless he is alive, nor can
he enjoy the sunlight in this world after
he is dead. He cannot live on air and
light alone, but must have land to live
on and furnish him with food and shell
ter. To get land he must pay rent. So
by cornering land we corner air andisun-
light, too.
Single takers do not like to cause loss
to any one. They are no more hard
hearted than other people, but they see
plainly that any reform no after how
beneficial and necessary it may be, is
likely to bring temporary loss to some
Freeing the slaves must have caused
great loss to some innQcent people in
the south. NO doubt to the average
slave owner it was an advantage, how
ever strongly he may have opposed it;
but in some cases it must have worked
hardship. All lovers of justice would
gladly have prevented this had it been
possible. But how could it have been
done? The government might have paid
them the value of their slaves, but what
they would have gained by this the other
people of the country, many of whom
had always opposed slavery and had.
perhaps, fought to abolish it, might have
lost.
But for proof that reform measures are
bound to bear hardly on some we need
not go back to the abolition of slavery.
We may see it anywhere, at any time.
When we reform machine-in other
words improve it-and make it possible
for one man to do work which before re-
quired two, does not the man who was
thrown out of a job feel that reform has
caused a loss to him? Do not livery men
and members of street car companies
as they watch the increasing use of the
bicycle feel that businesses are being
cut into? Yet the users of bicycles must
think them an improvements reform
on the other methods of transportation.
Even to attempt reform will often
work the same way. When protection
lists increase the tariff they attempt re-
form, as they understand it, But if a
decrease imports does 1t not injure' those
| engaged in importing, and many others?
| Then when the tariff for revenue man
| tries his hand at reform and scales down