The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-04-17

! The only attempt at argument In ct IS
| First paragraph is that as the existence oil
other people gives value to things that are
the products OF labor, Just as I. does 70
land. therefore. whatever reasons may De
advanced sfor taxing land values should
also hold good for taxing products OF labor
| Il take 1t that that Is what ne means
| when he says: The reasons advanced IN
Its 1.-THE single tax's) favor can be equally
applied TO all products Of industry Now
let us see II, in my address as reported.
| there is not drawn between land and Ia
Dor products distinction which TT. COM
pletely ignores. After explaining the ma
ture and origin of land value said: And
even though this be true also OF commod-
| ity value, there ls this fundamental differ
ence. that while some one by his LABOR
made the commodity, no one made the
land. and no one can show better title
70 1t than another II Is this equal right
and title OF all to the use OF land that
constitutes the foundation rock OF the sim
gle tax Now here Is. first, an admission
that value attaches to labor products IN
the same way as 10 lana. but following
1t is the vital distinction as to rights.
WY did not 1T" address his criticisms
to the question Of equal rights, which
emphasized. and not to the accident OF
value. which I merely explained in pass
ing? Qet me say here, parenthetically,
that merely to be desired does not give
o thing economic value: 1t must also be
limited in supply. |. e.. not TO be had by
everybody In unlimited quantity for Moth
| ing. and Its ownership must be trans
| feraple.o
| If IT" can successfully show that all
men have not an equal natural right to
land he will knock the single tax and Its
advocates silly; but If he can not show this
| he may as we'll shoot peas at Sirius as try
| to down 1t. Let me put case to him-
! II he makes a wagon by his own labor. 1t
is surely his; and If the fact of the wagon s
| being desirable, limited in supply and
| transferable gives 1t economic value,
surely that value is also his through own
erehip of the thing to which 1t attaches:
| So. too, IL all have an equal right to land
| al the lands acquires, apart from that
| given to 1t by labor, economic value. all
have an equal right to that value through
their equal right to the thing to which the
! vsll0 attaches. I trust ct will not shift
| his ground, but take this dilemma by the
horns and either dehorn 1t or surrender
In answer to one of his questions, I say
| that placing all taxes on the value Of
I land will open absolutely limitlsss oppor
tunity for the employment of The multi
tude by causing all VINO hall land out OF
use for speculation to lie, Il 90 20 those
who want it for production. T. seems to
| think that only farmers use land. but he
will never grasp the single tax until he
/ gets quit OF this childish notion. All Ia
1 Dor, even that of the sailor, the diver or
/ the aeronaut, is performed upon land lin
the economic sense) and Upon materials
! taken from the land; and he human mind
can no more conceive of iaoor done .htr-
wise that it can Adequately conceive Nfat
a disembodied spirit is.
| AS to single tax hurting ~ helping rich
or poor by causing them TO pay so many
dollars, more or less. in taxes. If that
were its chief end and aim, its advocates
would be as likely to devote their tiIne
and labor to the advocacy of voodooism
/ or legerdermain as to reform so paiiry.
The ultimate purpose of whit we advo-
cate is to establish all men 3 equal right
Of access to land and thus to abolish po,
erty and make men free, so that each one
can choose for himself whe her 10 work
/ for an employer at full wag IS or work
| for himself and be his own master The
single tax Is only the meals to that end,
and it is open to those who do not under
stand it to question its potency for reach
| ing the end in view: but to us who under.
stand 1t in all it's reach and fullness, it
is no more open to question than that
/ two sides OF q triangle are greater than
| the third
Try as I may. | can not bring myself
| to discuss such utterly utter rubbish Il
really do not mean to be disrespecth'l,
| but can find no other adequate oxpressit II
for IT. as that expressed in the STAGE
ment that every other class derives 50
much increment or increase IN value 4
labor or property as the land owner, from
the increase in population" or that "sll
men were of equal value, or ;ha, "A poll
tax was levied for the protection of per-
SON. but, with your permission. ! will
comment on the closing sent once of T. S
communication. He says that the single
tax theory appears to be the production
OF good man whose views we've Unite.
to very large cities, where conditions may
render 1t plausible, but who forgot that
cities cover but a small .r(c.ion of the
land in our Nation" N,w, ask why
on earth does man take his pen in hand
to reply to the arguments of people who
ignore or forget such palpable fact Z?
Does he take Henry George and all his
followers for a lot OF imb ,ciies or drive.
] ing idiots? And II so. why does he no.
tice them? A man who mas written a
book that has stirred the hear of the
/ world and has been trausla. I'd into eytry
tongue of civilization, Worked out his
whole philosophy of progress ani pove. tv.
or the increase Of want and the increase
! Of wealth in every age and climo where
land was monopolized by few, and he
( ala IL all IN utter Ignorance IF or oblivion
TO the fact that "citles cover but a small
fraction of the land of our lationi" Ian
guage fails me for an appr1r late excla-
nation, In sheer feeblen sss timidly sLt-
NIT, We'll, I never"
In closing please let me tell # little
something which am positively tired CT
telling others: The single tax is not a
tax upon land, which would make it isll
on all land. but upon land value. VI ich
makes il fall upon only some land, to-wit:
Land that has value, apart from its i'm
| provements. Now, nearly all land r cut
IN the country and has little or MT land
value, while nearly all land value, EXCEPT
that which attaches to mines, forests, &c
is In or near the cities anil town.. Can
not even child, provided he IS not the
son OF statesmna. see from this where
the single tax would fall AMI where T.
wouldn't? At any rate, until T. can grasp
this elementary idea, he is no more quill
fed to pass judgment on .he single tax
! than he is to discuss Bodies law or th,,
I phenomena Of Karyokinesis.
Thomas Flavin.