The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1899-08-05

The Slngle Tax.
Eator iuteiHreneer.
| beg to say that in your editorial.
referring to Mr.. ]. h. HeTmanS lecture
az this place. You state that The whole
theory Of the single iAyer is to put all
taxes On land. while Il you had mad
the single tax platform, found in the
latter part Of the hok YOU refer tn, you
would have avoided the eIior that YOU
have fallen into. which IS that Of con-
founding the single tax with that Of
a specific land tax. while not 10 dis
tinguish between Land and land value
would be a tax on land according 10
ARA. II Is AT eTpr, however, that
many beginners in the study fall into.
This IS especially tue Of the farming
community. They ieoogniEe the single
tax rs a tax on land. which il IS not,
and that because they have the land
they conclude that they would have the
bulk Of taxes to paJ And therefore
they brush aside the single tax without
further consideration And this is the
sole reason that farmers as a class have
not taken kindly IL the single tax
philosophy. The fac, is, the farmers
ase he class that the single tax would
the most directly beneit; as the farmers
aud others that most directly apply
their energies TO mother earth do
inevitably form the tegulatiye basis Of
all other labor. II would thus solve the
labor problem. raising ali wages to the
fall earnings OF labor.
Now you further state, And II one
man makes a million dollars on his land
the million dollars shall not be taxed.
The man who has land adjoining must
pay the same amount Of tax. though he
may not make expenses The above is
very near our position. We hold that
all people have in the natural or moral
law an equal right to the planet. That
IS the earth, air, sunshine and rain.
While we hold that an equal right to
the land must be continuously preserv-
ed TO every individual, in order to have
an equal right to those other elements
of which to human beings land is the
essential basis. Now We do hold that
as land values are the product of
society, that it rightfully belongs to
society, it being the real and only wages
of society. And we hold that for the
individual to be allowed to pocket
land values Tor the single tax is for
society to allow itself TO be robbed or
deprived Of its just and only rightful
wages. which in turn necessitates their
leyying on individuals and individual
products for the support of their govern
ment. But here is a principle that
should never be forgotten nor over
looked, viz: That if a man owns himself
he has the supreme right TO the product
OF his individual exertion, the whole
product Is his wages. We hold that il
Is his against all the world; it is his by
right Of production, which is the best Of
title. Society will punish an individual
who directly robs him Of any part of it.
But why should society rob him of it
or any part Of it, Can we delegate to
do collectively that which the moral
law says is robbery Individually II is
absolutely inconsistent with justice.
Now we hold that the greatest good
that the people of a government can
secure 10 the various individuals con-
shutting that government, Is to secure
the best possible use of land. And
therefore We should require the person
who would hold land idle or put ii To a
very poor use las We must presume 10
be the case of the man in your illustra-
ton that could hardly make expenses'1
TO pay the exact rental value of his
bare land each year into the public till,
for he has no right TO be protected in the
privilege Of private possession of that
which of right belongs equally TO all
Gods bOunties) without paying the |
exact value over to the rest Of his
fellows who are excluded and who also
create that value. Then he who pos
sessed land as owner would pay for the
privilege of private possession Of that
which all were equally entitled to.
Thus securing equal rights and vet
private possession of bare land. But
what he oil his neighbOr may produce
by their labor society need not worry
over, for it is his to reserve. sell, trade
or b%equeath; even though he has made
a million dollars worth OF wealth or i'm
%proyement, he has not injured society.
but to the contrary has been a benefit
to society, having helped to create land
values in his community he is one of
society and has done well. Shall we
line him for having been industrious,
and added to the common stock of !
wealth. Should we rob him and call il !
law? Verify no! But if it were pos
sible for a man to improve his land and
create wealth upon it to the amount of
a million dollars, none Of his wealth or
Improvement should be taxed, for it is
his as against the world. But he would
under the single tax pay TO the com.
munity or government the exact value
of the land upon which the Improvement
or wealth may rest. And of course we
must expect in order to secure equal