The independent., 1903-06-11

LlOn. WneLler q bonanza farmer pays
$50 per acre for his land outright, or
pays single tax of say So per acre
to the state the same as his smaller
competitor, his relative superiority
would be the same. The economies
possible in the large system of pro-
duction would enable him to drive his
smaller competitor to the wall as eff
fectively as the small manufacturer
has been displaced by the trust.
There are a score of trusts whose
success is not due to monopoly OF
land or protective tariff. For in
stance, the Western Union Telegraph
company, the sugar trust, the cotton
seed oil trust, the flour trust, the
Pullman Palace Car company, and
others, are due solely To the concen-
tration Of capital and superior or
ganizing ability and management,
which has enabled them to drive their
weaker competitors to the wall and
thus monopolize their particular in
dustry. Such methods would & be
equally effective under a single tax
regime.
Will it be claimed that the tele-
graph trust is due to an exclusive
franchise, to tariff that excludes
competition with foreign telegraph
companies, or to the fact that the
telegraph trust has monopolized all
the land available for post holes?
Admitting, for the moment, that tie
sugar trust monopoly is due to the
tariff OF one-eightn cent per pound on
refined sugar, how are we to account
for the fact that there is only one s,l-
gar trust to absorb the 100 millions
annual profit due to the tariff on su-
gar! Is the tax not the same to ala
Why does not score of competing
trusts spring up to share in this
enormous profit due to the tariff?
How does it happen that there is only
one trust for each industry? The an
swer is that in a competitive strug-
gle, the corporation with the largest
capital, the greatest skill and exper-1
iente, and the most superior business
ability will surely drive out their less
fortunately equipped competitors, and
having done SO they will inevitably
Tcnopolize that particular business
and Would-be competitors will hesi.
tate to engage in struggle with SO
powerful a rival with the odds SO
greatly against them.
What does this revolution in the
methods of industry portend? For
one thing it means that competitive
industry has reached its logical OUT
come in monopoly. 1t means that the
right OF economic initiative, for
which shallow individualists SO siren
uously contend, will be denied to 9s9
out of every 1000 citizens and conlpe-
tltlon, II any persists, will be be-.
tween industrial giants, from which
lesser giants will be absolutely ex-
cluded, the final result of which
whether it ends in monopoly under
one Industrial giant or is shared in
by score of lesser ones, makes no
difference to the large body of pro-
ducers, who in either case are abso-
lutely excluded, not by legal enact
ment, but by inexorable economic law
working under industrial competition.
Confscation of rent is equivalent to
confiscation of the land, the object of
the single tax being, as Henry George
states, to make land common prop
erty. Admitting that Equity does
not permit private property in land,
1t by no means follows that we would
be justified in singing out one class
OF exploiters and depriving them of
that property the "unearned incre-
ment' of which has been shared in by
millions who are now dead, or, if liv.
ing, are not now land owners. Pres
ent land owners are probably the
beneficiaries Of not more than 10 per
cent OF the total accrued value of land
since the first purchase from the gov
ernment (the people,. To confiscate
not merely the 10 per cent increase in
land values whila in the possession Of
the present holders, but also the other
9O per cent absorbed by previous
owners would be as dishonest as 1t
is indefensible.
There is shallow economic fallacy
involved In the single tax assumption
that economic rent would be sufficient
for all the purposes of public revenue
1t is assumed by Henry George that
present rent Is economic rent" and
that the effect of the single tax would
be to transfer present rent from the
pockets of the private land owners in
to the public treasury, without any
diminution of the total amount now
collected. This assumption is a fal-
lacy. Present rent is not economic
rent" but is on the contrary s'uo-