The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1903-10-01

ments, and not long ago lot in Kan
sas City was exchanged on even term,
for seventeen thousand acres Of vel
improved and fertile farm lands. Was
there no uleaTneu increment, nor val.
u.' caused by condensed population and
business, in these examples? Die
Rockefeller earn the six hundred mil
lions he has taken from the people
for the use of oil and mineral lands
and rights of way, or Baer create an
thracite coal by his labor?
From the tenor of his argument |
take Mr.. Dodge t, be socialist, hence
not versed in political economy for
no good politics economist can ever
be socialist. 1t is on the land cues
ton that socialists always fall down
and stand on themselves. That labor
pays all rent and taxes in wealth pro-
duced by labor all single takers con
tend, labor being all useful exertion OF
hand or brain.
That labor should have access to
land upon equitable terms and should
have for its own use, untaxed by land
lord or state, nation, municipality, it's
entire product, is tie fundamental idea
OF the single tax. Because labor" as
such, produces wealth we would give it
the wealth it produces, and because
the community, as such, does produce
land and other monopoly values. ana
labor does not, we would take such So
clally produced values for social pub
lic) purposes, thereby relieving ia
bor' OF the burden of any and all tax
alton upon his wealth product. To do
the latter without first doing the
former is clearly impossible.
Mir. Dodge entirely lodges the Ques-
ton of taxation, and the single tax is
first OF all an equitable system of oh
tanning public revenues, land reform
being an incident and result OF this
tax reform. If, as suppose, Mr.. Dodge
is socialist, he should not dodge the
question of taxation, for under social
ism taxes would be greatly increased,
owing to the greatly increased num-
Der OF officials rendered necessary and
the losses of many unsuccessful gov
ornment enterprises.
Mr.. Dodge seems to imply that labor
should have access to land free OF
rent or tax-that he would abolish rent
altogether. AS rent is a physical fact
OF nature, founded in law of nature,
We are curious to know by what pro-
cess he would eliminate it from ma
lures laws. How would he equalize
the use value of the fertile bottom and
the stony ridge, tie. village lot and
one on lower Broadway, the poor farm
and the coal, gold, copper, or other
mine? Even socialism will find
Mother Nature very "sot in 'er ways
Mr.. D. says landlordism is a curse
and an unmitigated pest, yet his plan
of letting labor use land rent free
would only be substituting one land
lord for another. The effects would |
not be changed by calling one a la
borer and the other landowner. A |
landowner need not have tenant to |
secure rent or unearned increment, |
though he usually does have one when |
he has absorbed enough to be above |
work.
The object and purpose of the sin
gle tax is to secure to all men their
natural equality before the law-to Sc
cure that justice which freedom i'm
plies and that freedom which justice
must ever produce. To do this ii con-
siders man both socially and individ
TALLY, taking for social uses all So
;ial functions public utilities) and So
;ial values, or rent, and thus securing
y each and every individual equal and
equitable access to the bounties of ma
.ure and the products of his industry
by the state or nation and I'M
oiled by any monopoly.
Has Mr.. d. a nobfer ideal or a bet
.er plan of reaching it? Why de-
better one? w. H. T. WAKEFIELD
Mound City, Kas.