The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1903-09-03
The Philosophy of Freedom
An Open Forum for Single Takers

THE CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
Mr.. Dodge's challenge to debate with
the single takers has been accepted by
Mr.. Wakefield of Kansas. The debate
will be conducted as follows:
/. DIR. Dodge will open with a two
column article Q,200 to 1,i00 words)
which will be mailed to Mr. Wake
field, who will prepare an answer Of
the same length. Both will be pub
lished on this page.
4 Mr.. Dodge will have a column for
reply, and Mr.. Wakefield the same
space for rejOinder-both to be pub
lished together.
3. MIR. Dodge's surrejoinder, one
column: Mr.. Wakefeld's rebutter, the
same.
4. II both combatants are alive, it
Is likely they might continue for an
issue or two more. but the editors
carries him no further than the sur
rcbutter." and. hence, he cannot give
name to the succeeding pairs in the
argument. 1t is somewhat like emu
Grafton in arithmetic: One runs
along glibly enough with "octillions
nonillions, octodecillions, monde
.cilli0ns, and vigintillions. but that
etc" in the arithmetic is no more
helpful in naming what comes after
vigintillions than is Chitty's "etc." In
8eQuainting one with what follows a
surrebutter.
These articles will not run each
= - S~4~ 80
three weeks between each pair. 1t is
10 be hoped that much good will re-
suit
REPLIES TO MRS. TWITCHELL.
Mrs. Eliza Stowe Twitchell attempts
10 defend Henry Georges theory of
the laws Of distribution in The indie
PENDENT for August Is. The errors she
attempts to point out in my article of
July 2 are OF very little Importance
compared with my main arguments
which she did not attempt to refute.
She admits that my logic is correct,
but disputes my premises. | will at
tempt to prove my premises, and show
that it was false premise that pre-
vented Mr.. George from working out
the laws of distribution correctly.
But first let me explain my motive
IN writing these articles. am sin
gle taxer, and want to do what | can
for that reform. believe that Henry
George made mistake in regard to the
laws of distribution, that that mistake
prevented him from solving the money
question, that it prevents his follow
20 inn ri # 70
money question, and that it prevents
the single tax movement from making
the progress it otherwise would.
1t will be necessary for me to quote
largely from Progress and Poverty and
may require considerable space in
The Independent, but If can succeed
in uniting the followers of Del Mar
and George the space will be used to
the best advantage.
Mr.. George asks: why in spite of
increase in productive power, do wages
tend to a minimum which will give
but a bare living?
The answer of the current political
economy is, that wages are fixed by
the ratio between the number of la
hOrers and the amount of capital de-
voted to the employment of labor. !. :.
IN current thought this doctrine holds
all but undisputed sway. 1t bears the
Endorsement Of the very highest names
among the cultiyators of political
economy. i. And yet widely accepted
and deeply rooted as it is, it seems to
me that this theory does not tally
with obvious facts. For If wages de-
pend upon the ratio between the
amount of labor seeking employment
and the amount of capital devoted to
its employment, the relative scarcity
or abundance of one factor must mean