The independent., 1903-11-26
The Philosophy of Freedom
An Open Forum for Single Takers


of improvements, which would be
equally secure whether one-quarter
or tnree-quarters of ground rent be
taken in taxation. The dictionaries do
not include land value in their defini-
ton of land. Land itself, deprived of
the rights and privileges pertaining
thereto THAT is, land with the ninety
nine years restriction of a tight and
high board fence around it, has no
market value. The value of land is
in large part created by the tributary
surroundings which are provided
through taxation, and hence such val
ue is largely the product of the labor
Of the community as represented in
its public and quasi-public outlays. A
man who owns land owns the soil,
which Of itself has little or no value,
and he owns every right and privil-
ege, fee, title, etc, pertaining to the
land from zenith to earth's center ex-
elusive and absolute as against any
other individual, ]. but qualified and
conditional as against the community.
Private ownership of land may be
defined as that prOprietorship Of the
rights and privileges pertaining to the
situation which extends to the exclu-
sion Of all other persons (person be-
ing limited In law to an individual,
or body corporate, other than the
stateo, but subject always to the
claims of the community to it's share
In the value of those rights and priv
ileges, SO far as that value is social
product, the same to be asserted and
maintained by means Of the sovereign
power Of taxation.
Property in land, ownership of
land, in law, means tenure, holding,
right OF possession (subject to the SOW
ereign right Of taxation) and no more.
The owner can have no more enjoy
ment Of these rights than can the
possessor, as defined by Henry George.
Either must have an exclusive enjoy
ment tproprietorship) in the benefits
Of which no one else can share except
through the agency of taxation. The
rights of the public are the same un-
der either definition.
IF, under the single tax, landown-
ers should be allowed TO retain a small
percentage Of rent, there is no moral
difference whether such privilege at
tach to their ownership or to their
for in either case there is
no recognition of the right of the
private appropriation of ground rent,
no compromise with any wrong at
tendant upon ownership that does not
attend alike upon possession.
1T is not individual proprietorship
Of land, but the private appropria-
ton of ground rent, which is charged
with maintaining Industrial slavery.
True it is that under present condi-
lions when land value is made pri-
vate property the law of equal free
ION is denied, but under the single
lax this would not be true. Any de-
gree of justice or injustice, with the
single tax or without, would be ex-
actly the same whether the tenure
be called property, ownership or pos
session. What practical difference
hen does it make, whether the tenure
be called by one name or the other?
rhe private property in land of which
Herbert Spencer and Henry George
,reated was the untaxed ownership of
our day and generation with its pri-
1ate appropriation of ground rent. 1t
S confidently asserted as shown by
he context, that when Henry George
said private property In land was
lnjust' he must have meant private
in land values.
1T Is sometimes said that il land
owners can rightfully claim owner
ship they are entitled to all the ground
'ent; that the common right to land,
Ind the common right to rent, go to-
sether. How can this be true, when.
lnder the land tenure of today, which
s that of ownership, no one claims
hat the landowners of Boston are en-
tiled to all the ground rent, but only
o that part which Is not taken In |
axation. Their own claim falls |
hort of all by the sS.500,000 now
'ielded up In taxation. In case the
demands Of taxation should be twice |
Is great. would they be any more than |
low entitled TO all? II Is not easy to
zee how ownership can rightfully car
y with II the private appropriation
" ground rent. because there has !
levcr been a denial. but there always
ias been recognition. OF the SOW
reign power and right To tax tho
and. Private ownership 10 land Ii no
INJUSTICE 10 ANYBODY today. nor has AZ /