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

THE DGE-WAKEFIELD DEBATE
(Mr. Dodge, haying the affirmative,
contends that the single tax is based
on an unsound foundation Mr.. Wake
field denies this.-Ed. Ind.)
THE SINGLE TAX BASED ON AN
UNSOUND FOUNDATION.
In view of the very numerous fol-
lowing which the single tax has and
the many prominent men who sub
scribe to its doctrines, it would almost
seem presumptious that anyone should
at this late date dare to question the
soundness of the economic basis on
which that philosophy is grounded.
Nevertheless close scrutiny will re-
veal the fact that not only is it based
on unsOund premises, but that it is OF
most questionable justice, and instead
at the manifold blessings that are
supposed to follow in it's wake, great
e. evils in all probability would result
thersIrom.
That land monopoly is an unmiti-
gated evil no right-thinking person
who has at all studied the subject can
honestly deny. The landlord, there
fore as far as he may claim any rights
on the premises, deserves no consid-
Grafton and the only question is,
would such tax be just to all par
ties, and what effect would it have on
society as whole?
Single taxism is based on the as
sumption that land values, as embOd-
led in the rent, which the landlord can
exact from his tenant, are an unearned
increment, created by the mere pres
ence and needs of the community, and
are, therefore, justly communal prop
erty. That the landlord, however, in
virtue OF his monopoly of the land is
enabled to divert them into his own
pocket. That the chief evil resultant
therefrom is the impoverishment OF
the landless masses, who must use his
land, since no one can exist without it,
to such an extent that they can only
make bare living for themselves
and those dependent upon them. Hence
the single takers propose, and they
claim they are justified therein, to tax
away this so-called unearned incre-
ment, and appropriate it for COM
munal use.
The inconsistency of this position
must be apparent when we consider
that il the rent which the landlord ex-
acts from his tenant is really COM
munal property, then that tenant, as
such merely, cannot be wronged there
by, but only SO far as he is a men,
Der of that community, and his ind.
vidual loss cannot be SO very great.
It leaves entirely unexplained the re-
sultant poverty therefrom, unless the
wholly untenable position is taken,
that his mere presence and need Gre
ates more wealth than his actual labor
produces. Moreover, this would leave
The whole community, the landlord ex-
septed, in the same fix. We must
therefore, come to the conclusion that
It is the tenants substance which the
landlord absorbs. But, if so, what
right has the community to appro-
IriatA that for it's own use? There
is hitch there somewhere Let us see
OH which horn of the dilemma the sin
gle takers are impaled.
Self evidently from the land all
wealth must spring, but land is pas
sive factor it yields no wealth suit
able to satisfy mans needs unless he
by his labor extracts it therefrom. The
reproductive forces, inherent in the
land, may be called natures store
rcom, from which man must labor
iCusly draw the raw materials, to bel
fashioned by hirl into the finished
product, ready for his consumption.
Since all wealth must have this stamp
Of labor upon it, it follows that an un-
earned increment of wealth has no ex-
istence in fact, and thus it's main prop
is knocked from under the single tax.
The rent which the landlord pockets, |
though nominally paid as rule in
money, in reality represents labor's
III oduct, or else no one would want it. |
If this, therefore, is really communist
then the tenant, If produc-
lively employed, must, by so doing, be
stealing it from the community. Or
else how does he come by it? Just
consider: Here is philosophy which |
tells us in substance that so far from
labor having been robbed of it's just
deserts all through the ages, II has
been the original robber right along; |
that the laborer has no right to pro-
duce wealth on land made valuable by |
the community, not by anything that
the community has done to improve
that land, but by its mere needs and
presence, unless he hands over to that |