The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1903-08-13
1923 Prairie ave-, Chicago, Ill
ANSWERS PATTON.

AND w END ia lOiS.
Editor Independent: Mr.. James S.
Patton in his excellent article is candid
enough to ask to have his mistakes,
II he has made any, pointed out.
1t certainly requires good deal OF
courage to attempt politically, as Mr..
Patton has done, to refute the invinci-
bic logic of Progress and Poverty, and
think he will be one of hundreds of
others who have attempted the same
thing, and who have found, on closer
study, that the fault was in their own
misunderstanding of the Henry George
theory.
One error | find in Mr.. Patons
logic, is that he assumes that there are
three factors in production and, there
fore, three to correspond in distribu-
ton. If this were true, il his premise
logically follow. But he is certainly
assuming too much to class capital"
as separate, and distinct, natural
factor in the production of wealth.
Henry George has shown very clearly
that capital is stored up labor" and
therefore but subdivision OF labor;
hence interest (the wages of capitaD
is but part of wages, both rising or
falling together.
If Mr.. Patton will take the trouble to
read carefully Louis F. Posts 'The
Single Tax published by "Why?'
think he will obtain great light upon
these subjects. Probably no man in
this country has keener insight into
these worldwide congratulations, or
can more quickly detect just where lies
the fallacy in an argument against
them, than can Louis F. Post.
Mr.. Paton's second error, it seems
to me, is in speaking of more la
Eorers than landlords and capital can
employ" Why do not more laborers
employ themselves? Henry George
not only answers this quest ton, but
also tells why the general rate of
wages is so low.
A correct answer to these questions
is an answer to the labor question,
revealing the cause of trusts, and
tramps, of men out of employment and
of business depressions.
In the third, fourth and fifth chap
tiers of the first book of Progress and
Poverty, Henry George has demolished
the old theory that capital employs
labor. 1t is true, under modern COM
pick subdivision of labor, that indi-
vidual capitalists nominally employ
individual lahorers;; but to study the
relation Of a few men to their emf
ployers, is by no means broad enough
to discover economic laws relating to
all men, to find out what is the special
work labor is performing in the
production OF wealth. The term la
Dor includes all who labor, some of
whom are landlords and also capital
lists. The term capital includes every
labor-saving tool. Henry George is
not asking what landlords or wealthy
capitalists are doing when he asserts
that it is "land" that gives men op-
portunities for employment, and not
capital; and that it is labor" that
employs capital upon land.
How could it be otherwise when la
Dor existed before capital; when capt.
tai cannot long exist without labor?
Mr.. Patton like all thinkers who are
not deep students of Progress and
Poverty would limit the term Tabor
tc the wage earning class. This is not
the science of political economy; but
a study of wage-earners and their con.
dition. Such a limited view of pro.
duction leaves the labor of brain
skill and invention on. of sight, and
therefore is unable to discover the
universal laws Of production and dis.
tribution.
Mr.. Paton's third .mistak, natural.
" follows from thi old school point
Of view. He says that wages depend