The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1904-12-01
The Philosophy of Freedom
An Open Forum for Single Takers


spends his time playing billiards in
the winter and in the summer he puts
in the time at Newport. If he wanted
to transfer his exclusive right to the
use of these % lots in perpetuity peo-
pie would give him $4,000.
Now compare MIR. Smith, city man,
with Farmer Jones, as regards the
value of their exclusive rights to the
use of the land. 1t is as four hundred
and forty thousand is to eight thou
sand!
Is not this a tremendous dispropor-
ton? Has Mr.. Smith worked any
harder than Farmer Jones?
| do not think anyone will say that
the line of Smiths worked as hard as
the Joneses, yet see what great diff
ference in results!
The common way of looking at these
matters is that Mr.. Saith was simply
lucky in obtaining his exclusive right
in place where it became so desir-
able to use that other people will give
him these large sums to have this ex-
elusive use themselves.
But the intelligent sentiment of man
kind is beginning to refuse to accept
mere luck as distributor of the boun-
produced by society as whole.
The distribution by luck is not found
to be just or according to merit or
earning. Tho great value given to Mr..
Smiths location as a place to trans
act business is not given to it as the
result of his toll or care, except in In
exceedingly small degree. 1t is almost
entirely the result of the presence and
activities of the whole body of the peo-
| pie If there are 100000 inhabitants
in Cincinnati, l think Mr.. Smiths con-
tribution to that value might be stated
as one three hundred thOusandth part.
| Do you think that Farmer Jones is
or ought to be satisfied with the re-
suits of his exclusive right as COM
pared with those of Mr.. Smith? Mr..
Smith is the type Of a considerable
class Of citizens, and Farmer Jones is
the type of a very much larger class.
Now why is not Farmer Jones and his
class on the alert to discover method
by which Mr.. Smiths results shall be
more on an equality with theirs?
If Mr.. Smith results are SO largely
due to others why should not those
others along with Farmer Jones adopt
method which would prevent Mr..
Smith from taking values he did not
create and which method should be SO
planned as to- give the values to those
who create them: namely, the COM
munity in general?
There is such method. Suppose lat
we should become SO enlightened as to
be able to see that the productio, OF
useful and desirable things, such as
houses, barns, orchards, Vineyards
warehouses, factories, carriages, wag-
ons, dry goods, groceries, candy and
everything else, the possession d
!. which would make people comfortable
ought to be encouraged as much as
possible.
Would it not be more of ar encour-
agement to the production OF these
things if we should refrain from finins
a man for producing them or for hav
ing them in his possession? To ia,
man for having product of labor
is about the same as to fine him fol
having it.
Suppose that taxes were placed ex
clusively on land values, while I'M
provements, that is. the products O.
labor were exempt. In that case Mr.
Smith would contribute tax on $440,
900 while Farmer Jones would be taxed
on only about $4,000, which woult
probably be the value of his bare Lane
with the improvements exempt. Recol
lect Farmer Jones has 100 acres Will
! Mr.. Smith has less than two and
A quarter acres.
As matter of fact Thos. G. Shear
man has shown that in the state O
, Ohio as we'll as in several other state
: (see his book, Natural TaXation,)
6 the farmers were exempt on all thei
/ improvements, stock and credits, an
lif city people were thus exempt ais
but had to pay tax on their land value
! alone, the farmers would pay actual
q less than they do now.
! This is what might be called tn
l