Denver labor bulletin., 1917-05-05

Limited Single TaN" has grown to
become a standing joke among the
genuine advocates of the Henry George
plan of taxation.
The so-called Single Tax Amend
ment which is to come before the vot-
ers of Denver May i, is of this hy-
brid type referred T. above and its
submission is being opposed by all
honest single takers.
Antonio Bastida, recognized gener-.
ally as the most able single tax ad-
vocate in America, has an article in
the January-February, 1915, issue of
the Single Tax Review which is of
especial interest TO the people of Den
yer at this time. Writing under the
title, "Emasculated Single Tax, or
Common property in Land; Which ?"
he clearly defines single tax and what
it means. The article, and comments
on il by other single tax writers, are
regarded as sufficient evidence that
single tax means the abolition of pri-
vate property in land. Excerpts from
the article and comments upon il fol-
low:
"Now, what is the message of Henry
George to mankind
After an exhaustive and close
analysis of the causes of poverty and
misery, covering some SOC, pages, in
Progress and Poverty, he brings
forth his remedy. we must make
land common property
There. then, is the dictum of our
prophet. Do we follow it? Are sin
gle takers known IS abolitionists of
property in land The question may
be begged by saying that the real
estate men know Il To which | re
join, are we seeking to convert real
estate operators while letting the peo-
pie remain in igno-ance of our cause?
The truth is single takers are not
preaching the abolition of private
property in land, 50 let us examine
the book further.
"Mr. George says, AS we already
take part of the rent in taxation, ii
is only necessary to take the balance
AT last we have got down to a
tax From the remedy we have come
to the method: what / want to do is
to show that Mr.. George. in converting
us, first pointed out remedy for
poverty and then + method of apply
ing il. and that we persist in trying
to convert the people by preaching the
method only, keeping silent about the
remedy itself.
why have we elevated tax as our
slogan in place of the inspiring cry
of The land for the people?'
"Shall we persist in this stupidity?
We have an issue here which we
believe will cure poverty. We assert
that land is of right common proper
ty, and we want your help in max
ing it so.
go to n Socialist meeting and OBJ
serve the enthusiastic young men
there. Why are they there and not
with us? Because, in our teaching
there is nothing to enthuse over.
Had we preached common property
in land they would have respected us.
snow, do not want to convey the
impression that our wrong policy is
maliciously maintained. for il is not.
We hear an argument with its
well-known phrases of the single tax.
and. knowing that our own intention
is the ultimate confiscation of rent,
we fancy it says so in the argument;
but to the uninitiated it is not there
at all.
"Let the single takers proclaim that
they are out to abolish private prop
erty in land. ."
"The above quotations from the
most able single tax writer in Amer
lea at this present time" said
Charles II. Shields yesterday, SHOULD
forever set at rest the claims of
Messrs. Sinton, McCleery and White.
and all other advocates of the single
tax-that they do believe in private
property in land. 1t should be evident
to the reader that they are attempt