DR.LAISHLEY'S REPLY TO THE ANTI-PROVERTY SOCIETY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8670, 12 September 1891, Page 3

DR.LAISHLEY'S REPLY TO THE ANTI-PROVERTY SOCIETY.

TO THE EDITOR.

—My charges against the land tax scheme were that " apart from the admitted tax-npon-improvemcnts blot, and apart from injustices, inequalities, and anomalies in detail, it has no sound basis for its inception, and is in its scope and principle bristling with absurdities, profoundly dishonest, otherwise inherently vicious, and otherwise flagrantly impolitic;" and under ! each of these headings I addressed facts and arguments which to any impartial mind must be convincing. In reply to those facts and arguments, there is not even an attempt made to show my data to be erroneous, or my arguments to be unsound; but, instead, the Society apparently think that badinage and heartless jargon are sufficiently convincing. Let us examine the reply seriatim: —1. The first charge is that 1 assume, " the land tax is a delusion." Quite true. For the land tax bursting up policy has been avowedly instituted by the Premier as a panacea for the exodus whereas I have shown at great length, and in full detail, that in that— main object— must be a melancholy delusion. . • 2. The second charge is—that I am apparently quite willing that the labourers should ' hug' what ' other delusions' they please, provided they do not 'embrace' the land tax." But surely it is pitiable to see a society professing to have serious aims, waste its efforts in writing such miserable jokes, and such veritable nonsense inasmuch as the whole of Part I. of the article was devoted to "other delusions," especially to the treatment of Capital by Labour. Thus " the workingmau has been deluded to forget; whilst it is lie above all others that should remember—that industry is limited by capital labour cannot prosper without capitalthat capital, by whomsoever supplied, is just as indispensable to State prosperity as labourthat capital is absolutely requisite to found and support industries, f/hich are what the working man mainly depends upon for his daily food, and that it is, therefore, suicidal for 'him to promote or support any move-' ment, Ministry, or man that advocates or pursues a policy to oppress, harass, or frighten > capital; and,, moreover, of : the utmost importance, nob to further alarm the propertied classes by wild talk—such as i land nationalisation, or single tax. ,

"Instead of sound political economy, a working man has been deluded by specioua talkers to believe that labour and capital are necessarily antagonistic; that all capital is produced by labour, and, therefore, by natural right is tho property of the labourer; and that the possessor of capital is a robber, who preys upon the workman, and appropriates to himself that which lie has had no share in producing. The working man has thus been humbugged out of his votes and his hurrahs. Alas ! alas 1 disastrous delusions," etc. 3. Charge 3 is : " Dr. Laishley assumes ib to be a reproach to the present Government; that the land tax is not merely a revenue tax. This, sir, . wo hold to be its most transcendent merit." I don't assume, however, any such proposition: but have said, and say, that " a tax levied for other than revenue purposes, or even levied with a subsidiary purpose, other than a revenue purpose, is also considered by Professor Fawcett as inherently vicious. Such a tax, therefore, as imposes upon large landed estates a levy of ljd an acre, in addition to the normal levy, for a purpose avowedly other than revenue, although revenue be one of the purposes, is distinctly confiscatory in its" nature, and therefore distinctly dishonest, and therefore inherently vicious." The of the charges bears, however, no comparison with the nonsense of the comments. Thus, as a minor instance, the society says : —" Land is not capital, for as the doctor himself defines it, capital is the product former labour. The land tax does not threaten capital." But although these assertions are true in a strictly technical sense, yet they are not the whole truth ; and they are therefore calculated to mislead the unwary. For surely a man's capital, the product of his former labour, may become invested in, and thereby become represented by realty. Thus if a man acquire a piece of land with bis savings —the product of his former labour—surely ib is the veriest nonsense to say that the land so acquired does not represent the product of his former labour. In such case, to tax his land is clearly to tax the product of his former labour. But, I forbear to argue further; as it is hopeless to expect the deaf to hear, or the blind to see. Seeing, however, that the Society have the temerity to say that " the appeal now is to common sense." Sancho's words seem applicable : —"Let every man take care how he talks or how ho writes of other men, and not set down at random, higgledy-piggledy, whatever comes into his noddle. _ 1' or the following ideas are, evidently, fair specimens of what conies into tho Anti-i'o verty noddle :—"A time of transition such as this is necessarily painful, the serpent while - shedding his skin, the fowl while moulting, the crab while casting his shell, are sickly and in evil plight, neither can wo expect to shed the slough of landlordism without some trouble; but Dr. Laishley may rest assured that it is a perfectly natural and inevitable process, ami will havo tho happiest results for all, aye, even for the landlords. In no other way can confidence be restored ; in no other way can justice bo done. It is no "New Evangel," for in its negative aspect it is the essence of that old decalogue which forbids covetousness, theft, and murder (all sanctioned' and legalised by landlordism), white in its positive aspect it is the practical application and realisation of the old evangel of glad tidings of " peace on earth, goodwill towards men."—lam. etc., September 8,1591. R. Laishley.