The Single Tax.

Otago Witness, Volume 06, Issue 1986, 6 March 1890, Page 31

The Single Tax.

Editor Witness,— Sirs " li'oonomiet " has evidently proved to bis own satisfaction that the admission of Henry George's wild thpory regarding the nationalisation of the land is the very tiling for the salvation of the c^lonv tm& Rhoulrt therefore be at once adopted by the legislature. The theory advanced by Mr George is a very taking one, and is much thought of by those ignorant of economic questions , but in the case of anyone acquainted with the aspirations of the farming class the colouring is slightly changed. It is not the great barriers that man has set up that are in the way of the acceptance of the theory, but the unsuitability of m<m himself to assume the changed conditions the adoption of such a theory presupposes. We need not go outside of our own country to illustrate this point and to contradict the opening sentence in '• Economist's " letter. In every (armingdistrlct we have apparent evidence that it is not the desire of our over-educated sons and daughters to beoome " a real user of land," although they consent to become consumers of its products, I am afraid that the bulk of men and women prefer to "live on the labour of others " in preference to production from the land. It strlkei me that if our rabid single tax reformers were to go on to the land themselves it would be the surest means of converting them to a coraraon-eenße viow of the question. Three years of

an experience on a deferred payment section in the back blocks would be sufficient to bring a new feeling over their fairy dreams of reform. All this crying and howling about the Inverting of tho land tenure of the world arises from Utopian dreamers having no acquaintance with agricultural matters. That there is misery in the world, no one having any experience will deny; but to imagine thaf we should wipe it out of existence by adopting a n«w land tenure is jumping at a conclusion not warranted by human experience. To reason on affairs relating to production is illusory, and to deduce conclusions therefrom contrary to the rules of logic. Individual ownership of site land is quite distinct in " Ifconomist's " mind, and his arguments on the issue very sapient, but could the owner of such land not be reached much easier by a direct tax ou income ? The tendency of our populntion is from thy land towards larg« centres of population and not the reverec. Young men and women nowadays don't likp to soil their nice white hands, aud therefore do not trouble the land with their presence more than they oau help. A few years ago we had a prominent man in Dunedin ranting and raving from the public rostrum on the evlis of our land laws, and yet the same man held 1000 acres odd in Canterbury at the time waiting for the unearned increment. Are we to yoat quietly and swallow such a compound of cant and bunkum and admire the man and rnn snorting after his high flown principles ? Does " Economist" wish the roaders of the Witness to believe his interpretation of Henry George's dootriue of universal salvo for hum«n ills ? Or has his fancy only soared too high and so left his reason among the clouds ? So long as we have diverse human nature, so long will we have unequal social conditions. "L'conoraiat" must, like the rest of us, "learn to labour and to wait." All the gear of this world cometi notj In ft day, and it were foolish to run in languish crying, "All is folly, Ml is vanity," for the doing so will not sooner allay the pain. Social life on our muudane sphere Is hidiasolubly bound round by the bands of Industrial life ; the ties and connection of the latter are again inextricably interwoven with the mental powers and political status of the people. To formulate hard and fnst rulfcs for the guidance of people under such circumstances, is, to say the least of it impracticable. We depend so entirely on foreign supply of many things, that unless we followed present commercial"iines we, or any other people so situated, would land ourselves in confusion. The aspeot of questions of the magnitude of current political economy assumes too many different phaßes to be dealt with in au article in a newspaper, with sufficient brevity and intelligence to suit the editor, and, at the same time, to be instructive to ths public. Our improved mechanical appliances and labour-saving machinery preinduces and continually augments poverty of the masses; because, while restricting labour, 'production Is increased. It may not ba intelligible to " Htcquomlsb " to learn that a labour saving machine when owned by an Individual is an undoubted monopoly, and as such should bear a special tax. Supposing eaoh oountry in tho civilised world were to adopt the single tax theory of Henry George, what would become of the surplus product providing each person above the age of 20 years were settled on the land ? It would be a ourions sort of civilisation that would shortly resu.t, for under such cirqu us stances tlure could not be any Imports, and very few countries oan live on their own resources. There is not the shadow of a doubt that we need many reforms in our body politic but these reforms time and experience will suggest. To run after phantoms and try to bottle tho clouds will not effect the 1 purpose of Utopian reformers, no matter how sincere their desires in that direction may be. All such reformers as " Economist " had best take themselves to the various land offices in the colony, mid without doubt they will be able to suit themselves in the matter of land. They can acquire it under whatever system they choose, and after a few years' practical experience they will be competent to express an unbiassed opinion on the subject under discussion.—Yours &c. Calliope. Gore, March 4.