Page 4 Advertisements Column 3

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1991, 29 January 1907, Page 4

THE LAND QUESTION AND THE SINGLE-TAX. (By Goorgo.) Tim Editor of this journal, while not sparing mo in his criticisms—J linvo no desire to escape criticism—has been indulgent to mo in tlio matter of spnco, and lias allowed mo perfect freedom in presenting the case for the Singlor Tax. I thank him for the fair play, courtesy and kindness. Ilis first complaint is that I_ have "'adopted a st-lo of dogmatic assertion that is son contradictory of itself as to prove the want of thought so necessary to a logical conclusion.” Now, 1 quite fail to understand how a style of dogmatic or positive assertion can necessarily be contradictory of itself ; and X am equally unablo to understand how a stylo of dogmatic assertion “proves the want of thought so necessary to a logical conclusion.” These are mysteries which tho Editorial mind only can unfold and make clear to us; but as yet that has not boon done. I could make a hundred dogmatic assertions—l have already made moro than that number in these articles—none of wliiolj would he contradictory, none of which would “prove the want of thought so necessary to a logical conclusion,” none of which could possibly be proved untrue. Has the Editor to disprove any of my propositions ? Vos. lie lias attempted to disprove one. lie challenges the proposition that “money is not wealth.” He says I contradict myself in the next proposition, which states that wealth is divided between landlords, capitalists, and labourers in rent, interest, and wages. He assumes that rent, interest, and wages necessarily mean money. But this is manifestly an unwarranted assumption. Rent, interest and wages are still paid in many places not in money but in products of labour. AVo divide the produce of labor into three parts, and because I call one part rout, another part interest, and another part wages. I am told that I contradict myself. This is dogmatic assertion without proof. It must be very obvious to everyono that there is no contradiction" in tho case. Money is simply a measure of value and a medium of exchange; it represents wealth, but is not actual wealth; and, as already stated, relit, interest, and wages are not really money, but wealth, tho value of which we fix by money. The money wo receive as rent, interest, and wages represents our claim to so much wealth ; and as soon as wo get money either in paper or in metal wo begin parting with it to get the wealth wo need, and without which money would bo of no service to us. I hope it is now quite clear to tile Editor that I have not contradicted myself. The next point in his criticisms is a much more serious one. lie says: “Though he gives us a dissertation upon theft, it apparently never, occurs to him that when a man innocently buvs land with money which our contributor admits is the fruit of his labor, and that man is afterwards compelled to pay the value of land over again in taxes, the process is nothing elso than theft.” This is tho Editor’s main point; he relies on this for the utter defeat and ruin of tho Single Tax cause. AYell, on tho face of it, it looks as if Single Taxers were proposing wholesale theft. Now, lot us supposo that I have invested .£IOOO not in land Improvements—which would not be touched by the Single Tax—but simply in land, and I am in receipt of rent to tho value of £1 per week. Under tho Single Tax I would lose that sovereign a week. But what woidd I gain ? I reckon that every working-man householder who smokes and takes his glass of beer now pays considerably more than £SO a year directly and indirectly towards tho cost of national and local government, when we add to the sum the effect of the tariff in enhancing tho value of everything ho consumes and wears and uses. I should imagine that no one will question tho accuracy of this statement. AA’ell, now, the Single Tax would sweep away the tariff and its effects, would sweep away all rates and taxes, and I as the holder of land to the value of £IOOO .would actually be in pocket by tho Single Tax. Now, I should like to know how many actual producers of wealth in this colony have succeeded in honestly acquiring £IOOO as the result of saving from the fruits of their own hard toil. Does the number amount to one per cent- of the population ? You see, then, that the Single Tax would not deprive the honest toiler of anything; but it would simply take from a fraction of the population w bat they never bad any just claim to, and it would give it to those who have a just claim*to it, viz., the men, women and children who are compelled to give value to the land by their presence and industry, but no'/or get a penny of that value. But who ever had the right to sell tho land of this colony? Tlie law says distinctly that it all belongs to the nation. Now this being so—and tlie highest legal authorities say it is so —what legal right has any man to the land he calls his own? According even to landlord-made law the rightful owners may at any time resume possession of the land, and they may even successfully claim all the rent that lias been' paid to the usurpers. Therefore, the position of the Single Taxer is impregnable. The Single Tax is not theft; it stops tlieft. The landless community now give to tlie landlords more than the fruits of two days’ labor for permission to live” and they get nothing in return. I challenge the Editor to disprove this statement. The landless community also pay for public improvements twice over—first of all, they pay for them in rates and taxes, and afterwards they pay, for them again in enhanced rents. 1 challenge tho Editor to disprove this statement. He cannot get rid of hard facts. Ho must therefore admit that the landless people cf this colony are robbed in the most wholesale fashion, lobbed every day mid every hour, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have inoculated a great many people in this and other districts with the Single Tax virus, and I believe it will not be long before Gisborne and many other constituencies will return Singlo Taxers as their parliamentary representatives, notwithstanding all the opposition of the newspaper press.

WHAT THE SINGLE TAX WOULD DO. ’ " The Single Tax would — 1. Reduce the price of land by destroying land syndicates and the “corner” in land. 2. Reduce the prices of all commodities without any reduction in wages. 3. Enable the worker to sell his labor at the highest possible price. 4. Make employers run after laborers instead of laborers having to run after employers. 5. Do away with the need for an Arbitration Court. 6. Do away with the need for trade unions. 7. Make employment regular and plentiful. 8. Give social peace and harmony. 9. Make New Zealand the most attractive country in the world, both for labor and capital. 10. Reduce the hours of labor. 11. Double the population of New Zealand within ten years, and thus render the cost of government less burdensome. THE SINGLE TAX AND FREE TRADE.

The Single Tax means, of course, no tariffs—i means Free Trade. “Free Trade,” say some, “would ruin our industries.” In Britain it improved all t'he industries, and made her the greatest commercial country in the world. It also increased the wages of her workers. But most of the benefits have gone to Britsli land-owners —because the Britishers have not adopted the Single Tax. Free Trade is as good for a young colony as for an old country. One country is not more favorably situated than another for Free Trade. Tariffs always hamper and restrict trade, and thus impoverish he workers. The New Zealand industries which flourish most are those which are unprotected. We are told that free trade would result in a great influx of shoddy goods. Some of the most shoddy goods I have ever seen were manufactured in New Zealand. What drives people to cheap,shoody goods? Landlordism! Nothing else. All people want the best things that ar emade, but most people cannot, get them because landlordism robs them of neaorly half their earnings. Under Free' Trade and the Single Tax New Zealand would go forward by leaps and bounds as a manufacturing country, and become the Greater Britain of the South. LABOR PROGRAMMES. The programmes of the world’s Labor parties are very long documents, and afford tremendous scope for wily statesmen (who are all or nearly all, landowners) to bamboozle them. For example, the “Liberal” (nice name!) landlord statesman, like his brother, the Tory landlord statesman, can pick out, adopt, and use for his own purposes, items of theso Labor programmes that will not reduce the rent rolls of landowners or the incomes of landlord employers by so much as a penny-piece; nevertheless, the innocent framers of these Labor programmes are easily caught; they shout “Hurrah!” and in the end they find that they are just where they were—not a penny better off, not a stop nearer freedom and a just distribution of tho national earnings. Now', here is a programme that tho statesmen cannot play tricks with. Adopt it. Fight for it. It will pay every