Chapter II How Equal Rights to the Land May Be Asserted and Secured

We have traced the want and suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes, the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact that the land on which and from which all must live is made the exclusive property of some.

We have traced the want and suffering everywhere among the working classes to one fact: the land on which and from which all must live has become the exclusive property of some. The same fact explains the recurring industrial depressions, the scarcity of jobs, the stagnation of capital, and wages sinking toward the starvation point. All of these grow more pronounced as material progress goes on.

We have seen that there is no possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their cause; we have seen that private property in land has no warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a slavery the hardest and most degrading.

We have seen that these evils have no remedy except abolishing their cause. We have seen that private property in land has no warrant in justice. It stands condemned as a denial of natural right, a violation of natural law that must, as society develops, condemn the masses to the hardest and most degrading slavery.

We have weighed every objection, and seen that neither on the ground of equity or expediency is there anything to deter us from making land common property by confiscating rent.

We have weighed every objection and found nothing, in fairness or in expediency, to stop us from making land common property by confiscating rent.

But a question of method remains. How shall we do it?

But a question of method remains. How shall we do it?

We should satisfy the law of justice, we should meet all economic requirements, by at one stroke abolishing all private titles, declaring all land public property, and letting it out to the highest bidders in lots to suit, under such conditions as would sacredly guard the private right to improvements.

One possible method would satisfy justice and meet every economic requirement. We could abolish all private titles at one stroke and declare all land public property. We would then lease it to the highest bidders in suitable lots, under conditions that carefully protect the private right to improvements.

Thus we should secure, in a more complex state of402 society, the same equality of rights that in a ruder state were secured by equal partitions of the soil, and by giving the use of the land to whoever could procure the most from it, we should secure the greatest production.

In a more complex society, that would secure the same equality of rights that equal division of the soil secured in a ruder one. And by giving the use of land to whoever could get the most from it, it would secure the greatest production.402

Such a plan, instead of being a wild, impracticable vagary, has (with the exception that he suggests compensation to the present holders of land—undoubtedly a careless concession which he upon reflection would reconsider) been indorsed by no less eminent a thinker than Herbert Spencer, who (“Social Statics,” Chap. IX, Sec. 8) says of it:

Such a plan is no wild, impracticable fancy. The philosopher Herbert Spencer, a thinker of the first rank, has endorsed it in “Social Statics” (Chap. IX, Sec. 8). He does suggest compensating the present holders of land, which is undoubtedly a careless concession that on reflection he would reconsider. Of the plan he says:

“Such a doctrine is consistent with the highest state of civilization; may be carried out without involving a community of goods, and need cause no very serious revolution in existing arrangements. The change required would simply be a change of landlords. Separate ownership would merge into the joint-stock ownership of the public. Instead of being in the possession of individuals, the country would be held by the great corporate body—society. Instead of leasing his acres from an isolated proprietor, the farmer would lease them from the nation. Instead of paying his rent to the agent of Sir John or his Grace, he would pay it to an agent or deputy agent of the community. Stewards would be public officials instead of private ones, and tenancy the only land tenure. A state of things so ordered would be in perfect harmony with the moral law. Under it all men would be equally landlords, all men would be alike free to become tenants. * * * Clearly, therefore, on such a system, the earth might be enclosed, occupied and cultivated, in entire subordination to the law of equal freedom.”

“Such a doctrine is consistent with the highest state of civilization. It can be carried out without a community of goods and need cause no very serious revolution in existing arrangements. The change required would simply be a change of landlords. Separate ownership would merge into the joint-stock ownership of the public. Instead of being held by individuals, the country would be held by the great corporate body, society. Instead of leasing his acres from an isolated proprietor, the farmer would lease them from the nation. Instead of paying rent to the agent of Sir John or his Grace, he would pay it to an agent of the community. Stewards would be public officials instead of private ones, and tenancy the only land tenure. A state of things so ordered would be in perfect harmony with the moral law. Under it all men would be equally landlords, and all would be equally free to become tenants. … Clearly, then, on such a system the earth might be enclosed, occupied and cultivated in entire subordination to the law of equal freedom.”

But such a plan, though perfectly feasible, does not seem to me the best. Or rather I propose to accomplish the same thing in a simpler, easier, and quieter way, than that of formally confiscating all the land and formally letting it out to the highest bidders.

But though such a plan is perfectly feasible, I do not think it the best. I propose to accomplish the same thing in a simpler, easier and quieter way than formally confiscating all the land and formally leasing it out.

To do that would involve a needless shock to present customs and habits of thought—which is to be avoided.

It would needlessly shock present customs and habits of thought, which is to be avoided.

To do that would involve a needless extension of governmental machinery—which is to be avoided.

It would needlessly extend the machinery of government, which is to be avoided.

It is an axiom of statesmanship, which the successful founders of tyranny have understood and acted upon—that great changes can best be brought about under old forms. We, who would free men, should heed the same truth. It is the natural method. When nature would make a higher type, she takes a lower one and develops it. This, also, is the law of social growth. Let us work by it. With the current we may glide fast and far. Against it, it is hard pulling and slow progress.

It is an axiom of statesmanship, understood and used by the successful founders of tyranny, that great changes come best under old forms. We who would free men should heed it too. It is the natural method: when nature would make a higher type, she takes a lower one and develops it. It is also the law of social growth, so let us work by it. With the current we glide fast and far. Against it, the pulling is hard and progress slow.

I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.

I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. Purchase would be unjust, and confiscation needless. Let the present holders keep possession, if they wish, of what they like to call their land. Let them go on calling it their land. Let them buy, sell and bequeath it. We can safely leave them the shell if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.

Nor to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption this might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it. By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock, assert the common right to land by taking rent for public uses.

Nor, to take rent for public uses, need the State bother with leasing lands and risk the favoritism, collusion and corruption that would bring. No new machinery is needed, because the machinery already exists. Instead of extending it, we need only simplify and reduce it. We would leave land owners a percentage of rent, probably far less than the cost and loss of renting lands through State agency. Using the existing machinery, we can then assert the common right to land by taking rent for public uses, without jar or shock.

We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.

We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to change our methods of taxation to take it all.

What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give re404munerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by taxation.

What I propose, then, as the simple yet sovereign remedy is to appropriate rent by taxation.404 It will raise wages, increase the earnings of capital, wipe out pauperism, abolish poverty, and give rewarding employment to all who want it. It will free human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, taste and intelligence, purify government, and carry civilization to nobler heights.

In this way the State may become the universal landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a single new function. In form, the ownership of land would remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land, no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was held, would be really common property, and every member of the community would participate in the advantages of its ownership.

In this way the State may become the universal landlord without calling herself one and without taking on a single new function. In form, land ownership would stay as it is. No owner need be dispossessed, and no limit need be set on how much land anyone may hold. Since the State would take rent in taxes, land would be common property whoever's name it stood in, and every member of the community would share in its benefits.

Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by proposing—

Since taxing rent, or land values, must increase just as we abolish other taxes, we can put the proposal in practical form:

To abolish all taxation save that upon land values.

To abolish all taxation save that upon land values.

As we have seen, the value of land is at the beginning of society nothing, but as society develops by the increase of population and the advance of the arts, it becomes greater and greater. In every civilized country, even the newest, the value of the land taken as a whole is sufficient to bear the entire expenses of government. In the better developed countries it is much more than sufficient. Hence it will not be enough merely to place all taxes upon the value of land. It will be necessary, where rent exceeds the present governmental revenues, commensurately to increase the amount demanded in taxation, and to continue this increase as society progresses and rent advances. But this is so natural and easy a matter, that it may be considered as involved, or at least understood, in the proposition to put all taxes405 on the value of land. That is the first step, upon which the practical struggle must be made. When the hare is once caught and killed, cooking him will follow as a matter of course. When the common right to land is so far appreciated that all taxes are abolished save those which fall upon rent, there is no danger of much more than is necessary to induce them to collect the public revenues being left to individual land holders.

As we have seen, the value of land is nothing at the beginning of society, but grows greater and greater as population increases and the arts advance. In every civilized country, even the newest, the value of land as a whole is enough to pay all the expenses of government. In the better developed countries it is much more. So placing all taxes on land value will not be enough by itself. Where rent exceeds present government revenues, we must raise the tax to match, and keep raising it as society progresses and rent advances. But this is so natural and easy that it is implied in the proposal to put all taxes on the value of land.405 That is the first step, and the practical struggle must be fought there. When the hare is once caught and killed, cooking him follows as a matter of course. Once the common right to land is so well understood that every tax is abolished except those on rent, land holders will not keep much more than it takes to make them collect the public revenues.

Experience has taught me (for I have been for some years endeavoring to popularize this proposition) that wherever the idea of concentrating all taxation upon land values finds lodgment sufficient to induce consideration, it invariably makes way, but that there are few of the classes most to be benefited by it, who at first, or even for a long time afterward, see its full significance and power. It is difficult for workingmen to get over the idea that there is a real antagonism between capital and labor. It is difficult for small farmers and homestead owners to get over the idea that to put all taxes on the value of land would be unduly to tax them. It is difficult for both classes to get over the idea that to exempt capital from taxation would be to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. These ideas spring from confused thought. But behind ignorance and prejudice there is a powerful interest, which has hitherto dominated literature, education, and opinion. A great wrong always dies hard, and the great wrong which in every civilized country condemns the masses of men to poverty and want, will not die without a bitter struggle.

Experience has taught me, for I have worked some years to popularize this proposal, that wherever the idea of concentrating all taxation on land values gets enough hearing to be considered, it always makes headway. But few of the classes that would gain most see its full power at first, or even for a long time. Workingmen find it hard to give up the idea that capital and labor are truly antagonists. Small farmers and homestead owners find it hard to give up the idea that it would tax them unfairly. Both find it hard to give up the idea that exempting capital would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. These ideas come from confused thought. But behind ignorance and prejudice stands a powerful interest, which has so far dominated literature, education and opinion. A great wrong always dies hard, and the great wrong that condemns the masses to poverty and want in every civilized country will not die without a bitter struggle.

I do not think the ideas of which I speak can be entertained by the reader who has followed me thus far; but inasmuch as any popular discussion must deal with the concrete, rather than with the abstract, let me ask him to follow me somewhat further, that we may try the remedy I have proposed by the accepted canons of taxation. In doing so, many incidental bearings may be seen that otherwise might escape notice.

I do not think a reader who has followed me this far can still hold such ideas. But popular discussion must deal with the concrete, not the abstract. So let me ask him to follow me a little further and test my remedy against the accepted canons of taxation. Doing so will show many incidental bearings that might otherwise escape notice.