Review of the Book
For the Good of All:
War, Taxes and Politics in the Light of Ethical Principles
by Gilbert M. Tucker
Frank H. Knight
[Reprinted from The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Sep., 1944), p. 161]
A title so lofty and sweet should cause the wary reader to expect a
preachment of some kind rather than a treatise or an essay -- and his
guess would be right. Mr. Tucker's book is propaganda for the
single-tax theory of Henry George.
In tone, it is of the gentle-persuasion rather than any high-pressure
type, or even the evangelistic eloquence of the Master. But, as to the
validity of the prophetic message, there is, as usual, no room for
doubt: "The way to right these wrongs is simple and clear if only
we will see it" (p. 103).
To the student of ways of thinking, with a little understanding of
economics, the doctrine of the single tax on land has a peculiar
interest. It is a shining if not a unique example of a social panacea,
an easy solution for hard problems, reached by reasoning from premises
which look plausible and are commonly accepted as axioms. It is the
least excusable of the social-economic heresies, unless it be its
close relative, the labor theory of value, and both may be blamed upon
the early modern political economists.
It is an "intellectual" fallacy, and not likely to do much
damage; it is not nearly so dangerous as, for example, crackpot
theories of money. This is in part because the money problem is really
more difficult and subtle, but more because too many voters have
firsthand experience with landowning, or have observed such experience
at too close range, to act, even collectively, on the theory that
owning land is an automatic method for making money at the expense of
society.
As to the economic theories involved in the question, the premises
are all false. Land is not a monopoly, it is not and never was a
costless gift of God or Nature to man, and its value is not socially
created in a sense significantly different from what is true of any
other wealth. (If this were so, a particular nation would, of course,
have no more ethical right to it than a particular individual.) Nor is
land value peculiar in being speculative, nor in the fact that, on the
whole, speculation is a losing game.
Finally, the falsity of the main conclusion is as evident as that of
the premises. Prospective increase in value is no motive for holding
any wealth idle, and taxation on the basis of potential yield will not
tend to force any idle resource into use. The only argument which
would have any validity in this connection is the general socialistic
one that government officials are likely to direct economic activity
better than private individuals, without distinction between forms of
productive capacity, including labor.
|