Concerning Land Ownership
Joseph Dana Miller
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
January-February 1928]
Although Henry George is a master of the art of lucid exposition of
economic subjects, it would be idle to deny that there has been some
misunderstanding of the meaning to be attached to certain phrases
which he uses in describing the evil which he finds to lie at the root
of social injustice and which paralyses all attempts to ameliorate
social conditions as long as the fundamental error lies unremedied.
This evil he finds to be "private property in land," or "private
ownership of land," because such property or ownership, if
carried to its logical conclusion, permits the exclusion of all
persons not owning land from their natural right to live by the
application of their labor to land. Many people jump to the conclusion
that the only alternatives to private ownership of land are public
ownership of land or common ownership of land, and are disposed to
believe that so far as land is concerned Henry George was a communist.
Others interpret his language to imply that he approved a limited
socialism, making land the property of the State. That he meant
neither of these things has always been clear to Single Taxers, who
have combatted these economic errors for half a century.
Perhaps the question will be asked, if ownership does not vest in the
individual, in the State or in Society (here understood as the
community in its non-political aspect) to whom then does it belong? If
one answers that question in the strict sense, it can not belong at
all, in the same sense that personal property belongs to its producer,
one is suspected of being visionary or metaphysical.
Perhaps the best comprehension of Henry George's meaning may be
attained by a parable. A certain man, having land which he wished to
use for the benefit of his children, decides during his life-time, to
create a trust for its management in their interest, they themselves
having the power to choose the trustees. Clearly the heirs do not own
the property, for the father still lives and may revoke the trust. The
heirs have a clear right to bargain among themselves for possession of
such parts of the estate as each may think he can manage to the best
advantage, subject to the approval of the trustees, who in the common
interests exact from the possessor as much annual rent as any other
heir will give for the exclusive possession of the same piece of
property. The trustees have clearly the duty of expending the annual
rental for the common expenses of the management of the estate, and if
a surplus remains after all expenses are paid, then such surplus shall
be distributed, not pro-rata among the heirs according to their
holdings or rentals paid, but equally, in recognition of the equal
right of all men to an equal share of their father's bounty.
Having thus stated in parable Henry George's concept of the manner in
which ownership of land should be dealt with, it seems worth while to
deal with the negative side and to set down what he clearly did not
intend. He did not intend that land should be owned by the state and
doled out to citizens according to the will of officials. He did not
intend that it should be held by all the people in common ownership
and that the produce should be distributed according to the arbitrary
decisions of autocratic or democratic officials. He did not intend
what is called land nationalization, beginning with a policy of land
purchase. He did not intend that any now existing title of a person to
land should be disturbed or abolished as long as the person holding
such title paid annually as much rental for the bare land exclusive of
improvements as the generality of persons holding similar allotments
would and did pay. The determination of rentals to be paid under such
a system is really a form of valuation of sites by common consent.
Such a system now exists in parts of the State of New York under the
following circumstances. Certain towns located on the South Shore of
Long Island front on Great South Bay, which bay is formed by sand bars
extending along its outer edge, which is about five miles out to sea.
In the course of time the beaches developed vegetation and became
habitable, and the State of New York conferred the ownership of them
on the towns of the mainland of the island fronting them. Certain
persons tried to acquire ownership of strips of these beaches and some
were sold, until finally some one raised the point that the towns
could only lease and not sell. The result is that these beaches are
being built up by citizens who if they have no titles, on the other
hand had no purchase price to pay for land. The only limitation upon
their right to indefinite use is that they must, within two years,
build bungalows or cottages, worth not less than a stated sum and pay
an annual rental. Even this requirement is not rigidly enforced, but
if any person has taken a plot and has not built upon it and if a
new-comer makes a bid and shows a willingness and ability to build,
the previous tenant will be given notice that if he does not comply
with his agreement with the town at once, his plot will be turned over
to the new bidder. An arbitrary price applicable to all similarly
situated lots is charged, and the money applied to the construction of
board-walks, which are the only highways on the islands and beaches.
It must be clear to all persons who really desire to understand Henry
George's proposal, that under his plan every element of ownership
which now inheres in home or farm-owning would persist, except the
ability to appropriate such increases in value as might arise from
public need or public expenditure.
There is practically no such thing as absolute ownership of land now.
All governments assert the right to levy some form of tax on land,
which if not duly paid, entitles the government to seize and sell the
land of the delinquent owner. Such a person would be in an improved
position under the Henry George plan because he would not be liable to
be sold out for an unpaid tax on his improvements, which in most
cases, would be more than the tax on the lot.
|