Review of the Book
Henry George and the Single Tax Movement
by Arthur Nichols Young, Ph.D.
Unsigned Article
[Reprinted from The Fortnightly Review, 15
January, 1917]
Arthur Nichols Young, Ph. D., in a recently published volume on The
Single Tax Movement in the United States (Princeton University
Press), undertakes to "give a complete account of the Single Tax
movement in the United States, together with a discussion of the
tactics of the Single-taxers, their programme, the present status of
the movement, and its influence upon economic thought and upon fiscal
and social reform."
The volume fulfils its purpose. Its chief value lies in the bringing
together of a great number of detached facts, relating in part to the
position taken by Henry George and by his followers in the movement,
upon various phases of economic and political controversy, in part to
the success or failure of specific efforts to introduce the Single
Tax, or some modification of it, in various Slates of the Union or
subdivisions of them. To any one in search of authentic information
concerning either the political history of the Single Tax movement or
the mental attitude of its leading advocates in this country, the work
will be serviceable. One gets the impression that by far the greater
part of the work effectively done in the political held in the
direction of the Single Tax thus far has been done not in the shape of
an avowed promotion of the Single Tax doctrine or policy, but in such
form as to gain as much support as possible for some measure which the
true-blue Single-taxers desire as an entering- wedge, but which
persons opposed or indifferent to their doctrine would advocate on
wholly different grounds.
From the almost total absence of names of weight, the fact that the
few names of this kind that do appear belong to the early stages of
the movement, and from the further circumstance that even of these few
some adopted a modified position later on, a critic in the N. Y.
Nation (No. 2688) justly concludes that Henry George's Progress
and Poverty, impressive as in many ways it is, not only in point
of eloquence and moving quality, but also in point of lucidity, has
made no serious conquest of competent minds. "This absence in the
book," says our critic, "not only agrees with common
knowledge, but cannot by any possibility be ascribed to indifference
or bias on the part of the author. He lays ample stress on the
inspiring influence of 'Progress and Poverty' upon those who have been
awakened by it to a passionate zeal for human improvement, and he
ascribes to it a large share of credit for the progress of
administrative tax- reform. If he does not record any substantial
conquest of competent opinion for its essential doctrine, it is simply
because no such thing has taken place. And the reason is not far to
seek.
The distinctive feature of Henry George's teaching was the
rightfulness -- nay, the duty -- of confiscation of land values. The
idea of the unearned increment was not his, and the absorption of that
increment by the community had been strongly advocated by John Stuart
Mill - with the vital limitation, however, that this should apply only
to future increment. This limitation Henry George rejected, not only
with emphasis but with contempt; confiscation was of the essence of
his creed. This was his contribution to economic ethics; and while
some of his writing upon economic theory was of extraordinary force,
he added nothing that is true and proclaimed much that is manifestly
false.
The hold of his famous book rested upon two things -- the doctrine of
the ethical wrong of land ownership in the abstract, and the idea that
its abolition would be a panacea for poverty. The latter has so
utterly failed to make headway that it is now almost forgotten; the
former is put out of court, among the vast majority of sober-minded
persons, by consideration of the monstrous wrongfulness and inequity
of confiscation."
|