On Unrestricted Competition
Henry George
[Reprinted from The Freeman, November, 1938.
This article orginally appeared in The Standard]
W. W. Head, secretary of the Shearers' Union, writes me from Wagga
Wagga, New South Wales, saying:
"Socialism of the Bellamy brand is spreading here,
and the only thing we have to offer as an argument against their
doctrine is an admission that the single tax will and must
necessarily bring voluntary co-operation and less governmental
machinery -- less rule, or more law and less force -- anarchy of a
sort. Socialists admit the pooling of land-values is the first step
toward reform; but they set as much value on the nationalization of
banks and capital as that of the land, and want lo start right away
to nationalize those things which we believe are not in their nature
monopolies, and which would not be monopolies if land-values were
taken by the people. In short. they do not believe in competition
and want to abolish it right away. If we stick to competition and
regard it as almost a natural law, what about the waste involved in
our present industrial system? Taxation of land-values will not
prevent the employment of labor uselessly in advertising, etc., or
will it? If so, how?"
Answering Mr. Head's question in spirit, rather than in letter, I
would say: Yes; it will. For while the useless expenditure of labor in
advertising or any other branch of effort could not be prevented
without interfering with natural rights and without stifling useful
effort, I take Mr. Head to refer to that waste that goes on where
three stores are started in a place where two would suffice, or where
a hundred men are found in a business or profession in which sixty or
seventy could do, and would be glad to do, all that is needed. This
waste of effort, which is very striking all over the civilized world,
the Socialists propose to prevent by abolishing competition -- that is
to say, by abolishing the liberty of men to dispose their efforts as
they please. They would have the State manage and control all
production and exchange, so that so many men land necessarily such and
such men) should be assigned to this branch and place of effort, and
so many men (that is to say, such and such men should be assigned to
that.
On the other hand we, who for want of a better term style ourselves
Single Tax men, tout whose fundamental idea would be better expressed
by some such term as equal rights men, or individual rights men, or
natural order men, propose to get rid of this difficulty in an easier
and more thorough way. Instead of abolishing competitions, we would
abolish restrictions on competition; Instead of imposing more
restraints on individual liberty, we would remove all restraints upon
the liberty of any one to do anything that did not interfere with the
equal liberty of others. The reason for, and the efficacy of, our
method will be seen when the cause of the waste of which our
Australian friend is thinking is traced.
From what does overcrowding of businesses and professions proceed?
Does it not proceed from that seeming glut in the labor market which
causes the opportunity to labor to seem a boon, and reduces the wages
of labor in the primary occupations to go low a point? And from what
does this spring? Does it not manifestly spring from those
restrictions which deprive men willing to labor of access to the
natural opportunities of exerting labor? Is this not clear whenever we
consider that the natural opportunities for the useful employment of
labor offered by the globe on which we live are simply illimitable,
and that so long as desire continues for things that the exertion of
labor produces there must always be an unsatisfied need for the useful
exertion of labor?
What the taxation of land values irrespective of improvements would
do, would be to make land useless except to the user; to make the mere
monopolization of land unprofitable and impossible. And thus it would
Open to laborers the primary necessity and opportunity for all labor.
At the same time, by taking for the use of the community the great
sums that now go to non-producers, it would do away with taxes that
greatly lessen earnings in all branches of productive effort, and
remove the restrictions they impose.
With land thus opened to labor, and with the products of labor thus
freed from taxes, the one-sided competition that now shows itself in
the seeming overplus of demand for employment, would be met and
relieved by the demand for labor and the products of labor. This
relief in the market for the primary forma of labor would necessarily
show itself in all others, that is to say, in all businesses and
professions, both by withdrawing the competition of those not needed
there, and for whom better opportunities would be opened where they
were needed, and toy the increased demand for commodities and services
consequent on the increased purchasing power of better employed and
better paid laborers. Men would cease to push into places and
vocations where they were not needed, for the simple reason that
places and vocations where they were needed would be open to them, and
would pay them better.
And the play of this free competition would have the effect of
determining, through the free will of individuals, what number of men,
and what men, should devote themselves to each of the multiform
branches of industry, in order to secure for society at large the most
economical use of productive forces, and the largest result in desired
satisfactions. But it cannot be said that this would absolutely end
effort, for the reason that, as to many things, what will be useful
and what useless cannot be determined without experiment. All new
inventions, discoveries, and adjustments, involve experiment and the
liability to useless effort; but to stop this would be to put an end
to progress. Thus, effort may be wasted in advertising, where a man
thinks that the public will want a thing which the result proves that
they do not. But to prevent this would be to prevent the public being
apprised of things that they do really want.
And where the conditions of equal freedom are fulfilled, where all
men are placed on an equal level with regard to natural opportunity,
and with regard to the benefits of an advancing civilization, the
freedom of individuals to do what they choose (provided, of course,
that they do not infringe the equal freedom of others) will result in
the' greatest benefit to society at large.
Here is the difference, and it is fundamental and irreconcilable,
between the Socialists and Single Taxers. They propose to cure the
evils that have come of restriction by more restriction. We propose to
cure the evils that have come of restriction by giving freedom. And a
man cannot favor the Socialistic scheme and the Single Tax scheme at
the same time, any more than he can go east and west at the same time.
|