Why the Henry George Idea Does Not Prevail
Spencer Heath
[Reprinted from Society and its Services, published
in Baltimore, Maryland by the Science of Society Foundation, Inc.,
1954]
Society is the general, voluntary association of men performing and
exchanging services among themselves.
A society can exist only in a community-a place where its members
have something in common, (1) the public portions of the place set
apart for the purposes of communication and for the common use of all
upon equal terms and conditions, and (2) the private or proprietary
portions held in separate and exclusive possession and affording the
use of the public parts with their public facilities.
When these private portions are owned, when they have
proprietors, accepted and acknowledged as such, then and then only
their use and possession can be held or distributed socially
and democratically by contract and consent of the market, by a
merchandising process and, therefore, to all upon equal terms. Any
alternative to this democratic possession and transfer by contract and
consent is possession by force, private or public, involving in some
degree either anarchy or tyranny, barbarism or slavery.
The society, therefore, creates and maintains itself, its very life
from its inception, by establishing and recognizing proprietors to
perform the vital service of making a social and democratic, instead
of an arbitrary and compulsive, distribution among its members of all
its sites and resources for which there is any present or prospective
rivalry or economic demand. The recompense which the society
spontaneously awards, by all its members' consent, to its proprietary
officers in return for this vital service of social distribution is
called economic or ground rent.
Because this distributive service is performed socially by
proprietors (however unknowingly), it is possible for land users to
produce and exchange wealth, and services with each other and out of
this production to recompense the proprietors for their distributive
services. According, where production is high, rent is high, where it
is low, rent is low, and where there is no production, the land being
out of use, there is no rent. This failure to produce is also why an
idle site or resource yields no rent and, therefore has no present if,
indeed, any value.
This service of social distribution by ownership and proprietary
administration is not any cause of land lying out of use; it is the
only means whereby it can be peaceably apportioned and securely
possessed and, thereby, come into productive use. What causes land and
resources to lie idle is the "schemes of taxation which drain the
wages of labor and the earnings of capital as the vampire bat is said
to suck the life blood of its victims."*
Land ownership protects the land user against the arbitrary
allocation of land by political (coercive) authority and, thereby,
prevents monopolization of the sites and resources by political
persons or by their special privileges. Land ownership keeps an
open market for land and thus prevents its arbitrary
monopolization. But although land owners lost long ago their historic
political authority and power, they have not as yet extended to their
tenants and purchasers any protection against expropriation by
taxation of their productive wealth and capital values. This rapidly
increasing blight on the use and employment of capital destroys the
demand for land and its resources and thus renders it idle and sets
all its values ultimately or immediately into progressive decline.
When the land owning interest has become sufficiently organized and
enlightened, it will extend its present merely distributive services
to the protection of its communities against the ravages of political
government and eventually put into practice that noble prescription of
Henry George: "To abolish all taxation save that on land value."
To carry out this program will be seen as the peculiar and distinctive
function of the land owning interest as such. For this interest has no
other business wherewith to concern or profit itself but the interest
and welfare of the community that it serves and upon the productivity
and prosperity of which all its values depend.
Every land-using interest or business, of whatever kind, has its own
private capital to administer and its special clients, customers and
patrons to serve. It is in business to purchase the services of others
and to administer and sell those services to its own clients and
customers.
But individual users of land with their several and diverse interests
must have public services performed for them. They cannot perform
private services for others (their customers) and also public services
for themselves at the same time. Only the general land-owning
interest, depending as it does on public value for its recompense, can
properly perform the public services. This interest, as such, conducts
no private enterprise or business. Its has none but public services to
perform, none but public revenue to receive. It is, by its very
nature, specialized and set apart for the social (non-political)
distribution of sites and resources. It must serve and protect its
source of revenue-the community inhabitants-by administering the
public properties and facilities-the public capital-as authentic
public services.
Land owners, as such, do not own any of the private capital or
improvements on land. But they are, in effect, owners of the
public capital and improvements by which the private sites and
resources are served. For if and when the public capital affords any
income, it can flow only to them-since public benefits attach not to
persons but to the sites and are reflected in ground rents.
Reduction and ultimate abolition of taxation is a public service to
land users that the public owners alone can most profitably perform.
It is the one community service that private business and employment
most needs and out of its expanding productivity would enormously
reward in rising rents and values. Just as it is the business of the
owners of a private community such as a hotel, with all its common
services similar to those of a town to conduct it in the interest of
those who pay rent, so it is the peculiar and exclusive business of
the owners of the larger public community not only to make a social
distribution of their spaces and resources but also to guard the
private occupants against destructive taxation and provide them with
all protection and other public services needful for their security
and productivity.
When these immunities and services are obtained and performed for the
occupants of those larger communities that lie wholly out of doors,
the owners of these larger communities will be recompensed in rising
rents and values upon a scale proportionate to the productivity
thereby released and prosperity enjoyed. Every dollar of unnecessary
taxation lifted will not only be restored to its producers, but will
release new production doubtless to the amount of several dollars
more. The portion of this new exemption and new production that will
present itself in the market as new demand for land will eventually
exceed all former rent and all former taxes combined.
There will be no destruction of existing values, but only the
creation of new. The new rent created by curbing the community
servants will be more than ample to pay them, and it will of necessity
and by self interest be so employed. Government as depredation and
destruction will be transformed into the administration of community
property by community owners for the creation of public services, with
resulting community values. And none but the public areas and public
properties will come under public or community control. Private
property and spaces, exempt from taxation, will be inviolate; and if
the community owners, through their profitable administration of the
public business, shall become the "greatest of all", it will
be only as they become the common benefactors of their communities
through giving their services to all.
Henry George wrote the briefest, yet perfect prescription for the
emancipation of mankind-in three words, "abolish all taxation".
He dreamed deeply of abundance, freedom and peace. But in his wrath at
wreck and wrong, he dreamed a "dragon in the way"--that
mankind must be saved not by the golden rule of service by exchange,
but through imagined evil being destroyed. And so, to destroy what he
dreamed as dragon namely, property in land, he invoked a real and
acknowledged evil to oppose an imagined one. And to "abolish"
taxation he invoked the very evil he abhorred. His fair philosophy of
freedom was tarnished and dishonored by this false and irrelevant
doctrine of force. This it was that raised against his beneficent
proposal, "to abolish all taxation", such bitter opposition
in his own day and that condemns it to indifference and neglect in
ours.
If the taxation of land values should be progressively increased, as
Henry George urged, then contractual rent would become degraded into
compulsory taxation. Land owners would cease to function, and land
users, as wealth producers, instead of being exempt from taxation,
would sink into paying taxes compulsorily to politicians as public
officers instead of paying rent by contract and consent to land owners
as the public benefactors.
That rent instead of taxes is the naturally ordained recompense for
community services is the very heart and essence of the Georgian
ideal. When it is discovered that rent springs from community
service, primarily distributive, for value received, and that new rent
responds to new services, it can be seen that the service precedes and
induces the recompense. This is the natural law of recompense for
service-the same law that George expounds with respect to labor
preceding and being the source of the wages it receives.
But his instrument for employing rent in lieu of taxation was
taxation itself, the very tool of tyranny. Yet all values are products
of services, and from all true services spring the values that
recompense them. Social salvation must come through services, and yet
more services, to create new values and yet more values, and not
through taxation which can only destroy.
Henry George was not wholly unmindful of the services performed by
land owners. He approved of their retaining recompense for their
services. But when he proposed so great a public boon as to abolish
taxation, he proposed no recompense for this great service. It did not
penetrate him that land owners alone are in a sole and special place
to perform it and that they alone could reap their recompense. He
suggested that if millionaires should make free gifts to cities, this
would only raise rents, which he deplored. It did not occur to him
that should the owners of cities provide great services, such as the
abolition of taxation, the new rents and values that would surely
arise would be their natural and proportionate reward.
Henry George, dreamer, mystic, poetic herald of the social dawn, yet
moralist withal, renewed the languished hope of many of his time. But
he burdened his dream of peace and freedom with a moralistic and
belligerent spirit against the social institution of private,
non-political property in land, and so foreclosed its healing beauty
against the sober counsels of mankind.
REFERENCES
*Henry George,
Progress & Poverty, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition (1953),
p. 427.
|