Georgists are strong on implementation. We fashion ways to penetrate and overturn political obstacles lying in the way of the success of our fiscal policies even before they have ever happened.
In fact, there is a plethora of plans. So many were unveiled at a recent meeting, I am told, that newcomers became stunned and confused.
Georgists are ready to implement land value taxation (site revenue), but are they just as prepared to persuade the public that it should be implemented? If it is suggested that there should be some education to go with these plans the reply most often is that education is unnecessary (promoting land tax is education enough); or that education does not work.
A professor of political economy writing in the distant past of the1850s might have an answer to those arguments - that is if you have any regard for what was written in the C19.
Basics Abandoned
John Elliott Cairnes, a confidante of John Stuart Mill, wrote “Many now enrolled themselves as political economists who had never taken the trouble to study the elementary principles of the science ... while even those who had mastered its doctrines, in their anxiety to propitiate a popular audience, were too often led to abandon the true grounds of the science … The discussions of Political Economy have been constantly assuming more of a statistical [mathematical] character; results are now appealed to instead of principles … till the true course of investigation has been well-nigh forgotten …”
This statement quoted at length on pp. 180-181 of The Science of Political Economy by Henry George describing the decay of classical economics may indeed describe the Georgist movement.
(George, we remember, tried to rescue classical economics from its decay. But when several young professors found that classical economics, properly understood, led to Georgism, they reinvented the subject.)
Plans
George himself was not given to plans. Lecturing in England in 1884 he answered someone who asked him about placing the national debt upon the shoulders of landlords by saying “I am not here to advocate plans”. His task he explained was to talk instead about “the eternal principle [that] is the same all the world over”.
In only one instance have I found George advocating a plan (about how much of the ‘single tax’ it might be practicable to collect). He prefaced his remarks by making an admission: “This is a point on which I have never been clear”. And after giving an answer he added that the question was for now theoretical. However, circumstances in the future might enable a better answer.
“That road stretches before us for a long distance clear and plain”, he reminded his readers. The general direction was certain: it was to ‘abolish all taxation save that upon land values’ – an aspect of “the eternal principle”. However imperfect any plan might be, he said, the benefits of the ‘single tax’ would still exist (The Standard, August, 1889).
In any article or speech George never left the end, the ‘single tax’, without its beginning, its fundamental rationale of natural rights. That way “the true grounds of the science” never got lost.
And as for that favourite Georgist plan George asked his audience “Let every man who thinks the landlords ought to be compensated, put his hand in his pocket”.
Historical Development
Movements that move develop naturally in historical phases: from a master teacher to discussion groups, from discussion groups to a social movement (which is but more discussion groups), to the historical coincidence of a talented political leader and a political crisis that provides an opportunity for large change. That is how movements move. Anyone who knows any history will see examples all over the place.
Once you appreciate this perspective you appreciate why George was not given to plans. He was intent upon his own function. Gone now are the days when a sect could get the ear of the king. There are no kings; there are elections. Politicians are like those who jump in front of a demonstration waving a flag. They are no leaders; they are captives of public opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment