Henry George's Land Reform: The Distinction between Private Ownership and Private Possession

Henry George stated that the taxation of land rent would amount to the abolition of the institution of private ownership of land, thereby alienating all those who, whether for economic or ideological reasons, regard the private ownership of land as essential for social order and progress. George believed that under his proposed reform the private ownership of land would be replaced by private possession. But his distinction between ownership and possession appears to have been based on a misconception of the nature of private ownership. His proposed reform could have been more logically described as a conditional, modified, or restricted private ownership of land, rather than as the abolition of private ownership of land.     

Henry George and the Shakers: Evolution of Communal Attitudes Towards Land Ownership

A bstract . The influence of Henry George on the Shakers has been misunderstood. The most prominent late nineteenth century Shaker elder was Frederick W. Evans , brother of George Henry Evans , the land reformer of the second quarter of the century. Similarities in the programs of G. H. Evans and Henry George have been recognized, but the two proposed different kinds of land reforms. Evans promoted quantitative restrictions on land ownership , while George was known for his advocacy of a single tax on land. The New York Shakers, as large land owners, successfully resisted early G. H. Evans type land reforms. Later, Shakers led by F. W. Evans embraced Henry George-type policy proposals and supported George for mayor of New York City. E. W. Evans himself, however, conflated Henry George's proposals with those of his brother, never realizing the contradiction between the two, much less resolving it. The consequences of Shaker ambivalence toward their large landholdings persisted well into the twentieth century.     

Henry George, Emile de Laveleye, and the Issue of Peasant Proprietorship

A bstract .   In Emile de Laveleye's demonstration that communal landholding was universally a characteristic of primitive societies, Henry George saw evidence of a golden age before the development of private ownership of land. Though he agreed with George that unequal access to land was a major cause of the social evil of poverty, de Laveleye did not consider it the sole cause of poverty. Where George would nationalize land rent, de Laveleye would make private ownership more widespread; and he faulted George for giving too little attention to the question of how government would use the revenue from a land tax, and for failing to consider the concentration of capital as a cause of poverty.     

Henry George's Land Reform: A Comment on Pullen

Henry George described his proposal to tax land rent as tantamount to abolition of the private ownership of land . However, Pullen's suggestion that it might better be described as "conditional, modified, or restricted ownership" falls foul of the fact that all ownership is conditional, modified, or restricted in some sense. Whereas, for George, the private ownership of labor products may be positively justified on grounds of equity, and is subject only to conditions that apply to ownership in general, the private ownership of land may be permitted , but only on grounds of social utility, and only if a radical condition (social appropriation of most of its rent) is met that satisfies the demands of equity.     

Henry George, Sun Yat-sen and China: More Than Land Policy Was Involved

A bstract . Sun Yat-sen repeatedly acknowledged the influence of Henry George , and this influence went beyond details of land policy. Significant parts of George's work involved his extensive references to China his diagnoses of China's ills, his vision of a possible better economic order , and his strong attack on the Malthusian theory. These too influenced Sun.     

Henry George and the Catholic View of Morality and the Common Good, I

A bstract . On the issuance of the first of the modern social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum , Henry George, the American economist and social philosopher , criticized its author, Pope Leo XIII , for defending a limited right to own land and for limiting the right of private ownership of labor products. George did so by reasoning from Locke's ground that each human has a property right in one's person. George distinguished between possession (and use) and ownership of land on the ground of the common good. That required equality of mutual opportunity , which George would achieve by a Single Tax on all land values. Land reform , he held, would lead to moral reform , and thus to a society based on justice. Pope Leo goes beyond the Schoolmen in stressing a natural right to property, including land, which he asserted must be regarded as sacred. This right, he said, was not absolute, but subject to be used, according to God's Will, for the benefit of others. George looked to a change in the economic structure by reform of land tenure and use to establish a just social order ; Leo to religion and the church , the government, moral individuals and voluntary associations to do so.     

Henry George on Thomas Robert Malthus

A bstract . The present era marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Henry George and the 200th anniversary of the publication of Thomas Robert Malthu's Essay in the Principles of Population. In observance of these historic dates, this paper examines George's critique of the work of Malthus and explores the ideological functions that both men served. George contended that Malthusian population theory served as a means of social control by supporting the landed class and strongly opposing ameliorative public policy. George, on the other hand, lashed out against the private ownership of land and advocated policies of equality and social justice .     

Apprehending the Social Philosophy of Henry George

A bstract .   It is the purpose of this essay to consider but three questions regarding the social philosophy of Henry George that have to now received insufficient attention: George's views with respect to the nationalization of land, the efficacy of socialism, and the place of the individual. One may conclude that George is ostensibly an individualist, who nonetheless declares an intent to limit individuality by social restraint; he cherishes the ideals of utopian socialism, while denouncing the directed order; he advocates the nationalization of land, but then is willing to accept private ownership (albeit without aggrandizement). Much is to be done in coming to terms with the fullness of the proposals offered by this social activist and radical philosopher.     

Henry George and Economic Intervention

A bstract . Henry George , the 19th century American economist and social philosopher , was recognized as an individualist. His Single Tax on the value of land and all natural resources would socialize the rent while preserving private ownership and use. His positions on industrial monoplies were not so clear. He urged the abolition of all special privileges but did not see clearly that this would end many such monopolies. He understated the effects of the single land value tax and the abolition of special privileges; they would go a long way toward ending all industrial monopolies.     

Alfred Russel Wallace's Campaign to Nationalize Land

A bstract . Alfred Russel Wallace rose to fame with Charles Darwin: They independently found the principle of natural selection. Wallace later focused on reforming Great Britain's land tenure system, under which a few owners had come to control most of the land, while most citizens had little or none of their own. In Land Nationalization (1882) Wallace proposed for the state to acquire all land, with limited compensation. The state would then lease it by auction, but to actual users only. Wallace saw his kinship with Henry George, and opened doors to help George tour Britain as a speaker. For years their ideas were linked by friend and foe, and together had great impact on British politics.     

John Dewey and Henry George: The Socialization of Land as a Prerequisite for a Democratic Public

John Dewey frequently praised Henry George, author of a plan to confiscate land values with a “single tax.” Scholars have failed to account for Dewey's support of George. Some have argued that it should not be taken seriously because it is at odds with their interpretation of Dewey's philosophy. This article demonstrates that Dewey perceived the socialization of land values as an essential step toward creating a true democracy. Furthermore, Dewey's interest in George was not an aberration; it was exemplary of his faith in ideology, theory, and transformative social policy. Despite contentions to the contrary, pragmatists of the early 20^th century never emphasized skepticism, moderation, or rote empiricism. In fact, Dewey embraced the philosophy of Henry George as a general theory of history of society. During the Great Depression, Dewey attacked the piecemeal reformism of the New Deal in favor of the comprehensive vision of Henry George.     

Herbert Davenport on the Single Tax: A Second Look

A bstract . Despite a recent claim to the contrary, Herbert J. Davenport was firmly against the Henry George proposal to try to raise all public funds from a tax on land. This is evidenced by two papers he wrote on the subject. Davenport argued that the single tax on land would prompt the inefficient use of substitutes for land, that it would tend to destroy the base upon which the tax was levied, and that it would offend our sense of justice, or the equal treatment principle. The most important and effective of his arguments appears to be the first. It was, more specifically, that in the event of a land tax, individuals would economize on land. They would farm more intensively, they would construct higher buildings, and they would exploit potential underground living space. This paper describes Davenport's arguments and shows why they have been misinterpreted in the past as supporting Henry George's tax theory.     

Public Choice and Land Tax Fairness

Land value taxation (LVT) as desirable U.S. tax policy was brilliantly set forth by the American publicist and economist, Henry George, in the book Progress and Poverty, published 100 years ago. Economists concerned with state and local taxation have generally accepted the basic elements of George's analysis. The absence of substantial LVT legislation despite the economic efficiency and ethical strengths of land as a tax base arises from two sources. First, the public perception of land has not separated land's attributes from those possessed by other property. Second, land ownership data have not been gathered and publicized. Groups favoring taxes that promote economic justice and efficiency should support efforts to develop land ownership data. It would be an important first step toward fully utilizing the potential of LVT.     

Henry George and Henry M. Hyndman, I:

Abstract . Henry George, an individualistic American reformer and economist, and Henry M. Hyndman, an English democratic Marxist, formed a tenuous alliance in 1882. It was based on their mutual advocacy of land nationalization and Irish land tenure reform. During the next few years, the tensions derived from differing weltanschauungen and from differing programmatic directions gradually weakened their mutual bond, despite a continual, but grudging, mutual personal regard.     

Henry George's Influence on John Bates Clark:

A bstract John Bates Clark's marginal productivity theory of income distribution has been portrayed as being derived from David Ricardo . This article traces the influence Henry George had on that theory in providing a standard for measuring labor's addition to aggregate output as comparable to what could be earned on no-rent land . Following George, Jobn Bates Clark extended that standard to include no-rent capital.     

Riches,Real Estate,and Resistance: How Land Speculation,Debt, and Trade Monopolies Led to the American Revolution

Why did the colonies of North America rebel against England in 1775? More than ideas of political freedom were at stake. It is unlikely that the colonists would have demanded independence if powerful land speculators, merchants, and urban artisans had not joined forces to protect their economic interests. England had levied taxes on the colonies, and the colonists had successfully overturned those measures. Taxation was a superficial problem. But in 1773, when England imposed a commercial monopoly on tea sales, and in 1774, when it cut off settlement in western lands, the colonists saw no choice but to rebel and create their own nation. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and other wealthy Virginians who led the American Revolution stood to lose their huge investment in potential land sales if England maintained control of the colonies.     

Henry George on Land Ownership: A Comment on Pullen

Did George alienate many by presenting his reform program as the institution of a new form of restricted land possession rather than as the retention of traditional ownership with a substantial land tax imposed? It seems doubtful, yet the distinction merits further exploration and the peculiar and hard‐to‐implement nature of the tax and the difficulty of reconciling it with George's distrust of government needs to be stressed. Ideally, George might have preferred complete government ownership of land but his policy proposals were pragmatically adapted to the realities of his own society. The extent of the egalitarianism and aid to the landless implied in his program is questioned.     

George on Land Speculation and the Winner's Curse

A bstract .   Henry George anticipated the winner's curse phenomenon and suggested an antidote to prevent wasteful land speculation. In these ways his economic ideas still resonate today as part of modern finance theory.     

Resolving the Economic Puzzle: Two Reviews by Stephan Barton and Fred Foldvary Re‐solving the Economic Puzzle by Walter Rybeck London: Shepheard‐Walwyn, 2011, pp.xv, 238, $29.95. ISBN 978‐0‐856‐32819

Walter Rybeck makes the case for land value taxation, explains how he came to understand its importance, and describes his involvement in the Henry George movement in the United States over the last 50 years. While the book demonstrates the virtues of land value taxation, it also illustrates some of the limitations of contemporary Georgism.