Inscrit le: 12 Mai 2016
|Posté le: Ven 7 Juil - 17:42 (2017) Sujet du message: Progress And Its Enemies Showing The Fallacy Of The Singl
From the PREFACE.
Becoming convinced that the single-tax was a fallacy, I sent a challenge to the president of the Massachusetts Single Tax League, Inc., to meet him or any of his fraternity in joint debate on the single-tax theory.
Although the president of that society, who is a college professor, had been giving addresses in at least a dozen different places in Massachusetts he never answered the challenge, but I did receive a letter from the secretary of the Single Tax League inquiring as to my beliefs and whether I stood for the status quo.
It is not my idea of a joint debate to tell my opponent the line of attack or defense in advance, but I wrote and told him that, while I was an independent thinker, I stood for the status quo in preference to the single tax.
I received from the secretary the following letter:
Massachusetts Single Tax League, Inc.
Boston, Mass, April 30, 1917
Mr. J. F. Wilber
Dear Sir — Thanks for your letter. I think we had better not attempt a debate. I am delighted to thrash out the pros and cons of the single tax with anyone who condemn the present condition of affairs and has what he thinks a better scheme to propose, whether he may call himself Socialist, Anarchist, or by any other name. But if you stand for the status quo, with all its results in Rockefellers and Astors, and East Side slums, then I assure you no member of this league could find any common ground with you on which to start a debate. All the same I shall be glad to see you if you can call some day. Yours truly, Alex. MacKendrick.
Debate, according to Worcester, is "a contention of argument; a disputation; a controversy; an altercation; a quarrel; a contest."
How can there be any "contest, or strife, or quarrel" between those who think alike?
The single-taxer believes in the public ownership of the land, and the Socialist believes in the public ownership of the land (and nearly everything else), how then could there be any dispute between these, or either of them?
What they would have, should they meet, would be a "love-feast." No doubt the single-tax secretary and president would both be "delighted to thrash out the pros and cons," chiefly the pros, with such opponents, especially if they could camouflage the public into thinking it a real contest and thereby gain a little notoriety.
The gentleman "would be glad to see" me "if" I "would call." Who ever heard of a duellist making an afternoon "call" on his enemy? I wonder would he serve pink tea?
I look upon the single-taxers as men who advocate robbery of private property (by the public), like the Bolsheviki of Russia, and I believe the extermination of the teachers of that doctrine would be a blessing to mankind.
The only reason I sent a challenge to debate was because the other kind of a challenge is not permissible under our laws, and I try to be a law-abiding citizen.
The rattlesnake sounds a warning before he strikes and thus gives an opportunity to defend one's self. It is evident the single-taxers prefer the method used by the German submarine of striking without warning.
Because of the declination of the before mentioned officers of the Massachusetts Single Tax League, Inc., to meet in joint debate, I decided to put some of my thoughts in type, hoping and expecting thereby to reach more people than I would by any joint debate.