LeFevre's Challenge

摘要

There are two things that struck this writer about LeFevre's critique of George. One of them is how far astray a critic can be led by making just a few simple mistakes. The misinterpretation whereby the single tax is taken to imply state control of land, the vacillation over whether a land-value tax is capitalized or shifted, and the repeated blindness to the role of production in the economy are the chief mistakes. Had he taken the time to discuss his concerns informally with a knowledgeable and congenial Georgist, we might have seen a very different critique. This should not have been difficult for him to do, since Frank Chodorov, once director of the Henry George School, and a committed Georgist until the day he died, was a frequent lecturer at the Freedom School. The second thing that struck this writer is that LeFevre never explicitly argued against the Georgist view that the rental value of land is a by-product of the presence and activity of the community, and not attributable to any contribution that landholders make in their capacity as landholders. Therefore rent can be collected by the community without "predation." LeFevre clearly did not believe this, and obviously assumed the contrary throughout his critique, but he never offered a direct argument against it. Perhaps in his heart he knew he did not have one.