|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henry George article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
George's early emphasis on the "productive forces of nature" is now dismissed even by otherwise Georgist authors.
That may very well be, but if the article is going to say so, it should name at least one -- preferably two -- of those "otherwise georgist authors" IMHO.
--Christofurio (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
We need some discussion here about why that template was applied to this article. I am removing since the editor who added the template seems to have left no explanation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ethics and Henry George
The article has very little matter relating to George's ethical approach to economics and to the associated social relationships. However, behind much of George's writings there is a strong ethical theme which deserves to be given some greater emphasis and this is missing. Particularly in George's philosophy of supporting free-trade and also in the approach to sharing the opportunity for access to sites of land, do we see this attitude being implied if not more directly expressed.
It can be summed up by the claim by Hillel the Elder's (first century, current era) modification of the "Golden Rule" in the form: "do not do to your neighbour the things that you would not want him/her to do to you". When for example valuable and useful land is held unused, the opportunity to work it for productive purposes is lost, with the result that the macroeconomy becomes distorted and the situation of those who are working elsewhwhere and those unemployed who seek jobs is changed for the worse. Similarly when trade is constrained by the use of customs duty on imported items of goods or alternatively by the "dumping" of cheap exports, the relationships between neighbouring countries becomes strained. In this case it may even happen that war between them occurs. Thus George went further in his philosophy than in the idea of social justice by placing the responsibility for government income onto the land owners.
This subject was better explained in the article "Macrocompassion" (from which the present writer takes his nom-de-plume) which is included in the archives of the Georgist website http://www.progress.org Macrocompassion (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Party affiliation in 1897
It is stated that Henry George ran as an Independent Democrat for the New York City mayoral elections in 1897, but in the later article it says he run for "The Democracy of Thomas Jefferson". Was he a proponent of Jeffersonian democracy and if that is so, why isn't this said in this biographical article? The Horn Blower (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to this source, it was simply called the "Jefferson Party".  EPM (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wrote that entry in the NY mayoral elections article. The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress is good for some things like dates but not always authoritative for others (often relying on the subject's own contribution to the biennial Congressional Directory). For some details of the anti-boss, pro-Bryan forces that formed "The Democracy of Thomas Jefferson", see the reference I gave in the mayoral elections article to Young's Single Tax Movement in the United States (pages 153-4). The 1929 World Almanac & Book of Facts (p. 893) lists George's 1897 candidacy under "Jeff. Dem." The New-York Times election report on Nov. 4, 1897 lists George under "Jeff. D." On the other hand, "independent Democrat" is not an inherently inaccurate title, either.
- To answer your more general question, my guess is that the insurgent Democrats used "Democracy of Thomas Jefferson" to distinguish themselves as purer Democrats (closer to the Party's founder) than Tammany Hall and its successful candidate Robert A. Van Wyck, first mayor of the consolidated five-borough City. But it may be worth some casual investigation into election reports, George's (tragically-fatal) campaign speeches and his writings to see if he saw some closer connection to Jeffersonian democracy. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- On checking Arthur Young's account I ran across this reference, referring to the other reform candidate (who won in 1901), Seth Low of the fusionist Citizens Union, a former mayor of Brooklyn and a reform Republican, ‘ He [George] justified his presence in the campaign as a reformer in addition to Low, who was so well qualified for executive work, by his Jeffersonian political theories. “He is a Republican and is fighting the machine, which is all very good as far as it goes. But he is an aristocratic reformer; I am a democratic reformer. He would help the people; I would help the people to help themselves.” ’ —— Shakescene (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Leo Tolstoy on H. George
I do have first to beg your pardon for English is not my mother tongue. As for the legacy as well as the support that George's ideas have received from famous thinkers, I feel important to mention the opinion of the man who has been said to be the "truest man of his time" by Gandhi. Moreover, if it is true that George coined the term "wage slavery", it is most likely to be the source of Tolstoy's title, The slavery of our time. Unfortunately I can not find the original work of Tolstoy in English, even on Wikisource; so I will translate you what I have before my eyes from "Où est l'issu?", - something like "What is the way out.." dated "October 1900", - the work immediately preceding The Salvery... (Léon Tolstoï. Les Rayons de l’aube. Dernières études philosophiques. (Translator J.-Wladimir Bienstock), Paris; P.-V. Stock Editor, 1901, pages 393-to the end); this book is also listed in the bibliography established by his biographer Romain Rolland.). You may particularly consider to change the following sentence: "Henry George's idea... had enormous influence in his time but slowly waned throughout the 1900s," and mention the account of Tolstoy at that place. So Tolstoy wrote, chapter III; quote: "It is already thirty years ago that Henry George proposed a project which is not only reasonable, but quite realistic, to suppress the private landed property. But even in America and England (In France it was not even a question or a topic), not only his project was not accepted, but every attempt or effort was made to criticize it, and since it could not be done, then silence fell around him." So consider to say that "Leo Tolstoy consider reasonable and realistic the idea to suppress landed property"; "Despite his success as a writer in his time, George's idea rapidly vanished. As early as 1900 Leo Tolstoy stated that silence fell around him." By the way, "In 1871 he published Our Land Policy, which, as further developed in 1879 under the title Progress and Poverty..." (The Britannica Encyplopaedia, New York, 11th Ed, vol. xi, page 747), - so I add this book in his bibliography. I thank you for your attention. Good luck in your own research. AB, Qc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I would accurately summarize Tolstoy's judgment in the essay I have quoted above, with a specific view to what may be said about the real meaning of the legacy of George's work in an encyclopedia, as following : "As early as 1900 Tolstoy regretted that a silence fell around Henry George in the Western world, while viewing the idea of the abolition of landed property as a reasonable and realistic way out of poverty for Russia in contrast to revolution, socialism and trades unions. How could any opinion about the work of an author be of more import or accuracy than the judgment of History ? I have thus very briefly said it all: Tolstoy's view in the work quoted, the place of Henry George's ideas in the history of Russia, and above all the import of his works as exemplified by the neglect of them in a whole empire. I did my best; it is yours to decide. AB, Qc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Tolstoy talked about Henry George in his article The Slavery of our Time, chapter IX, What is slavery ? And he also wrote two "Letters on Henry George." http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_on_Henry_George_(I) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is there in Critical Section in the article?
There is no Critical Section in the article. Not only are Mr George's absurd predictions (for example that allowing the building of private railroads in California would throw the population into poverty) allowed to stand without challenge, his Ricardian (David Ricardo) land economics is just presented as fact. Even though it was refuted, by Frank Fetter and others, more than a century ago.126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
George's philosophy was entirely anticipated by Locke
In his 2nd Treatise of Government, Locke argued after Hooker that the earth was given to man in common and value created by the mixture of labor with it, and being stored in specie, then pointed out: "But, since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man, in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage has its value only from consent - whereof labour yet makes in great part the measure it is plain that the consent of men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth - I mean out of the bounds of society and compact;...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The section on Tax on the value of land and natural resource titles is probably insufficiently titled, or it needs to be somehow divided into two separate segments. George was known at the time(and quite popular for this position, among his union supporters) for his agitation in favor of land nationalization. To simply call this a "tax proposal" or "tax policy" is insufficient, especially when this section already directly quotes George from his own book calling for all land to be held in common. That's land nationalization. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if the land doesn't belong to the nation then what does? If Canada were to send in its military to take over Microsoft's Redmond campus, it wouldn't be resolved by Microsoft's legal team. Or even their security team. The US military would step in. And fast. The US government may have granted land title to Microsoft but the land remains US territory subject to US law. In a very real sense all US territory ultimately belongs to the US government even when it has delegated control of land parcels to its citizens. So all land is nationalised whether it is held in common, held by a private citizen, or held directly by the government. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)