n the issue of money and our crazy banking system,
interest is decreasing so that we find it hard to get 4 per cent. here.

Suppose to-day the mortgages and railroad bonds, which are forms of
ownership of land, were taken out of the market, what interest could we
get? Certainly not one per cent.

Were the restrictions on production of the tariff, taxes on products of
labor, patent monopolies, hindrances to the making of money through
franchise privileges done away with, and above all were private
appropriation of rent abolished, wealth would not be so abundant and so
easy to obtain that it would not be worth anyone's while to keep account
of what he had "lent" to another. With the disappearance, at once, of
interest and of the fear of poverty the motive for accumulations of more
than would be sufficient to provide against disability or old age will
disappear, while such small but universal accumulations made available
by a system of mutual banking will provide ample capital for all needed
enterprises.

Co-operation will spring up as a labor-saving device, and the great
abilities of the trust managers will be turned to public service instead
of public plunder.

Henry George is wrong in thinking that the increased demand for capital
due to free opportunities for labor would increase interest. If it did,
it would perpetuate a form of slavery. He omits to notice that the very
use of the capital would reproduce wealth and capital so much more
abundantly that it would destroy the motive for accumulation.

The time will come--it is even now at hand--when dollars and meals and
goods will be given to those who ask these as freely as candies or water
or cigars are offered to visitors. If I am wrong in this, then I am
wasting my efforts, as far as sincere efforts can be wasted.

If Socialism or Anarchism is needed to insure voluntary communism of
goods, then it is for Socialism or Anarchism that we should work; and
for me, if I could see, I would turn from single tax to either of them
as readily as I would turn down hill if I found that up hill was the
wrong road.

At present, hardly any one favors these views--of course, not
plutocrats, because the doctrine is dangerous; not Socialists, because
they think that its words turn Socialists into land reformers; nor
Anarchists, because they regard compulsory payment of a fair price for
the land one uses as a form of tax; not even single taxers, as yet,
because they are wedded t