THE  A  B  C  OF  TAXATION

170

such  a  visionary  as  Henry  George;  he  did  not  propose  to  take
the  land  from  the  landlords  and  rent  it  out  again;  what  he
was  in  favour  of  was  putting  a  tax  on  land  values.’  That  is,
whilst  attributing  to  George  what  he  could  not  possibly  have
said,  Labouchere  by  way  of  correcting  these  imaginary  fantasies, ­
  suggested  that  which  Henry  George  did  indeed  say.”
Tolstoy’s  language  thus  proves  beyond  a  possible  doubt  that
he  does  not  believe  in  taking  the  land  from  the  landlords,  and
that  he  does  not  believe  that  Henry  George  could  have  said  so,
but  that  both  are  agreed  in  taking  ground  rent  in  taxation.
One  more  thought  by  way  of  comment.  George  and  Tolstoy,
in  common  with  Herbert  Spencer,  found,  in  the  literature  of
the  land  question,  in  the  dictionaries,  and  in  works  on  political
economy,  one  word,  “land,”  standing  for  soil  and  for  situation,
and  they  used  the  one  term  without  defining  to  themselves
and  to  their  readers  the  two  ideas  embraced  in  it.  A  clear
distinction  presents  itself  between  what  academic  economists
might  call  two  separate  “concepts,”  viz.,  “land”  and  “land
value.”  It  is  as  follows:  “Land,”  defined  as  the  earth’s
surface;  the  inherent  capabilities  of  the  soil;  the  bounties  of
nature;  natural  resources;  “natural  media”;—“land  value,”
defined  to  be  the  value  of  “rights  and  privileges  thereto  pertaining,” ­
  as  specified  in  deeds  of  conveyance;  value  of  the
advantages  of  society  and  government;  value  of  proximity;
value  due  to  command  of  facilities  for  commerce  and  communication ­
  with  the  world;  an  artificial  value,  not  a  value  of
“natural  media.”  Land  and  land  value  as  above  defined
may  be  contrasted  by  supposing  one  of  two  city  lots  to  have  a
doorless  and  windowless  hundred  foot  wall  around  it,  or  to
have  no  legal  right  of  way  to  and  from  it,  in  either  of  which
cases  the  value  would  be  that  of  land  as  a  purely  physical
thing,  without  its  social  incidents.
If  any  one  will  re-read  both  authors,  bearing  in  mind  to
apply  to  private  property  in  land  wherever  it  occurs,  the  above
distinction,  as  well  as  the  qualifying  words,  “as  at  present
existing,”  a  great  deal  of  confusion  will  surely  be  dissipated,