Heretofore, in the history of our nation, the government never has had a policy that tended towards the government ownership and hoarding of land. Probably this was mostly because corrupt politicians in office regarded the government corpse (corporation) and its possession of natural resources as something to be looted for their personal gain.
But the influence of Socialists or Communists in government, tends to reverse the above policy. In fact, the figures or statistics of the last 20 years show that, during F. D. Roosevelt�s regime, the government has acquired unbelievable amounts of land. Ben Moreell says in �To Communism Via Majority Vote� that �During the last 30 years 45 million acres of land have been taken from private owners by the Federal Government, which now holds 69% of the area of Arizona, 71% of Utah, and 85% of Nevada.
Therefore, to preserve
(1) True private property in land and
(2) Free individual enterprise and
(3) The avoidance of
(A) Communism and
(B) The obvious serfdom or slavery to the state that will accompany State-owned land, what must we do?
We will see later how the collection of taxes equal to land rents in full from land owners (who thus will
become land users or cease to be land owners), will prevent land from becoming the false, hoarded property of fascistic indeed individuals and prevent the individual from owning more land than he can use. It will prevent the individual from hoarding more land than he can use. And we will see later how this will effectively socialize natural resources and allow all of us to get the benefit of them.
But, what will prevent land from becoming the false property of the State,/I>, if the traditional American policy relative to land will change ? What will prevent the influence of Communists in government from causing the State to acquire, and to hoard vas tracts of land in the name of conserving natural resources?
What will prevent the State and the executive dictator or planner thereof (president of this state corporation) from enslaving the individual, by confiscating all his labor products under the guise of collecting taxes, and then giving some of those labor products back to this individual
(1) In the guise of money spent for his benefit, or
(2) In the guise of some form of �Social Security,� all of which is the ultimate goal of Socialism ?
Constitutional Amendment, Limiting Government
Ownership of Land
The answer will be in the form of a Constitutional Amendment providing that the government will not be allowed to own more land than it can use. . . .
. . . It has been traditional that the American Government hoard no land for itself, and allowed individuals to pre-empt any land not already occupied and patented.
However, weighing all aspects of the situation, there seems to be no particular reason to believe that this traditional policy of our American, democratic Republic towards land, will change, unless traitorous [not-really] Russian [but U.S.S.R-sent] Communists will get control of our government. Why ? Because [etc.]
We found that, when the masses of the people were not paid wages enough to enable them to buy back and to be a market for the goods that they have produced, the result was �surplus� and �accumulated capital� ad �excess population� not able to find work as employees in monopolistic industry. We found that monopoly in industry was caused by the re-investment of incomes of money too large to be all needed to be sent to buy goods to live on. And, we found that this re-investment caused these unearned incomes to become larger. And, we found that these incomes were mostly incomes of unearned land rents and money rents and profits of monopoly.
Before 1929, this �surplus� was shipped to Europe and to foreign countries, in exchange for gold, and this gold, by giving rise to bank-credit �money,� created the �money� needed to meet the inflation of putting a greater amount of money into the channel of money to act as a medium of exchange for goods being manufactured and in the retail stores of the nation.
In 1928, Europe became self-supporting and self-sufficient, due to a six billion dollar loan approved by
President Harding. [?] In 1929, we had our financial panic as a result, because there was no longer any market for our �surplus.� It was called a business �depression� in which there was said to be an �overproduction� of wealth.
Since 1929, in order to dispose of our �surplus,� the government has had to practice a policy of �deficit spending� in one way or another, and go into greater and greater debt to the money owners, in order to keep in the channel of money, the money that was being withdrawn therefrom by incomes of compounding interest and incomes bought in the process of re-investing land rents and money rents and profits of monopoly too large to be all needed by their recipients to buy goods to use.
This has been the process of maintaining �prosperity� and preventing industrial stagnation and unemployment and �over-production,� by borrowing, or absorbing �accumulated capital� (the cost or value or price of the �surplus�), and using the money thereof
(1) To buy the surplus and
(2)
(A) Store it in warehouses or
(B) Destroy it or
(C) Let it rot or
(D) give it away to Europe on the pretense of weaning Europe away from Communism, as in the case of the �Marshall Plan.�
If the national debt will be allowed to increase faster than the Industrial,/I> debt to money owners in this process of re-investment of �accumulated capital,� the result will be a more or less gradual inflation.
This inflation could be explosive if the money owners with their political power were motivated to do so. In Germany in 1922, they were so motivated.
But, if the industrial debt will be allowed to increase
faster than a corresponding increase in the national debt, the result will be a financial panic or a depression, to overcome which, the national debt must be, and always has been increased by �deficit spending� on some pretext, either the fighting of a war or the building of a public project.
Franklin D. Roosevelt — and Deficit Spending
�F.D.R.� Roosevelt, in 1933, deliberately borrowed five billions of dollars of �accumulated capital� to �prime the ump of credit,� so that the money owners could use the bonds of the debt to create the �money� which industry could easily borrow and use to fill the channel of the functional cycle of money.
The above allows us to see the real reason for the billion dollar cut in excise taxes in 1954, at the precise time when recession is threatening. This shows that the real purpose for it was (is) to create the need, and excuse for some more �deficit spending,� because the deficit spending will, by increasing the national debt, permit the creation of the �money� necessary to ease the stretch of bank credit. This will �
loosen� money and make it more available to the people. By loosening money, the channel of money will be re-filled and we will recover from the threatened depression.
Commenting on the reduction of taxes in opposing the reduction, Senator Byrd said that if we reduce taxes when the budget is not already balanced, there will be created the need for more deficit spending.
The only difference between what President Herbert Hoover did, and what President Franklin Roosevelt did to recover from the depression of 1929, was that, in addition to what Hoover did, Roosevelt distributed some of this money borrowed n the �deficit spending,� to the people on Works Progress Administration
(W.P.A.) as charity, in order to create a market for the goods of industry and to �prime the pump of credit.�
Incidentally then, because �deferred dividends� of wealth-distributing business absorbed all of this money before the farmer, at the far end of the line to which this money was distributed, got a chance to get a share of it, it became necessary to subsidize the farmer and to regulate his crops for him, and thus to �plan industry.� This, of course, tends toward government ownership and control of industry, and Communism.
However, someday, as a tendency towards Fascism, this increasing debt of the government to the money owners, is going to become so great that the people either will not, or cannot continue to pay interest on it. The result will be national bankruptcy, after which the money owners or creditors of the government, will be able legally to appoint a receiver in bankruptcy to �plan industry� for the purpose of recovering from bankruptcy.
This planer then will be our fascist dictator, if some form of a tendency towards Communism and centralized government, will not have caused a communistic dictator to have already arrived.
,p>But the chances are in favor Communism turning into Fascism . . .