.

As it is over twenty years ago that I became a Georgist and because it was a gradual process I cannot point to a moment when I saw the cat. It wasn't really that kind of experience. For me it was more like the cat was just sitting there quietly on the sofa and I gradually got to know it.

My father first introduced me to Henry George's thinking. If I had not heard about Henry George from him, like most people I would probably never have heard of Henry George. Like most people who do hear about George from Georgists I remained unconvinced. The arguments were emotive. The economic terms were from another era. However, I happened to study Public Finance and Economics as part of an M.B.A. I discovered that what George proposed is supported by economic theory and empirical results. I learnt that Land Value Taxation met all the criteria set down by economists for a good tax. It was virtually the only one that did. It became clear to me just how much harm was done to the economy by the current tax system. Having come to know the cat I would spend many hours discussing the mechanisms of applying it and the benefits that would flow with my father.

Of course when I became a Georgist I wanted to promote the brilliance of what I had learned. I soon became frustrated as others would simply reject the rhetoric for being just that. They wanted proof. They wanted examples where it had worked. They wanted to know how it would effect them.

I found that I could not simply espouse its virtues. I had to prepare people by establishing some facts about taxation and getting agreement on what we want to achieve. I would then talk about a theoretical tax that was not a burden on production and exchange. I would talk about the source of land value. Then having prepared the ground I would say the magic words - Land Value Taxation. Sometimes there would be the violent reaction of shortsighted self-interest that needed to be balanced by questions on how much tax the listener pays on rent. As a result of these experiences my approach to promoting Georgism is some times a little dry but I find it very effective. It was encouraging to find that most people would support LVT if only they heard of it the right way.

I don't expect everyone to use the same approach that I do. However, I would counsel against getting stuck in nineteenth century terminology.

The M.B.A I referred to earlier was in Public Sector Administration. In studying and experiencing policy development as a public servant I learnt that policy is seldom a reflection of the majority view. The electoral system simply does not provide a means for the public to express a view on most issues or change the government on the basis on any one issue. Politicians will do what they believe is best and what will not cause the loss of marginal electorates. It can be unpopular so long as it does not cause voters to change their vote. Bureaucrats, influenced by special interest groups, are the main developers of policy. Georgists do not represent a special interest but the common interest. We do not command the numbers to be a threat in marginal electorates. We generally do not possess the credibility to obtain a respectful hearing.

I have witnessed attempts to promote Georgism by education. It is very labour intensive and there is generally little to show for it. I say this realising that many Georgists today have come to it through completing a course. Or were they Georgists already simply enhancing their knowledge? Our membership does not grow geometrically. There is no multiplier of each new member bringing in three more. At the rate of growth of membership we will always represent a diminishing proportion of the population. I think there are a few causes:

* People simply are not interested in doing courses anymore. There are more stimulating and more accessible forms of entertainment.

* The courses are old fashioned.

* People do not join organisations, they join causes. If we were out there promoting and making a difference people would be excited by what we are doing and saying. A course and a subscription to a journal does not motivate. We need to enthuse people and encourage them to participate. Worse than simply failing to attract them, we drive them away by fighting amongst ourselves over almost anything. Some are openly hostile to the efforts of other Georgists as if they want the success of the movement to rely on them. There needs to be healthy but tempered discussion. There needs to be enthusiasm for what one is doing without dismissing what another is doing.

* Courses are aimed at ordinary people, which is laudable but ordinary people do not develop policy.

I advocate lobbying of policy makers and opinion leaders. This involves educating politicians that LVT is good policy that will bring about positive results for which they will get the credit. They will not lose votes because the attacks of vested interests can be rebutted. It also involves the lobbying of those special interest groups that already lobby politicians and bureaucrats. Special interest groups need to be informed as to why LVT should be of special interest to them. The employee and employer organisations need to be given an alternative to taxes on employment that harms both their interests. Chambers of Commerce and Industry need to be given alternatives to taxes on production and exchange. Social welfare groups need to be given an alternative to raising government revenue that does not tax people out of jobs or raise the cost of living. These groups are influential and will be more effective at bring about change than we will ever be directly.

Another example is where we were able to point out that LVT is the supreme green tax at the 2001 Global Greens Conference in Canberra. In the Greens we had an audience that had objectives but were aware that they did not have all the strategies for meeting those objectives. They are predisposed to challenge the status quo and many have an understanding of the effect of taxes on consumption decisions.

I am optimistic about our future. We cannot wait for a messiah to lead us out of the wilderness. We don't need prophets. We need people who are prepared to work cooperatively to achieving concrete targets by one of a select number of strategies.