The Georgeian movement is highly favored by Albert J. Nock's contribution of a memorial book, Henry George, to the Centenary Celebration of the birth of the greatest philosopher and economist. Nock's fitness for this important responsibility lies in the fact that he is almost the only writer of note and of fundamental democratic acquirements who has access to the book-press. His position as biographer of Thomas Jefferson further qualifies him; and his extreme individualism gives unusual point to his review of George's life and work.

I am bound to say also that in spite of his outstanding qualifications, he is almost equally disqualified to do justice to the apostle of true individualism, democracy, conservatism, and of every phase of true collectivism, and of true optimism, by reason of a bias he (Nock) possesses against propaganda, organization, politics and government itself.

As imperfect as is his picture of the only writer who has even attempted a synthetic solution of the complexes of sociology and economics, we must accept it as embodying honesty, unusual in friendly reviewers, candid criticism much of it truthful and exceedingly helpful in straightening the present devious path of promotion of the Georgeian economic doctrine. It is a refreshing contrast to the fulsome flattery, blind adherence and lip service, of many would-be friends of George.

Nock's outstanding weakness to follow his negative example is in his failure to interpret both Jefferson and George affirmatively. Instead of concentrating all his incisive strength on developing Jefferson's outline of a simple government he left us suspended in mid-air as to what 150 years of modern industry had done to interpret Jeffersonian democracy in this respect. And this weakness of the author merges with his adverse criticism of George. Instead of making George the complement of Jefferson in supplying the missing element of economics to Jefferson's perfected formula of politics, Nock gives "Our Enemy the State" as his best result of Jefferson's democracy; and quite consistently he joins the pessimists in declaring little or no progress in basic economics; and goes further than most of them in devising specific and rather ingenious reasons for our static position. I wonder if Nock has not yielded somewhat to the human tendency more prevalent among highbrow critics, of which he certainly is not one of finding a goat for an imaginary failure; of assuming no progress in Georgeism and laying it to George; and also to take to the life-boat of current fallacy, from the sinking ship of simple fundamental truth? Is Nock a keen observer of under-surface trends, in economics, politics, education and industry? And is this pessimism because the full force of Georgeism has not impacted this author?