Henry George sought to obtain freedom of production and ownership of wealth. He wanted to free production to the end that wealth be produced abundantly and poverty be the lot only of those who prefer it to industry. The object never was to levy taxes, but to make possible an abundant production of wealth by doing away with the public practices which restrict production and cheat the producer.

Would it not be absurd to call a builder a nailer because one of his acts is to drive nails? And to call a building a nail for no better reason that that nails are used to hold it together? Similarly is it not just as absurd to call a person who with George would seek to obtain economic freedom a taxer and to apply the term, single tax, to denote the new epoch in justice and freedom we seek? To every worker for economic freedom I submit that your object is not taxation, but is wealth freedom; that you are not a taxer, but a wealth libertarian.

The author of Progress and Poverty was always very careful in his choice of words. How tragic that the issue he gave to the world should have been clouded over by misnaming it, and that he should have become known as a taxer, whereas in fact it was the abolition of taxes that he urged (and that too, be it noted, as a measure and not an objective).

Freedom from involuntary servitude and freedom of expression are but two members of the trinity of freedoms upon which civilization or "association in equality" depends. The other member is freedom in the production and ownership of wealth or in short, wealth freedom. In terms of the natural perceptions and inclinations of man, here are the three freedoms every human-being wants - freedom from involuntary servitude, freedom of expression, and wealth freedom.

If we partisans of Henry George will think of ourselves as wealth libertarians and our objective as wealth freedom, instead of thinking of ourselves as single taxers and our objective as single tax, it will help to clear the issue in our own minds and simplify presenting the case for wealth freedom to others. Moreover it will give the novice a great deal less to unravel.

The wealth libertarian seeks to free the land from the grip of private monopoly. This also is a measure required to obtain wealth freedom and not to be confused with the objective. The average person is unaccustomed to thinking of land as being the source of all wealth and does not react with interest when the land question is brought forward as an introduction to the consideration of wealth freedom.

On the other hand, people are very moderately "tax conscious," even those who pay them directly - but they are "wealth conscious" all the time. Do they not always vote for the party they judge will most likely give "good times" no matter how burdened the party may be with scandals? The "Tea Pot Dome" scandal did not help the Democrats when the people regarded the Republican Party as the party of prosperity. And likewise the waste and piling up of debts of the Democrats did not help the Republicans at a later time when they hopefully seized upon these scandals to unseat the Democrats. In fact these very acts were presumed and largely believed to have acts to promote wealth.

tThe terms of strategy and propaganda we are being very profligate in the English language in not calling our objective what it is. Our human wants wealth, every human wants freedom. It is a rare human who at some time has not expressed the wish for wealth that he might be free. Are yon a wealth libertarian? Please then do not call your objective single tax, which it certainly is not and do not allow anyone to call you a taxer. Call your objective by its right name: wealth freedom.

Remember the trinity: freedom in person, freedom of expression, and wealth freedom.