Lets talk Georgism.

[brandon]

Lately I have been having some trouble understanding exactly how a person can own land in an anarcho capitalist society, and whether it is ethically sound or not. How does one acquire this land in the first place? Can a person really have legitimate ownership of an area of land hundreds of miles away from where they live?

Say for example, I were to discover an island of 100 square miles that is uninhabited. Could I proclaim myself as the rightful owner of this entire island? If I never came back to the island, and 50 years later someone stepped on it, would they be violating my "property rights"?

And what about the land that is now owned by governments. In the transition to an an-cap society, what would happen to that land? It can't be sold...because who would sell it?

Is it fair that children are born without owning any land? Does the world not belong equally to everyone?

Georgism addresses most of these issues, and the solution is a tax on land ownership. The tax money then goes back to benefit society. If you "own" the most fertile piece of land in your community, then isn't it only fair to pay back to the community for allowing you to own this land?

Let me know why I am wrong RPF. :)

[Pennsylvania]

I could see this happening in certain scenarios, but it would basically just be another headache if done when not needed. I mean, if land ever gets to the point where it is so scarce that people are beginning to seriously worry about it, by default they are going to look to the biggest land-hogs and take the land back to them (tierra y libertad!), or take other measures such as decreasing population growth. Now if the anarcho-capitalist society is assumed, hopefully something like a class-action suit against such landowners could prevent a violent reaction. But honestly, do you want to be bothered by a tax collector if you're just a homeowner, small-business owner?

Also, let's say the tax is proportional to the amount of land you own. A large business owner, say Bill Gates, may have to pay the tax, but he's just going to pass on the burden of that tax right back to his customers. So it really doesn't seem to be solving the problem from a functional point of view.

(Also, I'm not positive, but I don't believe most ancaps, including Rothbard believed property was indefinite, when there is a clear case of abandonment, and would most likely leave the fine line in the hands of the courts)

[Pennsylvania]

Also, let's say the tax is proportional to the amount of land you own. A large business owner, say Bill Gates, may have to pay the tax, but he's just going to pass on the burden of that tax right back to his customers. So it really doesn't seem to be solving the problem from a functional point of view.

I'm taking this back, on the grounds that while a lot of consumers would be paying the cost, other consumers may be Linux or Mac users, and would be at a disadvantage from Gates' large land share, and deriving no benefit from it. Seems like it would still be hard to enforce it in the absence of the state though.

Land philosophy is such a pain in the ass

[AmericaFyeah92]

those are some damn good questions...I wish more people would throw in

[brandon]

thanks PA.

Bump for some more thoughts

[Icymudpuppy]

It is my opinion that any land owned should be either occupied, or actively used.

If you want to own a preserve, you had better be living on it.

If you want to live elsewhere, there better be some kind of production occurring on that land.

Failure to do one or both of those methods means the land is considered unoccupied and becomes available for homesteaders.

The ideal use for any land is being owned, used, and occupied by a small farmer.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Lately I have been having some trouble understanding exactly how a person can own land in an anarcho capitalist society, and whether it is ethically sound or not. How does one acquire this land in the first place? Can a person really have legitimate ownership of an area of land hundreds of miles away from where they live?

Say for example, I were to discover an island of 100 square miles that is uninhabited. Could I proclaim myself as the rightful owner of this entire island? If I never came back to the island, and 50 years later someone stepped on it, would they be violating my "property rights"?

And what about the land that is now owned by governments. In the transition to an an-cap society, what would happen to that land? It can't be sold...because who would sell it?

Is it fair that children are born without owning any land? Does the world not belong equally to everyone?

Georgism addresses most of these issues, and the solution is a tax on land ownership. The tax money then goes back to benefit society. If you "own" the most fertile piece of land in your community, then isn't it only fair to pay back to the community for allowing you to own this land?

Let me know why I am wrong RPF. :)

Your questions are a natural extension of logic and lead to this...

If there are 10 people on an island and all of the land is owned by 9 does the 10th person have a right to survive? If left to their own devices what if no one voluntarily lets the 10th person forage for food or water on their property. Would the 10th person be justified using aggression to survive. Does that mean the nine people all have an equal obligation to help the 10th person so that person is not justified in using aggression to survive? If you subsidize the 10th person what happens if an 11th person ends up ship wrecked on the island?

Tough questions and no solution is perfect. I do not believe government is the solution because government has been too inefficient historically. However lack of government does not solve the problem.

[Danke]

Don't know about ancap, so not really addressing your question.

But as I have written about this before, it seems reasonable to me to have some sort of tax on land. But I also think a certain amount should be exempt, at a graduated rate depending on where you live. Say a city lot in the city, an acre in the suburbs, five acres for rural, and 40 acres for farm land, etc. Just some rough figures.

That way, the government can never take your homestead.

[mediahasyou]

How does one acquire this land in the first place?
Land is acquired in a voluntary society the same way land is acquired today: buying/selling. If a voluntary society were to appear overnight, there might be a huge land rush for government property. A land rush is nothing new. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_run) However, if there is a transition phrase between the current system and voluntaryism, government property would be sold over time because of the decreased demand for government.


Can a person really have legitimate ownership of an area of land hundreds of miles away from where they live?
I don't see this as a problem. Could you explain further?

p.s. this happens in today's society; the same way it would happen in voluntaryism.


Say for example, I were to discover an island of 100 square miles that is uninhabited. Could I proclaim myself as the rightful owner of this entire island? If I never came back to the island, and 50 years later someone stepped on it, would they be violating my "property rights"?

Yes, however, I don't think it is likely you would be able to find a 100 sq mi uninhabited/unowned island today on planet Earth.

I find your next point interesting.

If a person stepped on your property, that person would be violating your property rights. That is called trespassing and it's already a law today. However, a DRO would not enforce casual trespassing because it would not be economical too. If a client desired all trespassing be enforced, that clients rates would increased.

In my childhood neighborhood, I trespassed frequently across neighbor's lawns to travel to my friend's house. In a voluntaryist or government society, my neighbor's desires would not change; they dont care.


And what about the land that is now owned by governments. In the transition to an an-cap society, what would happen to that land? It can't be sold...because who would sell it?

see above answers



Is it fair that children are born without owning any land? Does the world not belong equally to everyone?


Poverty or orphan children are/will be born without owning any land in today's society and tommorow's voluntaryist society.

The world does not belong equally to all. Today's society does not belong equally to all.


***To all questioners: when questioning make sure you compare a voluntary society to today's society not to some utopian or perfect society in your mind. make sure the government already has a good solution to the problem you pose.

i.e. it is unfair to ask "how will a voluntary society stop all murder?" because the government does not do this today.***

[Met Income]

Don't know about ancap, so not really addressing your question.

But as I have written about this before, it seems reasonable to me to have some sort of tax on land. But I also think a certain amount should be exempt, at a graduated rate depending on where you live. Say a city lot in the city, an acre in the suburbs, five acres for rural, and 40 acres for farm land, etc. Just some rough figures.

That way, the government can never take your homestead.

And what happens if you don't pay? You get shot? If so, get back to the drawing board.

[Met Income]

Your questions are a natural extension of logic and lead to this...

If there are 10 people on an island and all of the land is owned by 9 does the 10th person have a right to survive? If left to their own devices what if no one voluntarily lets the 10th person forage for food or water on their property. Would the 10th person be justified using aggression to survive. Does that mean the nine people all have an equal obligation to help the 10th person so that person is not justified in using aggression to survive? If you subsidize the 10th person what happens if an 11th person ends up ship wrecked on the island?

Tough questions and no solution is perfect. I do not believe government is the solution because government has been too inefficient historically. However lack of government does not solve the problem.

How did the 10th person get there? Why would the 9 screw themselves over by rendering the 10th unproductive?

We can make all of the crazy examples we want - but if we can't give a logical reason how it could happen, we shouldn't be worried about it.

[reardenstone]

Lately I have been having some trouble understanding exactly how a person can own land in an anarcho capitalist society, and whether it is ethically sound or not. How does one acquire this land in the first place?

Is it fair that children are born without owning any land? Does the world not belong equally to everyone?

Georgism addresses most of these issues, and the solution is a tax on land ownership. The tax money then goes back to benefit society. If you "own" the most fertile piece of land in your community, then isn't it only fair to pay back to the community for allowing you to own this land?

Let me know why I am wrong RPF. :)


I support it because it takes the issue further than the enlightenment which is as far back as most economists like to go. We have to think further back into who owned the land before there Royalty and governments.

Did any of the English really "own" the land when they came over to colonize Jamestown? Nope.

A single tax would not be a pain in the ass. The Constitution still allows for states (rightfully so) to collect their own taxes.

So why not replace all taxes with a Single tax: the land tax?

[reardenstone]

Don't know about ancap, so not really addressing your question.

But as I have written about this before, it seems reasonable to me to have some sort of tax on land. But I also think a certain amount should be exempt, at a graduated rate depending on where you live. Say a city lot in the city, an acre in the suburbs, five acres for rural, and 40 acres for farm land, etc. Just some rough figures.

That way, the government can never take your homestead.

Government often bends taxes to favor attracting business (Microsoft in Tuscon, Arizona for example) which I consider wrong and cronyism.

That said I have no problem charging the political class more money for their land use making a graduated "Single Tax" based on Georgism.

Top Bracket:
Large corporations

Middle:
All other small Business and for profit schools and such

Low:
Individual and Family use.


What would be the rate for the land that holds government buildings and government?

[mediahasyou]

I support it because it takes the issue further than the enlightenment which is as far back as most economists like to go. We have to think further back into who owned the land before there Royalty and governments.

Did any of the English really "own" the land when they came over to colonize Jamestown? Nope.

A single tax would not be a pain in the ass. The Constitution still allows for states (rightfully so) to collect their own taxes.

So why not replace all taxes with a Single tax: the land tax?

A single tax would imply that I owe something to the government, which I do not.

[brandon]

A single tax would imply that I owe something to the government, which I do not.

No it implies you owe something to the community, which you probably do. After all, they are allowing you to keep your land and use it for your own purposes, and in doing so are denying themselves the use of that land.

Although I really like Danke's idea about small exemptions for each individual.

[disorderlyvision]

homesteading

[South Park Fan]

No it implies you owe something to the community, which you probably do. After all, they are allowing you to keep your land and use it for your own purposes, and in doing so are denying themselves the use of that land.

Although I really like Danke's idea about small exemptions for each individual.

What is this "community"? A group has no more rights than the sum of its parts. So if I don't owe any one individual of the "community" anything, how can it be said that I owe the "community" anything?

[brandon]

What is this "community"? A group has no more rights than the sum of its parts. So if I don't owe any one individual of the "community" anything, how can it be said that I owe the "community" anything?

Why should your neighbors allow you to own 500 acres of farmland when they only have 10 acres?

[mediahasyou]

Why should your neighbors allow you to own 500 acres of farmland when they only have 10 acres?

My hypothetical neighbors will allow it for the same reason you allow other humans to own 50x more land than you in today's world.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How did the 10th person get there? Why would the 9 screw themselves over by rendering the 10th unproductive?

We can make all of the crazy examples we want - but if we can't give a logical reason how it could happen, we shouldn't be worried about it.

I said the 11th person was ship wrecked and ten people were on the island. However that is not important. People on this island could reproduce.

[Danke]

My hypothetical neighbors will allow it for the same reason you allow other humans to own 50x more land than you in today's world.

Under our current system, the guy who owns 50x more land pays a lot more in taxes to protect his property.

[Met Income]

No it implies you owe something to the community, which you probably do. After all, they are allowing you to keep your land and use it for your own purposes, and in doing so are denying themselves the use of that land.

Although I really like Danke's idea about small exemptions for each individual.

You're essentially calling for bribery. Your neighbors could not allow you to take your land, but that would be immoral.

[Met Income]

I said the 11th person was ship wrecked and ten people were on the island. However that is not important. People on this island could reproduce.

I was talking about the 10th. Why would he got to an island where he was the only non-owner? Why would 9 people want to exploit another? I'm really not going to worry about a scenario that is pretty unlikely.

[Danke]

You're essentially calling for bribery. Your neighbors could not allow you to take your land, but that would be immoral.

It is really a philosophical argument then isn't it. Land ownership.

Unless someone is backing it up with force, whether by individually or community (state).

[reardenstone]

A single tax would imply that I owe something to the government, which I do not.

It means you are paying everyone else for your own private piece of land. Does not need a government, but a voluntary agreement. In Georgism you are free to make as much money as you want and can and your property like houses and other assets don't matter. All that matters is the soil the house is built on.

Who owned the land in the beginning? Sure. We own things we build or have made for us, but the land was never created by a human hand.

[Met Income]

It means you are paying everyone else for your own private piece of land. Does not need a government, but a voluntary agreement. In Georgism you are free to make as much money as you want and can and your property like houses and other assets don't matter. All that matters is the soil the house is built on.

Who owned the land in the beginning? Sure. We own things we build or have made for us, but the land was never created by a human hand.

Right, but someone owned it first. And they either gave it away, sold it, or kept it. That still doesn't mean you pay a tax under duress. You pay for services voluntarily.

[reardenstone]

Right, but someone owned it first. And they either gave it away, sold it, or kept it. That still doesn't mean you pay a tax under duress. You pay for services voluntarily.



What I meant was that when the first people were discovering new lands. No one really owned it. Land ownership came about later and often through royal privilege or force. I am not against the concept now, yet I can still make a case for Georgism based on land.



What happens if the government is put in check and they release all the Federal Parks and streams?

[Met Income]

What I meant was that when the first people were discovering new lands. No one really owned it. Land ownership came about later and often through royal privilege or force. I am not against the concept now, yet I can still make a case for Georgism based on land.



What happens if the government is put in check and they release all the Federal Parks and streams?

If you're the first one who homesteaded and utilized the land, you owned it first. Why? Because no one else did it first.

[brandon]

If you're the first one who homesteaded and utilized the land, you owned it first. Why? Because no one else did it first.

Then the majority of land in this country belongs to native Americans that have been dead for centruries, and we are all criminal scumbags with no respect for property rights.

[RedStripe]

As much as the "homesteading" method of acquiring "true" or "pure" ownership of property is a very clean way for dealing with the problem of property ownership, the fact is that, in reality, it doesn't apply in virtually all cases of disputed property rights.

Instead of demanding a single solution to this problem, we should be embracing a system for determining solutions to land/property rights/claims. That system, in my view, should be a decentralized system that is a spontaneous reaction to the common need between many different interests in the creation of rules relating to property which maximize social welfare. Such a system, being derived from an underlying basic need, common to all who participate in social interaction, for logical and productive solution to property disputes, would be a solution that entails both general rules as well as a healthy appetite for factual circumstances.

In some ways, what I am describing is a system similar to the common law system of property rights, except more decentralized and controlled by market and social forces rather than being controlled by the state.

I think such a system would result in different solutions in different communities, depending on their needs and in reflection of the fact that reasonable minds could disagree on to what the rules ought to be (how many years must your land sit idle, unvisited and unsupervised before you have effectively abandoned it? - libertarian ethics cannot tell us; the decision is necessarily arbitrary to some degree and must be determined with the consequences, and not ethical absolutes, in mind).

[Met Income]

Then the majority of land in this country belongs to native Americans that have been dead for centruries, and we are all criminal scumbags with no respect for property rights.

If someone can prove that they owned certain property, iit should be given back to them.

[axiomata]

If someone can prove that they owned certain property, iit should be given back to them.
Since the original owners are all dead should the property be given to the living beneficiaries of the original owner's estate?

[anaconda]

It is my opinion that any land owned should be either occupied, or actively used.

If you want to own a preserve, you had better be living on it.

If you want to live elsewhere, there better be some kind of production occurring on that land.

Failure to do one or both of those methods means the land is considered unoccupied and becomes available for homesteaders.

The ideal use for any land is being owned, used, and occupied by a small farmer.

That would be a scenario for free market interference. What if the owner of 100,000 acres in Montana really wants to sell it to the highest bidder and move to a condo in New York City and fund a business? And the highest bidder wants to preserve the land for posterity and ecological purity? If having the requirement of a human resident on that 100,000 acres kills the deal then the seller will have to sell to a lesser bidder due to your "government intervention" rule (created and enforced by whom?) of the requirement of a tenant. Just a thought.

[Mini-Me]

Brandon, are you already familiar with the homestead principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle) and libertarian thought on its meaning (and therefore challenging it), or is that the missing link you're looking for?

The homestead principle is the means by which people initially acquire land. Its understanding has kind of evolved over the years: Originally you were considered the owner of property where you "mixed your labor with the land," but that definition fell under criticism because of vagueness. Just how much labor do you have to mix for unclaimed land to become yours, etc.? AFAIK, the more modern interpretation is that physically fencing in unclaimed land is enough to claim it. (That is, you can't claim an entire island just by setting foot on it, unless you can build a fence around the whole thing. This requirement is necessary to prevent people from landing on Antarctica and saying they own the whole thing, for instance. ;)) There's a lot of literature on all this though.

As far as Native Americans go: I may be wrong, but I think common law may have some kind of de facto "statute of limitations" for how long you can go without reclaiming stolen property before forfeiting it. There's a reason for this: A lot of land was stolen, but not all, and the theft occurred so long ago that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove that any particular plot belongs to the descendants of the people it was stolen from. Complicating this is the fact that WE are not scumbag thieves, since most of us acquired our land through actual purchase, and the scumbag thieves are not only long dead, but many of their heirs have already sold the land. Of course, this is complicated even more due to the fact that some of us bought our land through money we earned through labor, whereas others bought it through inherited money, some of which may have been funded by selling stolen land long ago. The accounting problem here becomes totally intractable over time, which is why some kind of common law "statute of limitations" makes sense to keep the living from being burdened by the distant past. It's impossible to determine individual guilt or victimhood (or benefit/loss from the actions of ancestors), and if you want to think in collectivist terms, I think the US government has already paid reparations, right? It seems that the best thing to do is just move forward from where we are today.

If there's a problem with the homestead principle creating perpetual property ownership (even absentee ownership), taxation and Georgism is still not the way to go though. When you have to pay property taxes, that's just another name for paying rent to the government, and whoever does rightly own property, it's sure as hell not the government. ;) (If you want to justify it on consequentialist grounds, there's plenty that moral hazard, the tragedy of the commons, Austrian economics, etc. has to say about that one. ;)) If there's a problem with the homestead principle being a be-all, end-all, the solution is much simpler than collectivizing land ownership. Simply put, perhaps some kind of common law "statute of limitations" should apply to absentee ownership as well as compensation for theft. This poses its own problems - less so than Georgism and collectivist ideas about land ownership - but it serves as a worthwhile fallback in the event that the homestead principle alone is somehow unworkable.

[reardenstone]

Then the majority of land in this country belongs to native Americans that have been dead for centruries, and we are all criminal scumbags with no respect for property rights.

Good point.
In essence, our homesteading doesn't count.

[Met Income]

Good point.
In essence, our homesteading doesn't count.

See mini me's post. Regardless, it doesn't mean that we should pay involuntary taxes.

[Bman]

This posts marks the problem with a completely anarcho-capitalistic society. People who do not wish to live inside an anarcho-capitalistic society.

That doesn't mean I don't think it's a noble direction and a great goal for humanity. Just a bit mythically utopian.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This posts marks the problem with a completely anarcho-capitalistic society. People who do not wish to live inside an anarcho-capitalistic society.

That doesn't mean I don't think it's a noble direction and a great goal for humanity. Just a bit mythically utopian.

How's that a problem? He can create his own legalistic company which uses the principles of Georgism. Good luck getting anyone to join you though. Besides, what a ludicrous statement. What about the people who do not wish to live in a State? Well fuck, a State is a crazy utopian idea!

[Bman]

How's that a problem? He can create his own legalistic company which uses the principles of Georgism. Good luck getting anyone to join you though. Besides, what a ludicrous statement. What about the people who do not wish to live in a State? Well fuck, a State is a crazy utopian idea!

There's a fine line to walk between the world we exist in and the world we wished we existed in. Don't be confused. What I am simply pointing out is that people who seem to need a state far out number those who do not. Make a point that I agree that need is only but a matter of perspective.

I'm just keeping it real.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There's a fine line to walk between the world we exist in and the world we wished we existed in. Don't be confused. What I am simply pointing out is that people who seem to need a state far out number those who do not. Make a point that I agree that need is only but a matter of perspective.

I'm just keeping it real.

You sound like the slave holders of the 19th Century.

[Met Income]

This posts marks the problem with a completely anarcho-capitalistic society. People who do not wish to live inside an anarcho-capitalistic society.

That doesn't mean I don't think it's a noble direction and a great goal for humanity. Just a bit mythically utopian.

You are free to set up your own government as long as you don't force me to participate. If you think this will be a popular concept, you shouldn't have to force people to consent to it.

[South Park Fan]

Since the original owners are all dead should the property be given to the living beneficiaries of the original owner's estate?

Yes, if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their ancestors owned that property and did not voluntarily surrender it.

[mediahasyou]

This posts marks the problem with a completely anarcho-capitalistic society. People who do not wish to live inside an anarcho-capitalistic society.

That doesn't mean I don't think it's a noble direction and a great goal for humanity. Just a bit mythically utopian.

If you wish to live in a anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist society, you would just purchase a DRO that provides these services. You would pay a higher premium but you would receive more services.

The only society that is not allowed is a aggressive statist society. Clients aggressed against would be protected through DRO services. If citizens consented to all aggressive acts of the state, then the state is not aggressive; that state is voluntary.


Say an anarcho- communist walks on to the property of a anarcho-capitalist and takes the car of the anarcho-capitalist. The dispute will be over quickly. The DROs of the two clients will have a preexisting contract with the settlement of the dispute. However, settlements are costly. It is likely for DROs to drop clients who have many disputes. DROs with nonantagonistic clients who go about their own business will prosper.

If you do not have a DRO service, no one will do business with you. Who will pay for the settlement when you steal groceries? No one, therefore no one will do business with you. You will not be permitted to use roads or the grocery store. You will be forced to deal with non DROs AKA most of the criminal underground. Good luck.

Say the non-DRO person is able to gain access the property of a DRO client. The person will be removed from the property by a DRO because trespassing is aggression. Society will demand (through market forces) ethical treatment of these people. DROs will likely purchase land for these people to drop them off on.

DROs will offer their services for indentured servitude for the poorest of society. People without taxes will now be able to donate more to the poor to help them pay for DRO services. Soft hearted clients of DROs will also demand the poor of these places to be given basic necessities.