What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[Roy L]

Clearly the LVT tax offers a lesser of evils and it would sell politically. The class warfare crowd would eat this up.

Actually, the left has historically resisted LVT almost as much as the right. The reason for this is simple: most leftist leaders (like rightist leaders) are more interested in power than in justice. They NEED injustice to justify their grasping for power. By removing the basic injustice in the economy and society, LVT would remove the rationale for leftist leaders to seek power.

Marx himself detested Henry George, and called LVT "capitalism's last ditch." But buried in Volume 3 of "Capital," Marx actually admits that his economic analysis showed the exploitation of labor associated with rising production due to societal accumulation of capital only benefits landowners, not capital owners. He then goes on to say in effect that this fact should be ignored, because it would eliminate the rationale for violent seizure of the factories by a communist revolution!

I also like the premise that while most libertarians see taxation as theft, the geolibertarian sees land ownership as theft.

It's even worse than that: government theft of producers' rightful earnings through sales tax, income tax, etc. pays for the services and infrastructure that make land so much more valuable, and the landowners' theft therefore so much more lucrative. Government is basically designed to steal from producers and give the money to landowners.

Owning land deprives others of their liberty thus the land owner owes a debt. The land owner benefits from roads, police, and firefighting so its the land owners who owe a debt.

By George, you've got it!

Instead of punishing productivity or commerce, the LVT tax levies tax on the only true source of wealth.

It's true that unlike other taxes, LVT does not penalize productivity or commerce. But the only true source of wealth is labor (capital must be produced by labor). Land is the basic source of UNEARNED wealth, because land is not produced by labor, but landowning enables the landowner to take wealth from those who produce it while contributing nothing in return.

[Roy L]

If you read the entire context I'm confident in you that you will understand with ease the sense in which the properties of some matter and space in the universe which make it fall into the category of "dry (layman's) land" can be abstracted away and separated from any other characterictics like proximity to navigable water, mineral richness, and soil fertility,

Certainly. It's the same sense in which the black keys on a piano can be "abstracted away" from the white ones, the strings, the hammers, the frame, the pedals, etc. Problem is, you are then no longer talking about a piano but an abstraction, same as if you try to abstract away dryness from land.

just as the Georgists abstract away from characteristics such as proximity to city centers and whether there is a skyscraper sitting on top of the land.

No, that is just your inevitable resort to lying. Proximity to city centers is a major factor in unimproved land value, which Georgists most certainly do not "abstract away," while a skyscraper is obviously part of improvement value.

[Roy L]

Really only one: lack of water on top of it. And that describes a lack of a proximate resource, not possession of any additional resource. Dry land we define simply as land which is dry. Its existence depends not upon any other resource.

So the quality of a land parcel not being covered by water is somehow separable -- can somehow be "abstracted away" -- from its other physical properties, the rock and soil under its surface, its proximity to resources, economic activity and opportunity, local infrastructure, amenities, government services, etc. that all contribute to its value; but at the same time...

every landowner in Manhattan, bit by bit over the centuries done his part to increase the value of Manhattan to what it is today, through mental and physical labor, or he has reduced its value somewhat through poor decisions or neglect. The labor of himself and his fellow landowners overwhelmingly dominates the value of the land today -- not just the improvements, the land -- dwarfing any other factors.

...the contributions the productive make to land value by their labor, their investments in improvements, etc. is somehow inseparable, even in theory, from their role as landowners -- whether they even owned any land or not?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

Are you even going to bother trying to defend your absurd lies any more, Helmuth? Anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvIoM4oLp0

[helmuth_hubener]

It's true that unlike other taxes, LVT does not penalize productivity or commerce [penalizing instead, existence]. But the only true source of wealth is labor (capital must be produced by labor). Land is the basic source of UNEARNED wealth, because land is not produced by labor, but landowning enables the landowner to take wealth from those who produce it while contributing nothing in return.

Mr. L. asserts that, while a man or his assigns may be entitled to the produce of his own labor or anything exchanged for it, he is not entitled to own land, since it is a “gift of nature.” For one man to appropriate this gift is alleged to be an invasion of a common heritage that all men deserve to use equally. This is a self-contradictory position, however. A man cannot produce anything without the co-operation of original nature-given factors, if only as standing room. In order to produce and possess any capital good or consumers’ good, therefore, he must appropriate and use an original nature-given factor. He cannot form products purely out of his labor alone; he must mix his labor with original nature-given factors. Therefore, if property in nature-given factors (economic land) is to be denied man, he cannot obtain property in the fruits of his labor.

Furthermore, in the question of land, it is difficult to see what better title there is than the first bringing of this land from a simple unvaluable thing into the sphere of production. For that is what the first user does. He takes a factor that was previously unowned and unused, and therefore worthless to anyone, and converts it into a tool for production of capital and consumers’ goods. It continues to be difficult for me see why the mere fact of being born should automatically confer upon one some aliquot part of the world’s land. For the first user has mixed his labor with the land, while neither the newborn child nor his ancestors have done anything with the land at all.

The problem will be clearer if we consider the case of animals. Animals are “economic land,” because they are equivalent to physical land in being original, nature-given factors of production. Yet will anyone deny title to a cow to the man that finds and domesticates her, putting her to use? For this is precisely what occurs in the case of land. Previously valueless “wild” land, like wild animals, is taken and transformed by a man into goods useful for man. The “mixing” of labor gives equivalent title in one case as in the other.

We must remember, also, what “production” entails. When man “produces,” he does not create matter. “To bake an apple pie from scratch, one must first create the universe”. He uses given materials and transforms and rearranges them into goods that he desires. In short, he moves matter further toward consumption. His finding of land or animals and putting them to use is also such a transformation.

[helmuth_hubener]

...the contributions the productive make to land value by their labor [apart from their labor as landowners], their investments in improvements, etc. is somehow inseparable, even in theory, from their role as landowners -- whether they even owned any land or not?

These contributions are quite separable. Landowners qua landowners increase or decrease the value of their land, and often that of their neighbors, by their intelligence or lack thereof. Landowners in their role as pure landowners and apart from any role in improvement, maintenence, etc., are the decision-makers for the land. The landowner decides to what function the land is to be put. If he makes a good decision, say, to build a housing development in a quiet and convenient location where many people will want to live, the value will increase. If he makes a poor decision, such as to evict the Rockefeller Center and order it torn down and a swine farm built in its place, the value of his land will decrease. The value in this second case will still be high, due to the continued good decisions of his neighbors and the vision of would-be purchasers to see that if they were the landowner they could evict the swine farm and allow something sensible to be built there, but it will not be as high as previously. The landowner's poor decisions have destroyed value in the land.

Georgists claim that all value in land is given to it as a free gift from society, with the landowner playing no part in it. To be consistent, then, in the above examples they would have to insist that the landowner, being irrelevant, has not changed the value of his land in the least.

The above discussion is all granting the Georgists their proposition, that land ownership be completely separated from improvement ownership. One can see a problem very clearly arising in the following question: why would anyone build a skyscraper upon land which he did not absolutely and monopolistically hold all decision-making rights over, that is, which he did not own? Yet this is the very situation the Georgists propose to foist upon us in order to correct the alleged injustice of land ownership. Society, supposedly represented and embodied by the state, is to own the land but not the improvements. Any improver of land would put himself in the precarious positon of having to forever curry the favor of "society", that is, the state, lest they should decide to evict him from their property and bring in another tenant more to their liking.

Furthermore, the state lacks the direct incentive mechanism of the free market which a private landowner has to maximize the value of his land, and thus his profits, by making intelligent decisions as to its disposal. Thus we can anticipate with certainty the poor, and ever-decreasing, quality of the decisions which will be made as to the deposition of land.

[redbluepill]

I find it disappointing you would respond to one sentence of a conversation I'm having with someone else, a conversation which has wandered far afield, rather than the post(s) I have directed specifically to you and which have not yet been replied to.

The reason I have not responded to that post is because every point you made either me or Roy have already addressed. I quoted and responded to that particular sentence because it was a claim I have not seen yet.

If you read the entire context I'm confident in you that you will understand with ease the sense in which the properties of some matter and space in the universe which make it fall into the category of "dry (layman's) land" can be abstracted away and separated from any other characterictics like proximity to navigable water, mineral richness, and soil fertility, just as the Georgists abstract away from characteristics such as proximity to city centers and whether there is a skyscraper sitting on top of the land.

I read your full post and to be honest it gets more and more ridiculous the further along I read. I have posted the economic definition of land. Clearly it includes resources, water, air, etc. On top of that land values are based on demand for the land. Therefore, land in some areas are more desirable than others. So no, land is not homogeneous in any sense.

[Roy L]

These contributions are quite separable.

OK. Thank you for admitting that you were lying when you claimed it was landowners who made them.

Landowners qua landowners increase or decrease the value of their land,

No, they don't. This is indisputable. The landowner may be comatose, and the value of his land will not change one jot. At most, a landowner may reduce the value of his land by permitting a destructive use like chemical contamination.

and often that of their neighbors, by their intelligence or lack thereof.

No. They can increase the value of neighboring land by how they permit their own land to be used, but not the value of their own.

Landowners in their role as pure landowners and apart from any role in improvement, maintenence, etc., are the decision-makers for the land.

Yes, and a slave owner is the decision maker for his slaves. That doesn't mean it is the owner doing the work on the plantation, and not the slaves.

The landowner decides to what function the land is to be put.

But his "contribution" in that regard cannot be positive, only negative. He can be comatose, and his trustee will just accept the high bid for the land -- and thus the MARKET'S judgment of the most appropriate use for it -- or he can decide to devote it to some inferior use (or no use at all). He cannot add value by overruling the market's judgment with his input. He can only subtract it.

If he makes a good decision, say, to build a housing development in a quiet and convenient location where many people will want to live, the value will increase.

No, it will not. The unimproved land value will be the same as if the development had not been built. BY DEFINITION.

If he makes a poor decision, such as to evict the Rockefeller Center and order it torn down and a swine farm built in its place, the value of his land will decrease.

Nope. Wrong AGAIN. The land value is DEFINED AS the value the land would have if all the improvements were removed.

The value in this second case will still be high, due to the continued good decisions of his neighbors

But mostly due to the services and infrastructure government provides and the opportunities and amenities the community provides at that location.

and the vision of would-be purchasers to see that if they were the landowner they could evict the swine farm and allow something sensible to be built there,

ROTFL!! It's would-be USERS who have the vision of what the land could be used for, sunshine, not would-be purchasers. Would-be purchasers have no vision whatever. They just consult the market of would-be users to find out how much they would be willing to pay in rent.

but it will not be as high as previously.

Yes, in fact, it will. BY DEFINITION.

The landowner's poor decisions have destroyed value in the land.

Landowners can obviously permit destructive land uses such as chemical contamination, etc., and that will reduce the land's value. But again, that is only a negative contribution. The best the landowner can do is just step aside and permit the use the market decides is most appropriate -- i.e., do nothing.

Georgists claim that all value in land is given to it as a free gift from society, with the landowner playing no part in it.

Correct. The landowner qua landowner contributes nothing whatever to land value. He just pockets it as a gift from government and the community.

To be consistent, then, in the above examples they would have to insist that the landowner, being irrelevant, has not changed the value of his land in the least.

Landowners can certainly do worse than just doing nothing and accepting the high bid and the market's judgment. But they can't do better. They can't contribute anything in their capacity as landowners. They can only detract.

The above discussion is all granting the Georgists their proposition, that land ownership be completely separated from improvement ownership. One can see a problem very clearly arising in the following question: why would anyone build a skyscraper upon land which he did not absolutely and monopolistically hold all decision-making rights over, that is, which he did not own?

Maybe you should ask the folks who built the Empire State Building on leased land. Maybe you should ask everyone who has built skyscrapers all over Hong Kong, which are all built on leased land.

Trying to wedge the same simple facts into your head over and over again because you blankly refuse to know them is getting tiresome, Helmuth.

Yet this is the very situation the Georgists propose to foist upon us in order to correct the alleged injustice of land ownership.

There is nothing alleged about it, as proved by your inability to answer The Question:

"How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"

Society, supposedly represented and embodied by the state, is to own the land but not the improvements.

It ADMINISTERS the land, like a trustee administering trust assets.

Any improver of land would put himself in the precarious positon of having to forever curry the favor of "society", that is, the state, lest they should decide to evict him from their property and bring in another tenant more to their liking.

No, that's just another stupid, dishonest lie from you. If the land user pays the rent, and doesn't do anything stupid like violate his land tenure agreement, the land authority will have no motive to evict him: it won't be able to get more rent from anyone else.

Your "objection" to land rent recovery is apparently that some other system will be implemented in its stead. That is not an honest objection. It is just stupid, dishonest garbage.

Furthermore, the state lacks the direct incentive mechanism of the free market which a private landowner has to maximize the value of his land, and thus his profits, by making intelligent decisions as to its disposal.

Wrong AGAIN. Land rent recovery is the ONLY tax system that aligns the government's own incentives with the market's judgment, and the only land tenure arrangement that aligns society's interests with the landholder's interest. Contrast that with the indisputable result of private landownership: thousands of vacant lots and abandoned buildings blighting every major city in the USA, as greedy private landowners hold good land out of use for speculative gain.

Thus we can anticipate with certainty the poor, and ever-decreasing, quality of the decisions which will be made as to the deposition of land.

No, that is just another stupid lie from you. Land rent recovery just accepts the market's judgment -- unlike private land speculators, who try to outguess the market and thus reduce production and allocative efficiency by holding good land out of use.

[Roy L]

Mr. L. asserts that, while a man or his assigns may be entitled to the produce of his own labor or anything exchanged for it, he is not entitled to own land, since it is a “gift of nature.” For one man to appropriate this gift is alleged to be an invasion of a common heritage that all men deserve to use equally.

Strawman fallacy. All men obviously cannot use it equally. But all have equal rights to liberty: i.e., to access it.

This is a self-contradictory position, however.

Because it's a position you made up, not one we have advocated.

A man cannot produce anything without the co-operation of original nature-given factors, if only as standing room.

Right. So your view is that people can rightly be deprived of the opportunity to produce the means of their own sustenance without just compensation, and even of the opportunity to exist.

In order to produce and possess any capital good or consumers’ good, therefore, he must appropriate and use an original nature-given factor. He cannot form products purely out of his labor alone; he must mix his labor with original nature-given factors.

I have already informed you that it is physically impossible to "mix labor" with material objects. That is a metaphor ONLY, and a misleading one. The laborer applies his labor to nature-given factors, and the result is a product of labor, not "land mixed with labor."

Therefore, if property in nature-given factors (economic land) is to be denied man, he cannot obtain property in the fruits of his labor.

Non sequitur fallacy. He obtains rightful property in the fruits of his labor by removing resources from where nature put them, thus making them into products of his labor. This has self-evidently been the process by which human beings have sustained themselves ever since we grew to our moral state distinct from nature.

Furthermore, in the question of land, it is difficult to see what better title there is than the first bringing of this land from a simple unvaluable thing into the sphere of production.

No private land titles are in fact based on any such action, which would not confer a morally valid title even if they were. How could initially using land extinguish others' rights to use it?

For that is what the first user does. He takes a factor that was previously unowned and unused, and therefore worthless to anyone,

Wrong again. If it was worthless to everyone, why would he choose to use it rather than some other factor?

and converts it into a tool for production of capital and consumers’ goods.

Wrong again. He performs no such conversion. The land was ALREADY useful for production, or he would not have chosen to use it -- COULD not have chosen to use it.

It continues to be difficult for me see why the mere fact of being born should automatically confer upon one some aliquot part of the world’s land.

Because the mere fact of being born confers rights to life and liberty. I realize you do not believe in the equal human rights to life or liberty, and that is why it is difficult for you to see how those rights cannot exist if one has no right to access and use what nature provided for all.

For the first user has mixed his labor with the land,

No, that is physically impossible, as I have already informed you. It is merely a misleading metaphor contrived to elide the fact that all landowning is founded on forcible appropriation.

while neither the newborn child nor his ancestors have done anything with the land at all.

People have rights without having to earn them or pay for them.

The problem will be clearer if we consider the case of animals. Animals are “economic land,” because they are equivalent to physical land in being original, nature-given factors of production.

Wild animals are. Not domestic ones raised or tamed by labor.

Yet will anyone deny title to a cow to the man that finds and domesticates her, putting her to use?

It is not putting her to use that makes her property, but removing her from nature by domesticating her.

For this is precisely what occurs in the case of land.

No, of course it isn't, as land by definition has NOT been removed from nature.

Previously valueless “wild” land, like wild animals, is taken

BZZZZZZZZZT. Equivocation fallacy. You are lying that "take" in the sense of "physically remove" is the same as "take" in the sense of "forcibly appropriate."

Bet you thought you were going to get away with one that sneaky, didn't you?

and transformed by a man into goods useful for man.

The goods he has transformed by labor are his property. Not the place where he made them.

The “mixing” of labor gives equivalent title in one case as in the other.

Mixing of labor with land is physically impossible, and therefore cannot confer any sort of title. You are just trying to pretend that "take" in the sense of "physically remove" is the same as "take" in the sense of "steal."

We must remember, also, what “production” entails. When man “produces,” he does not create matter.

<sigh> Not this stupid bull$#!+ again...

“To bake an apple pie from scratch, one must first create the universe”.

Yep. That stupid bull$#!+ again.

He uses given materials and transforms and rearranges them into goods that he desires. In short, he moves matter further toward consumption. His finding of land or animals and putting them to use is also such a transformation.

Nope. Wrong AGAIN. Finding land (which the original appropriator didn't do) does not transform it. That is just a lie. Finding land only improves the state of the finder's own knowledge. It as no effect whatever on what has been found. Likewise, putting something to use does not transform it or make it into a product, especially if it is a location. Consider a wild fruit tree. You pick the fruit, putting it to use, but you haven't transformed it, and that action certainly gives you no right to charge others for access to next year's crop.

Your "arguments" continue to be dishonest garbage.

[tremendoustie]

Land Value Tax on Wikipedia

I think it's extortion, and therefore immoral. The owner owns the land, not the majority of those who happen to live near him/her.

I also think it'd be a boon for rich folks in mansions on small plots of land (which I'm fine with), and horrible for farmers, loggers, and other poorer folks with larger amounts of undeveloped land (which I'm not fine with).

[Simple]

I'm still thinking about this. Does the LVT justify the use of force that would have to be accepted in order to enforce it? While the reasoning seems sound to me, the theory seems to deviate from the idea of voluntary exchange.

[Roy L]

I think it's extortion, and therefore immoral.

Landowning is. Right.

The owner owns the land, not the majority of those who happen to live near him/her.

How would he "own" the land, other than by forcible appropriation? How are others deprived of it but by violent, aggressive, physical coercion that violates the rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it?

I also think it'd be a boon for rich folks in mansions on small plots of land (which I'm fine with),

If they aren't taking more from society, why should they pay more?

and horrible for farmers, loggers, and other poorer folks with larger amounts of undeveloped land (which I'm not fine with).

LOL! Poor folks don't own large amounts of land, sunshine. I guess you need to take some time and figure out who does own the large amounts of undeveloped land the farmers, loggers and other poorer folks are working on...

[Roy L]

Does the LVT justify the use of force that would have to be accepted in order to enforce it?

It doesn't require any more force than the landowner is already using to deprive others of the land.

While the reasoning seems sound to me, the theory seems to deviate from the idea of voluntary exchange.

What's voluntary about idle, greedy landowners extorting money from producers?

[Simple]

So you believe that the government needs to have the ability to bring to bear an equal or greater amount of force than the land owner? I'm guessing this is more based on realism (or a Constitutional Republic) while the idea of a society without force is more Utopian?

[redbluepill]

I think it's extortion, and therefore immoral. The owner owns the land, not the majority of those who happen to live near him/her.

By what moral right? One does not create land. One can only create capital. There is no original owner of land.

I also think it'd be a boon for rich folks in mansions on small plots of land (which I'm fine with), and horrible for farmers, loggers, and other poorer folks with larger amounts of undeveloped land (which I'm not fine with).

Simply not true. Farmers could benefit from an increase in land value tax as long as it is accompanied by a reduction/elimination of taxes on improvement. It is actually urban areas that would be most affected by the LVT.

[redbluepill]

I'm still thinking about this. Does the LVT justify the use of force that would have to be accepted in order to enforce it? While the reasoning seems sound to me, the theory seems to deviate from the idea of voluntary exchange.

I'm sure different Georgists have different perspectives on this. But I believe if one fails to pay his/her ground rent then the government would simply not recognize and enforce his/her privilege to exclude others from the land occupied. I do not believe the government should kick somebody off a piece of land.

[redbluepill]

LOL! Poor folks don't own large amounts of land, sunshine. I guess you need to take some time and figure out who does own the large amounts of undeveloped land the farmers, loggers and other poorer folks are working on...

Indeed. A large chunk of farmland (at least 44%) is owned by those who do not farm it. They rent it out to the farmers.

http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb93_10.pdf

[redbluepill]

I'm interested in any comments to this particular comment from Murray Rothbard (keep in mind I don't agree with his conclusion that land can actually become property but he does make a good point):

But any area of land, which is given by nature, might never have been used and transformed; and therefore, any existing property title to never-used land would have to be considered invalid. For we have seen that title to an unowned resource (such as land) comes properly only from the expenditure of labor to transform that resource into use. Therefore, if any land has never been so transformed, no one can legitimately claim its ownership.

Suppose, for example, that Mr. Green legally owns a certain acreage of land, of which the northwest portion has never been transformed from its natural state by Green or by anyone else. Libertarian theory will morally validate his claim for the rest of the land—provided, as the theory requires, that there is no identifiable victim (or that Green had not himself stolen the land.) But libertarian theory must invalidate his claim to ownership of the northwest portion. Now, so long as no “settler” appears who will initially transform the northwest portion, there is no real difficulty; Brown’s claim may be invalid but it is also mere meaningless verbiage. He is not yet a criminal aggressor against anyone else. But should another man appear who does transform the land, and should Green oust him by force from the property (or employ others to do so), then Green becomes at that point a criminal aggressor against land justly owned by another. The same would be true if Green should use violence to prevent another settler from entering upon this never-used land and transforming it into use.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ten.asp

This quote would appear to be in direct conflict to many posters on this thread who claim land can be owned by whoever is on it first. No labor required.

[Roy L]

So you believe that the government needs to have the ability to bring to bear an equal or greater amount of force than the land owner? I'm guessing this is more based on realism (or a Constitutional Republic) while the idea of a society without force is more Utopian?

There is no way to allocate exclusive use of land but by force. That is why there is no way to design a viable society higher than hunter-gatherer level without using force. The idea of democracy and constitutional government is to bring that force under popular, responsible and predictable control rather than just allowing the land grabber to wield it irresponsibly at his personal whim.

[helmuth_hubener]

The reason I have not responded to that post is because every point you made either me or Roy have already addressed. I quoted and responded to that particular sentence because it was a claim I have not seen yet.

Umm, I posted asking whether under your decentralized system we would be free to try non-Georgism in one of the miniature North American city-states. This question has already been "addressed" and doubtless, as Mr. L. would put it, "refuted"? I don't understand. Here's the post I was referring to, the dead end in our somewhat (maybe?) interesting conversation.

~~~

So maybe it isn’t scary for you because you have not seen the truly devastating impact land-grabbing can have.

Well, whatever the reason, it is indeed non-scary for me. While on the other hand, land-monopolization seems to be a very real concern for you. So I think that I have, indeed, hit upon the root, crux, and core of our disagreement. Would you agree?

You believe that in a free land market (according to my definition: private ownership and trading of land), large and powerful monopolies will arise. I, in contrast, believe no such monopolies will evince. If you did not believe monopolies would take over, you would be open to agreeing with the (non-geo)libertarians, perhaps?

But here’s my take on your ideal world: We remove government completely from the picture. If there is any government at all it is funded voluntarily. Corporations are free to do business as they please. This results in bigger/stronger corporations buying out the competition. Within a few decades (maybe several) you have oligarchies controlling almost every aspect of society. They are the land renters. And since there is practically no competition then they can charge high rent for the land you live on and pay you minimally for your labor. I may sound paranoid (hey, what libertarian is not? Haha), but this is not the ‘libertarian’ society I wish to live in. You only replace one master for another. As The Who song goes, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

This fear of monopoly is a very very common objection to the completely free market. I personally think it comes about due to a grossly inflated view of the power of companies. People see the "big corporations" as monolithically powerful; the consumers as hopelessly powerless against them. They see management as powerful, laborers as powerless. They see landlords as powerful, tenants as powerless. I, on the other hand, see the big corporations as completely dependant on the whims of the consumers -- their customers wield the ultimate power, not their CEOs. Likewise the landlord is totally dependant on the continued patronage of his customers the rent payers. People move off his land, due to his mismanagement, high prices, bad location, whatever, and he will quickly go out of business.

So I just don't share the concern about monopolies that you do.

Here’s my take on my ideal world: We remove income tax, capital/improvement tax, and any taxes that hinder entrepreneurship and productivity. Have government funded through a land value tax. Since the LVT (and the removal of all other taxes) encourage landholders to be productive with their land we see landholding and government become decentralized. Within a few decades we see hundreds (if not thousands) of small governments within what was once the United States. We will have more freedom to choose what society best suites our ideals. Libertarianism will finally take hold since poverty would be dramatically reduced (if not eliminated) and big government would become history.

You support decentralization! Secession! Wonderful. Your ideal North America, with thousands of independent governments, would be sensational. Would you go so far as to allow secession on even the neighborhood, family, and finally the individual level?

The nice thing about your plan is that it would "let a thousand flowers bloom", if you will. If Kalamazooistan decides they want to try not charging any land value tax and be voluntarist instead, they'd be free to try it, and I would be free to move there. And then we'd fail and the land monopolists would take over and totally dominate and oppress us, but hey, we gave it a shot! We wouldn't have failed miserably, we'd fail happily, following our crazy Rothbardian dreams.

~~~

So I'd still be interested in your answers to my questions above and your reaction to my thoughts.

I read your full post and to be honest it gets more and more ridiculous the further along I read. I have posted the economic definition of land. Clearly it includes resources, water, air, etc. On top of that land values are based on demand for the land. Therefore, land in some areas are more desirable than others. So no, land is not homogeneous in any sense.

Everyone knows the definition of economic land -- congratulations, everyone. Let's have a party. Land in the layman's sense, when stripped down to its Platonic essence, can be considered homogenous. One empty place to stand is equivalent to another. I merely posted this as an observation and an intellectual exercise, due to a miscombobulation on the part of Mr. L.

The more relevant point is that most economic land is fairly homogenous. Think about all the junk that economic land subsumes, and you'll see what I mean. One stray hydrogen atom is much like another, despite their different sun exposures. For each different possible type of land, and you listed a couple above: water and air, let's add oil, aluminum, neodymium, jackrabbits, and algae, one unit of any of these types is roughly interchangeable with another.

[Roy L]

This question has already been 'refuted'? I don't understand.

Your claims have been refuted, by me, in post #576.

Here's the post I was referring to, the dead end in our somewhat interesting conversation.

~~~

Well, whatever the reason, it is indeed non-scary for me. While on the other hand, land-monopolization seems to be a very real concern for you. So I think that I have, indeed, hit upon the root, crux, and core of our disagreement. Would you agree?

You believe that in a free land market (according to my definition: private ownership and trading of land), large and powerful monopolies will arise. I, in contrast, believe no such monopolies will evince. If you did not believe monopolies would take over, you would be open to agreeing with the (non-geo)libertarians, perhaps?

This fear of monopoly is a very very common objection to the completely free market. I personally think it comes about due to a grossly inflated view of the power of companies. People see the "big corporations" as monolithically powerful; the consumers as hopelessly powerless against them. They see management as powerful, laborers as powerless. They see landlords as powerful, tenants as powerless. I, on the other hand, see the big corporations as completely dependant on the whims of the consumers -- their customers wield the ultimate power, not their CEOs. Likewise the landlord is totally dependant on the continued patronage of his customers the rent payers. People move off his land, due to his mismanagement, high prices, bad location, whatever, and he will quickly go out of business.

So I just don't share the concern about monopolies that you do.


You support decentralization! Secession! Wonderful. Your ideal North America, with thousands of independent governments, would be sensational. Would you go so far as to allow secession on even the neighborhood, family, and finally the individual level?

The nice thing about your plan is that it would "let a thousand flowers bloom", if you will. If Kalamazooistan decides they want to try not charging any land value tax and be voluntarist instead, they'd be free to try it, and I would be free to move there. And then we'd fail and the land monopolists would take over and totally dominate and oppress us, but hey, we gave it a shot! We wouldn't have failed miserably, we'd fail happily, following our crazy Rothbardian dreams.

I demolished all this garbage in post #576, and you had no answers that I did not also subsequently demolish. You know this.

[redbluepill]

Umm, I posted asking whether under your decentralized system we would be free to try non-Georgism in one of the miniature North American city-states. This question has already been "addressed" and doubtless, as Mr. L. would put it, "refuted"? I don't understand. Here's the post I was referring to, the dead end in our somewhat (maybe?) interesting conversation.

If one secedes on the individual level their privilege to exclude others from the land would not be enforced. It would be to their advantage to not secede.

Well, whatever the reason, it is indeed non-scary for me. While on the other hand, land-monopolization seems to be a very real concern for you. So I think that I have, indeed, hit upon the root, crux, and core of our disagreement. Would you agree?

You believe that in a free land market (according to my definition: private ownership and trading of land), large and powerful monopolies will arise. I, in contrast, believe no such monopolies will evince. If you did not believe monopolies would take over, you would be open to agreeing with the (non-geo)libertarians, perhaps?

Well unfortunately we do not live in a world where land is not fixed. Maybe in that world I would agree.

This fear of monopoly is a very very common objection to the completely free market.

I am for a completely free market. I strongly believe that a true free market would not exist without ground rent.

I personally think it comes about due to a grossly inflated view of the power of companies. People see the "big corporations" as monolithically powerful; the consumers as hopelessly powerless against them.

They see management as powerful, laborers as powerless.

When laborers have no other choices but to work under terrible conditions for little pay then yes they are powerless. That’s why they organized in the 19th century.

They see landlords as powerful, tenants as powerless.

I, on the other hand, see the big corporations as completely dependant on the whims of the consumers -- their customers wield the ultimate power, not their CEOs. Likewise the landlord is totally dependant on the continued patronage of his customers the rent payers. People move off his land, due to his mismanagement, high prices, bad location, whatever, and he will quickly go out of business.

This is the same kind of argument statists make about the government. “The government is completely dependant on the whims of the voters – the voters wield the ultimate power, not their politicians. Likewise, the bank is totally dependent on the continued business of his customers. People move out of the country, due to mismanagement, high taxes, corruption, whatever, and the government and banks will be reformed.”

Everyone knows the definition of economic land -- congratulations, everyone. Let's have a party.

Obviously a definition is in order since people on this forum clearly make up their own definitions.

Land in the layman's sense, when stripped down to its Platonic essence, can be considered homogenous.

Except we are not talking about stripped down land.

The more relevant point is that most economic land is fairly homogenous.

You have a quote from an economist to support this?

Think about all the junk that economic land subsumes, and you'll see what I mean. One stray hydrogen atom is much like another, despite their different sun exposures. For each different possible type of land, and you listed a couple above: water and air, let's add oil, aluminum, neodymium, jackrabbits, and algae, one unit of any of these types is roughly interchangeable with another.

Now you are just rambling.

[Roy L]

Land in the layman's sense, when stripped down to its Platonic essence, can be considered homogenous.

But only by someone who has chosen to eliminate their contact with reality, sacrificing their own mind to preserve their false and evil beliefs. You KNOW that your claim is false and absurd. There is no homogenous "Platonic essence" of land.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-- Voltaire

The more interesting corollary of Voltaire's penetrating observation is that those who would make you commit atrocities will first try to make you believe absurdities. Your absurdities are intended to rationalize, justify and enable the atrocities -- the Annual Holocaust of the Landless -- committed in the name of private property in land. Those who seek to rationalize, justify and enable atrocities are evil. It's not rocket science.

I again urge you to watch, "Judgment at Nuremberg." It has a lesson that you desperately need to learn.

One empty place to stand is equivalent to another.

One absurd claim is equivalent to another. An empty place to stand in the Sahara Desert is not equivalent to one in Antarctica or on the French Riviera, or on the moon. You know this. Of course you do. You have merely decided you had better deliberately lie about it, as you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

I merely posted this as an observation and an intellectual exercise, due to a miscombobulation on the part of Mr. L.

No, I demolished you utterly, and you have been spewing absurdities to rationalize evil ever since.

The more relevant point is that most economic land is fairly homogenous.

You KNOW that is a lie.

Think about all the junk that economic land subsumes, and you'll see what I mean.

I see that you are lying, you know that you are lying, and you intend to go on lying.

One stray hydrogen atom is much like another, despite their different sun exposures. For each different possible type of land, and you listed a couple above: water and air, let's add oil, aluminum, neodymium, jackrabbits, and algae, one unit of any of these types is roughly interchangeable with another.

Nope. You know very well that is a lie. You are just lying again. Any mining geologist can tell you that where a unit of aluminum or neodymium is located, how it is chemically bound, how easy it is to access, remove and process are crucially important to its usefulness and thus its value. Any petroleum engineer can tell you similar facts about units of oil. Anyone who has watched tsunami videos can tell you that each unit of water is not roughly interchangeable with another. The salubriousness of the earth's climate depends on the fact that units of air are not roughly interchangeable, as their effects on weather and climate depend sensitively on their temperature, density, velocity, water content, altitude, etc. And evolution runs on the fact that units of algae and jackrabbits are also not roughly interchangeable.

All apologists for landowner privilege lie. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

[helmuth_hubener]

If one secedes on the individual level their privilege to exclude others from the land would not be enforced. It would be to their advantage to not secede.

But they could enforce it themselves, yes? The teeming hordes of "society" are probably not going to mount an attack on one's small suburban home, especially if it's surrounded by electrified barbed wire fence, a moat, mines, and sniper towers. No reason to bother. They'll just respect your beliefs and your claim and expect you to respect theirs in return.

What about not on the individual level, but a neighborhood level? How small can a political entity be in your system? You propose to have thousands in the territory of the formerly united States. So that means political entities the size of present-day counties. Can one of these county-sized nations split itself into 20 pieces? Can one of those new pieces reorganize itself into 200 confederate but sovereign cantons? If not, why not? If so, you're getting down to 20 acre plots of sovereignty.

Each of these thousands of political entities would act, of course, as a monopolistic land-owner, if they are to be anything like current-day political entities. The forces of one state would have no right to enter the boundaries of another. They could even have border controls to keep out anyone they wished. They could make whatever rules of conduct they wished pertaining to their land. So we'd see a variety of justice systems, military systems, taxation systems, etc, in your vision for the future, yes? It kind of would defeat the purpose of having thousands of independent polities if they're just monolithically uniform, yes?

Again, would you be OK with one of these thousands of political entities, just one, trying Rothbardianism? Would that be acceptable in your vision?

Also, really, isn't all you are proposing is that we split up North America amongst thousands of landowners? Wouldn't a political map of N.Am. then just be a property map, showing the boundaries of the deeds and plots? So then we see the differences between my Utopia and yours are not that vast. Difference number one is that I want to take the decentralization further, allowing the breakup of polities without limit, down even to the individual level, making all political alliances voluntary, enthroning the man as the supreme unit of society and deposing the mob from that station. Difference number two is that I want the landowners to be those who actually have a reason to believe they are the legitimate owners, via homesteading theory and then free exchange. I know you don't believe that this reason constitutes a just claim, because nothing can constitute a just claim over natural resources in your mind, but it's at least a reason which is a whole lot more than the big fat Zip of a reason that the managers of your proposed political entities would have to claim rights over "their" land.

When laborers have no other choices but to work under terrible conditions for little pay then yes they are powerless. That’s why they organized in the 19th century.

There are always choices.

This is the same kind of argument statists make about the government. “The government is completely dependant on the whims of the voters – the voters wield the ultimate power, not their politicians. Likewise, the bank is totally dependent on the continued business of his customers. People move out of the country, due to mismanagement, high taxes, corruption, whatever, and the government and banks will be reformed.”

It's a similar argument. I agree 100% with the bit about the banks. I would agree about the governments if they were actually the just owners of the territories they claim and if they were run under the principles of voluntarism. As they are today, governments are indeed, ultimately, dependent on the people for their continued existence, but the dependence is not of the same exact sort as the dependence of the landlord and any other businessman on his customers. The nation-state has layers of protection for itself against its "customers". It arrogates to itself a monopoly on violence. It operates outside of market mechanisms. Etc. There are market-ish mechanisms that it is still subject to, however. Its "customers" can still move out of its domain. But these outfits have much larger contiguous domains than market landowners, and they use their violence monopoly to demand that you get their permission to leave (!), and sometimes they use their violence monopoly to forcibly prevent people from leaving. A landlord can't do that. You just pack up and move across the street; problem solved.

So I'm agreeing with you that the argument that the oppressions of the nation-state aren't as horribly bad as they could be given that, after all, we can move, has merit. We need to make the oppressions less bad by making the argument more true, by making nation-states more like landlords. Your proposal to drastically reduce the size of their domains is one good step. That would make it much easier to move.

Now you are just rambling.

Thanks!

[Roy L]

But they could enforce it themselves, yes?

Of course. That's called, "feudalism."

The teeming hordes of "society" are probably not going to mount an attack on one's small suburban home, especially if it's surrounded by electrified barbed wire fence, a moat, mines, and sniper towers.

Very true. But that doesn't sound like a very efficient way to protect your stuff, compared to paying taxes.

The Lesson of Feudalism is that in the absence of government, the landowner must devote the full rent of the land to defending his possession of it. That is why in feudal societies, even kings were poor.

No reason to bother. They'll just respect your beliefs and your claim and expect you to respect theirs in return.

Read a little European feudal history to correct that naive misapprehension.

Can one of these county-sized nations split itself into 20 pieces? Can one of those new pieces reorganize itself into 200 confederate but sovereign cantons? If not, why not?

Because military power is a public good with very strong economies of scale.

The forces of one state would have no right to enter the boundaries of another.

Landowners likewise have no right to deprive people of their rights to liberty without making just compensation. But they obviously do it anyway.

They could even have border controls to keep out anyone they wished.

Unless the landowner who wanted in had stronger "border control"...

They could make whatever rules of conduct they wished pertaining to their land. So we'd see a variety of justice systems, military systems, taxation systems, etc, in your vision for the future, yes? It kind of would defeat the purpose of having thousands of independent polities if they're just monolithically uniform, yes?

To see the results of your feudal libertarian society, just look at Saudi Arabia. Everything that happens there proceeds from the Saud family's ownership of the land.

Again, would you be OK with one of these thousands of political entities, just one, trying Rothbardianism? Would that be acceptable in your vision?

Sure, if you are OK with one trying LVT.

Also, really, isn't all you are proposing is that we split up North America amongst thousands of landowners? Wouldn't a political map of N.Am. then just be a property map, showing the boundaries of the deeds and plots?

Like feudal Europe, feudal Japan, feudal Russia, feudal China, etc., etc.

So then we see the differences between my Utopia and yours are not that vast. Difference number one is that I want to take the decentralization further, allowing the breakup of polities without limit, down even to the individual level, making all political alliances voluntary, enthroning the man as the supreme unit of society and deposing the mob from that station.

What you actually propose is to make the man who owns the land the supreme unit of society.

Difference number two is that I want the landowners to be those who actually have a reason to believe they are the legitimate owners, via homesteading theory and then free exchange.

No one has any such reason to believe they are rightly the owners. There is not one square inch of land, anywhere on earth, whose current title of private ownership can be traced in an unbroken line of consensual transactions to an initial appropriator who did not violate anyone's rights by appropriating the land. Not one single square inch.

I know you don't believe that this reason constitutes a just claim, because nothing can constitute a just claim over natural resources in your mind,

Having made just compensation to those whom you deprive of them constitutes a just claim, stop lying about what we have plainly written.

but it's at least a reason which is a whole lot more than the big fat Zip of a reason that the managers of your proposed political entities would have to claim rights over "their" land.

Wrong AGAIN. ONLY government can secure the equal individual rights of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor. Government therefore has the only just claim to administer possession of land.

There are always choices.

Of course. The slave can choose to obey or be whipped to death. The landless can choose to serve a landowner or die of starvation. The whipping would be faster, and likely less painful.

I would agree about the governments if they were actually the just owners of the territories they claim and if they were run under the principles of voluntarism.

They are not the just owners, they just administer what cannot justly be owned. I have informed you of that fact before. Likewise, no one can own the earth's atmosphere (though apologists for landowner privilege have sometimes even gone so far as to claim one could), but government administers use of the atmosphere so that people's rights are not infringed by pollution, etc. In the same way, a rightful government would administer possession and use of land to secure the equal individual rights of all to use it. The only way to do that is to require those who exclude others from the land to make just compensation for depriving them of it.

As they are today, governments are indeed, ultimately, dependent on the people for their continued existence, but the dependence is not of the same exact sort as the dependence of the landlord and any other businessman on his customers.

I have already proved to you that landowners are not dependent on tenants or "customers." They own the land. They already have access to the resources needed to sustain themselves. It is the landless who must depend on the landed for permission even to exist.

The nation-state has layers of protection for itself against its "customers". It arrogates to itself a monopoly on violence.

As there is no way to allocate exclusive land tenure but by force, the alternative to government's monopoly of violence is the warfare society: feudalism.

But these outfits have much larger contiguous domains than market landowners, and they use their violence monopoly to demand that you get their permission to leave (!), and sometimes they use their violence monopoly to forcibly prevent people from leaving. A landlord can't do that. You just pack up and move across the street; problem solved.

That doesn't solve the problem any more than a slave being sold to a different owner solves his problem.

[helmuth_hubener]

That doesn't solve the [horrible!, horrible!] problem any more than a slave being sold to a different owner solves his problem.

Umm, except the "sale" is beng initiated by the "slave", who gets to choose his new "owner".

Honestly, you're living in a fantasy-land. Renting is not a horrific, gruesome, inhuman experience. Every month, you pay the apartment manager, or land-and-house-owner, or whoever, the rent, and you continue living a happy, productive life, completely unharrassed and unoppressed by your landlord. What's more, you can leave at any time with trivial ease. This is not the concentration camp scenario you are so desperately convinced that it is.

[Roy L]

Umm, except the "sale" is beng initiated by the "slave", who gets to choose his new "owner".

I'm sure lots of slaves would initiate their own sale if they could. The slave of landowning is still forced to serve the owner, has no right to liberty, etc. -- and he can only choose from among the owners with open positions that others slaves have not already filled.

It is not at all unusual for apologists for landowner privilege to claim slavery is not a problem if the slave exercises some liberty in choice of owner. Having swallowed landowner privilege, slavery is not much of a stretch.

Renting is not a horrific, gruesome, inhuman experience.

For most slaves, slavery wasn't either. In fact, it was about on a par with common, everyday landlessness:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885. Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George

Every month, you pay the apartment manager, or land-and-house-owner, or whoever, the rent, and you continue living a happy, productive life, completely unharrassed and unoppressed by your landlord.

And continue paying for government twice so that he can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.

What's more, you can leave at any time with trivial ease.

Moving is not trivially easy, stop lying. And moving does you no good if you are still landless. Do you think the landless peasant farmers of India who commit suicide in despair couldn't have moved? Of course they could. They just know they'd still be landless and therefore enslaved wherever they went.

This is not the concentration camp scenario you are so desperately convinced that it is.

It isn't here, because government taxes the productive for funds to protect them against the full consequences of landowner privilege through welfare, old age pensions, public education and health care, minimum wage and union monopoly laws, laws regulating conditions of labor, tenant protection laws, etc., etc. as I have already informed you and you continue to ignore. Where property in land is in full force but government does not provide such protections, such as Bangladesh, Guatemala, the Philippines, Haiti, Pakistan, Paraguay, etc., the landless are effectively enslaved, and their condition is barely distinguishable from that of slaves.

You are an apologist for the greatest evil in the history of the world.

[redbluepill]

But they could enforce it themselves, yes? The teeming hordes of "society" are probably not going to mount an attack on one's small suburban home, especially if it's surrounded by electrified barbed wire fence, a moat, mines, and sniper towers. No reason to bother. They'll just respect your beliefs and your claim and expect you to respect theirs in return.

Society would probably leave that guy alone unless ‘his’ land includes a natural spring and there is a water shortage. In that case you can expect violent action against the landlord and I would not blame the people. As individuals we want to survive. I will bet you would not lay down and die just so some landholder can keep his spring all to himself.

But realistically, anyone who is smart would not remove themselves from the community. They can enjoy tax returns from the land values they help create (not to mention the benefits/privileges of being a citizen of the community).

Curious, why did you put society in quotes?

What about not on the individual level, but a neighborhood level?

Sure. But I strongly believe that any neighborhood that adopts ground rent and eliminates all other taxes will benefit the most economically. This would encourage other communities to do the same.

How small can a political entity be in your system? You propose to have thousands in the territory of the formerly united States. So that means political entities the size of present-day counties. Can one of these county-sized nations split itself into 20 pieces? Can one of those new pieces reorganize itself into 200 confederate but sovereign cantons? If not, why not? If so, you're getting down to 20 acre plots of sovereignty.

There is nothing anti-geoist about secession imo. There is one system proposed by libertarian economists like Fred Foldvary called geo-anarchism:

Anarchist geoism

In a libertarian or anarchist world, some people might be unaffiliated anarcho-capitalists, contracting with various firms for services. But if we look at markets today, we see instead contractual communities. We see condominiums, homeowner associations, cooperatives, and neighborhood associations. For temporary lodging, folks stay in hotels, and stores get lumped into shopping centers. Historically, human beings have preferred to live and work in communities. Competition induces efficiency, and private communities tend to be financed from the rentals of sites and facilities, since this is the most efficient source of funding. Henry George recognized that site rents are the most efficient way to finance community goods because it is a fee paid for benefits, paying back that value added by those benefits. Private communities today such as hotels and condominiums use geoist financing. Unfortunately, governments do not.
Geoist communities would join together in leagues and associations to provide services that are more efficient on a large scale, such as defense, if needed. The voting and financing would be bottom up. The local communities would elect representatives, and provide finances, and would be able to secede when they felt association was no longer in their interest.

http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html

Each of these thousands of political entities would act, of course, as a monopolistic land-owner, if they are to be anything like current-day political entities.

Geoism would and should be spread through example. Maybe a few communities start off will it. When other communities see how successful it is they will adopt the policies too.

The forces of one state would have no right to enter the boundaries of another.

Right.

They could even have border controls to keep out anyone they wished. They could make whatever rules of conduct they wished pertaining to their land. So we'd see a variety of justice systems, military systems, taxation systems, etc, in your vision for the future, yes? It kind of would defeat the purpose of having thousands of independent polities if they're just monolithically uniform, yes?

Communities could have a geoist policy but still be different on other issues. For example, one community may legalize abortion while another could have it banned. Some communities may have most of the money collected from land values returned to each citizen while other communities would put the money towards education or roads. Just because the tax systems are similar does not mean that all political policies would be the same.

Again, would you be OK with one of these thousands of political entities, just one, trying Rothbardianism? Would that be acceptable in your vision?

Some may practice that. Doesn’t mean I would necessarily agree with all the policies. Keep in mind, I agree with Rothbard 90% of the time. But most of his conclusions on land were way off. Speaking of, did you read the excerpt from Rothbard I posted? What are your thoughts?

Also, really, isn't all you are proposing is that we split up North America amongst thousands of landowners? Wouldn't a political map of N.Am. then just be a property map, showing the boundaries of the deeds and plots?

No. I believe 98% of people will still want to be a part of a community.

So then we see the differences between my Utopia and yours are not that vast.

Never said our ideas of Utopia are very far off. But our different philosophies on property and land are fairly significant. Also, I believe your 'Utopia' could have some terrible unintended consequences without proper reforms.

Difference number one is that I want to take the decentralization further, allowing the breakup of polities without limit, down even to the individual level, making all political alliances voluntary, enthroning the man as the supreme unit of society and deposing the mob from that station.

Society and community should be as voluntary as possible. And a geolibertarian community would be the most voluntary of them all. Failure to pay ground rent would not get you thrown in jail. The community would simply not recognize your privilege to exclude others from the land.

Difference number two is that I want the landowners to be those who actually have a reason to believe they are the legitimate owners, via homesteading theory and then free exchange. I know you don't believe that this reason constitutes a just claim, because nothing can constitute a just claim over natural resources in your mind, but it's at least a reason which is a whole lot more than the big fat Zip of a reason that the managers of your proposed political entities would have to claim rights over "their" land.

Where did I say that political entities have any more right to the land than individuals?

[Nathaniel1984]

Redbluepill said:

"Society and community should be as voluntary as possible. And a geolibertarian community would be the most voluntary of them all. Failure to pay ground rent would not get you thrown in jail. The community would simply not recognize your privilege to exclude others from the land."

Well, that should be the end of the practical discussion. I'm more concerned about the issues of hermits, anchorites, and other such who live way off and would like to be left alone on .1 acres of land with a hut; or small agrarian communities like Mennonites, and others.

I agree with you!

[Roy L]

I'm more concerned about the issues of hermits, anchorites, and other such who live way off and would like to be left alone on .1 acres of land with a hut; or small agrarian communities like Mennonites, and others.

A significant fraction of the population (~20%?) would live on such little or low-value land that they would not exceed the individual exemption amount, and would consequently pay no LVT, just as low-income people don't pay income tax. They would get free, secure tenure on a cheap bit of land in return for losing their liberty to use the better land.

[Nathaniel1984]

Ok. Well, that doesn't really sound as bad as what I initially thought. Things get complicated for me when I start dealing with ground rent and how you value this and that, and what is productive versus unproductive.

So, what would be the cut off point on the amount of land? or would it be rather the quality of land? I mean, would someone who inherited 30 acres of basically unusable or unfarmable moutain forest be exempt? Would someone with 1000 acres of desert (no oil on it, etc) be exempt?

I think some of the worst aspects of current property tax and land laws are ones that prevent you from even giving up the land if you can't pay for it. For example, I have basicaly 25 acres of almost unusable and unsailable mountain terrain that I'd gladly give up (except for the 5 acres my house is on), but, the town won't even allow me to just give the land to them. I'm stuck paying 10,000 dollars or more on stuff I can't use (nor can anyone else, which is why they won't buy). Heck, when we wanted to have the land excavated for possible mineral resources (and thus sell it and get a profit and be rid of it and the taxes) the neighbors and the town blocked us. One of our neighbors down the road has about 66 acres (again, moutainous partially, and with some possibly arible land on another side) that he's tried to sell, but, isn't allowed to.

It seems that a lot of property tax laws are bound to make it difficult to get rid of the stuff you don't want, so that they can continuosly bleed you. Heck, we once told the town, "What happens if we just don't pay the tax on the 20 acres we don't want? Will you just take it and leave the 5 acres we want alone?" "No," they said, "We'll seize everything and all that's on it." Thus, a darned if you do and darned if you don't.

About all we can grow is brocoli since the soil is so rocky and filled with clay.