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.