What do you think of Land Value Tax (LVT)

[redbluepill]

And no one has presented any convincing evidence of this. Roy L. has asserted it about a billion times. But I still have utterly no reason to believe that millions upon millions of people die each year due to landownership. This repeated claim by Roy thus continues to appear ludicrous to everyone but himself, you, and Matt Butler, and perhaps Henry George Himself, looking down from the spirit world. If you are privy to proof of your claims of which the rest of us remain ignorant, perhaps you should de-ignorize us.

Murray Rothbard himself addressed the impact of land monopoly in The Ethics of Liberty.

Land monopoly is far more widespread in the modern world than most people—especially most Americans—believe. In the undeveloped world, especially in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, feudal landholding is a crucial social and economic problem—with or without quasi-serf impositions on the persons of the peasantry.

The root cause of poverty is private ownership of the natural resource essential to life – land. Private property in land has been long established. In giving all men equal rights of access to land it is not necessary to confiscate land, undo titles or nationalise land. It is simply a matter of collecting the land value rental thereby returning to the community the value created by the community. This can be achieved through Land Value Taxation.

~Michael Hawes, a School of Economic Science economist
http://www.c4ej.com/resources/the-causes-of-poverty
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/eleven.asp

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Very misleading statements here. Lots of private land was taken through force, and it remains private through force. In South America natives were forced off their land so ranchers could use it. In the US homesteading was successful because the government and private entities forced Native Americans off of the land. This is what you have defended. There is no force in my proposal.

But am I not correct in my proposal that governments, in your improved micro-secessionist world, would essentially be land-owners? You proposed that under anarcho-capitalism, each land owner is essentially a sovereign nation, and I agreed with you that that's true in a lot of ways -- actually everyone is a sovereign, whatever the nature of his possessions and whether they include land or not. Now I propose that likewise, under a system of micro-nations, the political rulers (if any) of each micro-nation are for all practical purposes the ultimate landowners of the territory which the micro-nation covers.

Since you didn't directly reply to this point, I assume you agree that it is basically correct. Governments = landowners. Your system does not really abolish landownership, it makes the political rulers the new landowners.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Governments = landowners. Your system does not really abolish landownership, it makes the political rulers the new landowners.

No, don't be silly. Different words would be used. That would make everything indisputably and self-evidently different. Duh.



That's surface tension at work. A bowl of water and pepper flakes floating on top represents real non-land-based productivity and wealth concentrations. The drop of soap represents an LVT tax regime trying to plop into the collectivized land pool, as it attempts to cash in on all the Great Gobs of Lumpy Land Revenue Fun.

 

[Inny Binny]

Well I read the first 13 pages of the thread but it's just way too long to read so I'll probably just be repeating what a thousand people have said already.

I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'. It isn't much more than a set of coordinates, and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state. The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.

Their solution to the problem is rather odd however. Why on earth is a tax necessary? It'd probably have some negative consequences too - imagine a poor squatter who is currently growing some food in a piece of land she is using. She only has enough food to use for herself, and is not making an income. How can she stay anywhere if she can't afford to be anywhere?

Declaring that all land is collectively owned and thus those that use it owe something to everyone else is rather ludicrous. In order for that to be true, everyone would need to be using every square inch of the world at once. Rather than saying that everyone owns all land, it makes much more sense to say that no-one owns any land. Then the solution is simple - the current user is the current owner, and when that person leaves, they abandon their right to use the land.

Of course, an absolute interpretation of the use equals ownership model would result in unsavoury situations, where mobs of people stand outside the most valued areas, waiting for the current occupier to leave the residence. So rather the model that I'd prefer would be tradable rights to first use. Say someone packs up his large farm to go on holiday for a year. He can't have the right to bar people from his previous residency, they must have the right to pitch tents and so on. But neither would it be fair for him to lose his entire livelihood just because he decided to go on holiday. So he should have the right to use the land first. All this would be subject to abandonment of course; if he instead interloped off somewhere for a decade, it would be hardly fair for him to close down shop of everybody who has settled in.

That's my thoughts anyway.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'. It isn't much more than a set of coordinates, and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state. The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.

Why would it be authoritarian? Some people have long-term plans and complex plans, and are not necessarily present at nor using all their property every day, but there is no authoritarianism in them retaining ownership, keeping it away from other people, as part of their master plan, perhaps not to take place until 30 years in the future, or even 1,000 years in the future. That doesn't seem authoritarian to me.

Also, "land" is not unique -- everything consists of raw material, occupies a set of coordinates, and otherwise relies on characteristics and resources of existence.

Declaring that all land is collectively owned and thus those that use it owe something to everyone else is rather ludicrous.

That is indeed one of the core points of contention which has been repeated over and over, but you put it nicely. Of course, the LVTers don't see it as ludicrous. And there's nothing that will change that -- people don't really ever change their minds.

In order for that to be true, everyone would need to be using every square inch of the world at once. Rather than saying that everyone owns all land, it makes much more sense to say that no-one owns any land. Then the solution is simple - the current user is the current owner, and when that person leaves, they abandon their right to use the land.

Of course, an absolute interpretation of the use equals ownership model would result in unsavoury situations, where mobs of people stand outside the most valued areas, waiting for the current occupier to leave the residence. So rather the model that I'd prefer would be tradable rights to first use. Say someone packs up his large farm to go on holiday for a year. He can't have the right to bar people from his previous residency, they must have the right to pitch tents and so on. But neither would it be fair for him to lose his entire livelihood just because he decided to go on holiday. So he should have the right to use the land first. All this would be subject to abandonment of course; if he instead interloped off somewhere for a decade, it would be hardly fair for him to close down shop of everybody who has settled in.

That's one possible solution, I guess, albeit to a problem that I don't see as existent.

 

[MattButler]

I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'. It isn't much more than a set of coordinates, and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state. The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.

Their solution to the problem is rather odd however. Why on earth is a tax necessary? It'd probably have some negative consequences too - imagine a poor squatter who is currently growing some food in a piece of land she is using. She only has enough food to use for herself, and is not making an income. How can she stay anywhere if she can't afford to be anywhere?

Under a proper LVT scheme there will be a great deal of land available that is essentially free. People won't desire to own it, or they'll not desire it enough to make the land worth all that much. In any case there should be plenty enough land available for people to homestead. LVT will be a god send for small farmers, especially those who want to not only profit from farming but also use farming to enhance and improve their local ecology. Country people and rural people have the most to gain from this. Where do you see the worst material poverty? Rural populations in poor states where there are a few great private landowning interests in control. Visit the Alabama Black Belt.

LVT is a socially minded scheme and will remove a great many inequities. Small farmers and rural people and especially the rural poor will benefit enormously. Virtually everyone benefits from LVT.

 

[Roy L]

Well I read the first 13 pages of the thread but it's just way too long to read so I'll probably just be repeating what a thousand people have said already.

The thread is worth reading as a typical development of its type. The invariable fallaciousness, absurdity and dishonesty of all objections to LVT is very thoroughly demonstrated.

I think Georgists have correctly identified the problem. Land is unique in that it is really difficult to say that it can be 'owned'.

Right: it is impossible to justify the uncompensated forcible removal of people's liberty to use it.

It isn't much more than a set of coordinates,

Land is everything that nature provides, other than people and the products of their labor. Location is the more abstract item you are talking about.

and to say someone can own a territory while absent is authoritarian and no different to the state.

Actually, the state usually provides benefits to go along with its administration of the land. The private landowner qua landowner, by contrast, is a pure parasite.

The only other thing I can think of that is similar would be radio spectrum - essentially a gap to be filled.

Broadcast spectrum is land in the economic sense.

Their solution to the problem is rather odd however. Why on earth is a tax necessary?

That is explained in the thread. There are several conclusive and indisputable reasons why a tax is necessary if land is to be privately owned (if it is publicly owned, market leasing works similarly):

1. It is the only way to recover the publicly created value of privately owned land for public purposes and benefit.

2. It is the only way to fund the mechanism for securing the equal liberty rights of all to use land without forcing the productive to relinquish the fruits of their labor.

3. It is the only way to make exclusive tenure not constitute a welfare subsidy giveaway to the landholder at the expense of the productive.

4. It is the most effective way to ensure efficient market allocation of the resource.

5. It is the only way to require just compensation from the landowner for depriving others of their liberty and to fund just compensation for those who are forcibly deprived of their liberty.

And there are other, less obvious reasons.

It'd probably have some negative consequences too - imagine a poor squatter who is currently growing some food in a piece of land she is using. She only has enough food to use for herself, and is not making an income. How can she stay anywhere if she can't afford to be anywhere?

All serious LVT proposals I am aware of include a flat, universal land tax exemption (or, second best, a citizens' dividend) for all resident citizens to restore the equal individual right to liberty. ALL resident citizens would be ensured FREE, SECURE tenure on enough good land of their choice to live on. This is explained in the thread.

Declaring that all land is collectively owned and thus those that use it owe something to everyone else is rather ludicrous.

It's not collectively owned. It is unowned, and unownable, so those who deprive others of their liberty to use it must make just compensation for forcibly violating their rights. Consider the water in a river. No one owns it, but if someone takes out so much that others' ability to use it is impaired, they owe just compensation.

In order for that to be true, everyone would need to be using every square inch of the world at once.

This misapprehension is cleared up in the thread. The relevant right is the natural liberty right to use ANY land one wishes, not ALL land at once.

Rather than saying that everyone owns all land, it makes much more sense to say that no-one owns any land.

Right.

Then the solution is simple - the current user is the current owner,

You are contradicting yourself. No one can ever rightly own land.

and when that person leaves, they abandon their right to use the land.

Then they aren't an owner but a usufruct tenant. One problem with this "solution" is that it sacrifices the rights of the younger and the landless to the convenience and profit of their landed elders. Those who ALREADY HAVE the good land are privileged to violate the rights of those who don't. Another very serious problem with it is that many uses of land -- like an apartment building -- involve multiple simultaneous users, and it is not clear how to handle the holding of large amounts of land by developers or development companies that don't "leave," or how to recognize tenants' rights to use the land. LVT solves those problems.

Of course, an absolute interpretation of the use equals ownership model would result in unsavoury situations, where mobs of people stand outside the most valued areas, waiting for the current occupier to leave the residence. So rather the model that I'd prefer would be tradable rights to first use.

That's a privilege, not a right; like a taxi medallion.

Say someone packs up his large farm to go on holiday for a year. He can't have the right to bar people from his previous residency, they must have the right to pitch tents and so on. But neither would it be fair for him to lose his entire livelihood just because he decided to go on holiday. So he should have the right to use the land first. All this would be subject to abandonment of course; if he instead interloped off somewhere for a decade, it would be hardly fair for him to close down shop of everybody who has settled in.

IMO if you consider the matter more carefully, you will see that LVT is a far superior solution.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Under a proper LVT scheme there will be a great deal of land available that is essentially free. People won't desire to own it, or they'll not desire it enough to make the land worth all that much. In any case there should be plenty enough land available for people to homestead. LVT will be a god send for small farmers, especially those who want to not only profit from farming but also use farming to enhance and improve their local ecology. Country people and rural people have the most to gain from this. Where do you see the worst material poverty? Rural populations in poor states where there are a few great private landowning interests in control. Visit the Alabama Black Belt.

LVT is a socially minded scheme and will remove a great many inequities. Small farmers and rural people and especially the rural poor will benefit enormously. Virtually everyone benefits from LVT.

As always, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[Roy L]

Why would it be authoritarian?

True, it's more feudal and despotic than authoritarian.

Some people have long-term plans and complex plans, and are not necessarily present at nor using all their property every day,

Question begging fallacy. We have already established that land can never rightly be their property.

but there is no authoritarianism in them retaining ownership, keeping it away from other people, as part of their master plan, perhaps not to take place until 30 years in the future, or even 1,000 years in the future. That doesn't seem authoritarian to me.

True, a more accurate word would be, "evil."

Also, "land" is not unique

Helmuth will now tell a typical lie that apologists for landowner privilege frequently tell:

-- everything consists of raw material,

That is self-evidently a flat-out lie. Products of labor indisputably DO NOT consist of raw material, by definition.

occupies a set of coordinates,

But not everything persistently deprives people of their natural liberty right to access a particular set of coordinates. Helmuth is dishonestly trying to pretend that the physical space a car occupies -- which can move around -- deprives others of their liberty in just the same way that fencing off an acre of land they want to use does. However, that is just a transparent lie.

and otherwise relies on characteristics and resources of existence.

Meaningless gibberish designed to divert attention from the relevant facts.

That is indeed one of the core points of contention which has been repeated over and over, but you put it nicely.

No, it's a mistaken characterization of what LVT proponents propose.

Of course, the LVTers don't see it as ludicrous.

More accurately, we don't say it.

And there's nothing that will change that -- people don't really ever change their minds.

More accurately, apologists for landowner privilege don't change their minds unless they somehow find a willingness to know facts that prove their beliefs are false and evil. I was unable to see the cat until I realized I was lying to prevent myself from seeing it. Other LVT proponents have told me of similar revelations, including some who have thanked me for my persistence in identifying the fact that they were lying.

 

[MattButler]

As always, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Probably does not mean insignificantly. Besides land tax is not all good. It is after all, a tax, but at least its a tax that works in the most benign kind of way. One purpose is to enhance mankind's environment. That is as benign a goal as any you will find. You must confront the issues openly and soundly. If myself and others are willing to devote so much time maybe there is a great deal of value in the thing.

 

[Roy L]

As always, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Yes, like eradicating smallpox, or abolishing slavery, or providing whole cities with clean, safe drinking water, or curing pneumonia, or communicating instantly with people anywhere in the world, or being able to access any music you like at any time for free, or storing a library worth of text on a device smaller than your finger that you can buy for 20 minutes' labor....

Yes, LVT offers benefits that sound too good to be true. But they ARE true. LVT has ALWAYS WORKED. ALWAYS. It MUST do so as a matter of economic law.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Probably does not mean insignificantly. Besides land tax is not all good. It is after all, a tax, but at least its a tax that works in the most benign kind of way. One purpose is to enhance mankind's environment. That is as benign a goal as any you will find. You must confront the issues openly and soundly. If myself and others are willing to devote so much time maybe there is a great deal of value in the thing.

Yes, but the problem with LVT (and almost any other tax) is that it is unaportioned, and will invariably be used for nefarious deeds-and will more than likely increase as the State expands. People wasting time with LVT would be better off just using reason to persuade people to donate to the treasury. If it is in fact in the rational self interest of the taxed, they will gladly do it. I say put it to the test. Give people the choice of LVT. Me, I prefer microsecession so I don't have to pay any silly taxes except tariffs.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, like eradicating smallpox, or abolishing slavery, or providing whole cities with clean, safe drinking water, or curing pneumonia, or communicating instantly with people anywhere in the world, or being able to access any music you like at any time for free, or storing a library worth of text on a device smaller than your finger that you can buy for 20 minutes' labor....

Yes, LVT offers benefits that sound too good to be true. But they ARE true. LVT has ALWAYS WORKED. ALWAYS. It MUST do so as a matter of economic law.

Yes, it works to move wealth from group A to group B. Noone is questioning that it "works" in that regard. As I stated earlier, even Rothbard conceded that it is the "least evil" tax. That, however, doesn't mean it is good or necessary.

 

[Roy L]

Yes, but the problem with LVT (and almost any other tax) is that it is unaportioned,

Unlike other taxes, LVT is apportioned exactly to the benefits of which the landholder deprives society.

and will invariably be used for nefarious deeds-

Then unlike other taxes, government will automatically get less revenue from it next year. LVT is the ONLY POSSIBLE tax that aligns government's financial incentives with the public interest.

and will more than likely increase as the State expands.

Right: as government spending on services and infrastructure creates land value, an expanding state naturally generates more revenue from land value. As the whole benefit of expanding state activities goes to landowners, the alternative to expanding LVT revenue as the state expands is to give a welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners.

People wasting time with LVT would be better off just using reason to persuade people to donate to the treasury.

No, because there is no way to use reason to persuade people to do something so irrational. The notion of funding government by donations is self-evidently cretinous. It has never been done, and never can be, and everyone over the age of 12 understands that fact.

If it is in fact in the rational self interest of the taxed, they will gladly do it.

No, they will not, any more than landowners will donate enough funds to build roads. Your claims are just absurd.

I say put it to the test. Give people the choice of LVT.

But first tell them an arbitrarily large number of lies about it....

Me, I prefer microsecession so I don't have to pay any silly taxes except tariffs.

Tariffs, unlike LVT, are certainly silly.

 

[Roy L]

Yes, it works to move wealth from group A to group B.

Right: it moves wealth from privileged, greedy parasites who have not earned it to honest, productive people who have.

Noone is questioning that it "works" in that regard. As I stated earlier, even Rothbard conceded that it is the "least evil" tax. That, however, doesn't mean it is good or necessary.

It is indisputably good. And it is absolutely necessary to liberty and justice.

 

[Steven Douglas]

It's not collectively owned. It is unowned, and unownable, so those who deprive others of their liberty to use it must make just compensation for forcibly violating their rights.

See, helmuth? Told you different words would be used, and that would make it indisputably and self-evidently different.



0:45 OK, Not-land-owner State, want to go out and charge some Not-rents? The other-than-ownership-power to charge other-than-rent for occupancy of other-than-ownable-land will be appraised at a "fair market value" by an other-than-landlord-state.

Of course, forget that the net effect would be exactly the same as if the land was said to be collectively owned, but that is only if you want to quibble with words and paradigms from some other planet. We won't call it that on our planet, because that's propertarian language that we want eradicated, as this is Dawning of the Non-propertarian Age of Aquarius.

Under a Georgist LVT regime, exclusive tenure will no longer constitute a welfare subsidy giveaway to "the exclusive landholders" (the Georgist Bourgeois), at the expense of "the productive" (the Georgist Proletariat). Not sure how the distinction is made, since exclusive landholders who are paying the highest LVT are also presumed to be "the most productive". Hence, in many cases, Bourgeois=Proletariat, which means they will not be given a welfare subsidy at their own expense(?). Even so, this decidedly and presumptively non-Marxist way will constitute an Honest Injun, We Guarantee It, Indisputable And Self-Evident Intention of not forcing "the productive" to relinquish the fruits of their labor.

But is that true?

Leaseholds will be valued such that the "presumably most productive" entities (as evidenced by rent payments alone) will be forced to return only the "publicly created value" that was magically infused into the land, as provided for by society and government. This is why it cannot be considered a relinquishing of "the fruits of their labor". This in turn will fund "the mechanism" for securing the equal liberty rights of all to use land (not sure what "the mechanism" is, or exactly how it secures equal liberty rights to use all land, but that's what Roy wrote).

The only other thing I'm not quite sure about:

Clearly, an ad valorem land value tax places land-value-dependent commerce at a disadvantage from all other commerce, as leaseholders bear all the costs of government (at least under the idealized Georgist "single tax" system). However, is it even accurate to say that land-value-dependent commerce is "bearing" those costs, given that the "productive" leaseholders, who are paying all the highest costs for their exclusive land use, would simply continue, as they always have, to pass those costs on to the end-of-line consumers, who ultimately pay all bills, including all the taxes?

It would seem that an LVT is really tantamount to a complex internal tariff on all goods and services that are highly land-use and land-value dependent (read=most of the basic needs that all humans require for basic survival, which comes from the land itself). If that really is the case, how does land, via land-dependent commerce, not remain a mere channel through which basic needs are taxed, and consumer productivity (individual wealth) is really and ultimately siphoned?

Lastly, the "Henry George Theorem" states that under certain ideal conditions, aggregate spending by government will be equal to aggregate rent based on land value (land rent).

You can see where the intent lies for LVT proponents. Here are two enormous, but roughly equal, amounts of wealth siphoned from the public. Simply divert that nice, juicy revenue stream away from the landowners, and channel it to government, and you can eliminate other taxes altogether at the expense of both destructive taxes and equally destructive "landowner privilege". Sounds simple enough.

My problems with this:

First and foremost, the Georgist paradigm identifies renters as productive, and landowners as parasites, even when they are owner-occupiers. So it's plain enough to me why government cannot be referred to as a "collective landowner", as that could be like saying "collective parasite". No, the state, in combination with "society", provides a "publicly created value", and "access to all that nature provides", once it is recognized as the right of everyone, means that a collection of land value rents is not parasitic, but merely a mechanism for recovering what was "deprived" of others "by force". And the state is not collecting for itself, but rather, ostensibly, on behalf of those who were "otherwise at liberty" but dispossessed.

With an absolute state-controlled monopoly on leaseholds, however, and no competing interests with which to compare real "market value", what would stop LVT rents from multiplying to many times what they otherwise might have been under a strictly landowner market - such that the aggregate LVT/government spending exceeds the prior aggregate of both rents and government expenditures combined? And how, PRECISELY, would you know this with any certainty? Do you trust that government is capable of fair and proper valuation of anything at all? I don't. Never will, in fact. Roy has what he believes is a formula (which I'll call the Georgist Roy Standard). But why would the state be trusted to follow that when it can't even be trusted with following and protecting something as truly simple as a gold standard (i.e., one UNIT of currency = one WEIGHT/PURITY of metal)?

Even if I accepted the Georgist liberty rights of-everything-to-everyone premise, which I do not, the extent that government overvalues and otherwise manipulates land to artificially increase its value (through special zoning, artificial scarcity, etc.,) would be the extent to which I viewed (as I do now our current government) as little more than a presumptuous, self-serving, winner choosing and wealth-redistributing parasite.

 

[Inny Binny]

Why would it be authoritarian? Some people have long-term plans and complex plans, and are not necessarily present at nor using all their property every day, but there is no authoritarianism in them retaining ownership, keeping it away from other people, as part of their master plan, perhaps not to take place until 30 years in the future, or even 1,000 years in the future. That doesn't seem authoritarian to me.

Also, "land" is not unique -- everything consists of raw material, occupies a set of coordinates, and otherwise relies on characteristics and resources of existence.

Well land, or more appropriately territory, is unique in the sense that it is the set of coordinates, not merely an object that occupies them. Of course we could be silly and talk about the dirt in the ground, but we live above ground and not within it, so we're really talking about a volume that people might occupy. It's hard to see how forcing people outside of this is not authoritarian.

Of course the most leftist of social anarchists might say that all absentee ownership is inherently authoritarian. Which is probably correct in the sense that you're using force to prevent someone from using something. But some authoritarianism in property ownership probably necessary for a functioning society; it's just that the ownership of territories is the most strikingly dictatorial of all and is unacceptable to me. Any large-scale absentee ownership of land is essentially a miniature feudalism or monarchy.

@Roy L - It's pretty hard to respond to a set of meaningless decontextualised snippets.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Ever heard of Arden, Delaware? It is a Georgist community where land is not “owned” and it cannot be sold. Instead it is leased. Whatever land you occupy you are free to improve it however you wish. Residents pay only a land value tax for that community. It’s been around since 1900 and, as far as I know, is still successful.

I don't know if I would call Arden, Delaware a success story or a model, especially given its limited size, but it can be used to give some idea about how extremely pro-LVT people think, believe and behave. Arden is 160 acres of moderately expensive leasehold land, the "full rental value" assessments of which are driven and determined, no surprise to me, largely by budget needs (which includes county taxes which are levied and paid for out of leasehold payments).

LINK - Excerpt

The Board of Assessors establishes the land rent rates for Arden leaseholds, according to the Georgist principle of “full rental value” of the land. Since Henry George himself never spelled out how to calculate “full rental value,” this is no simple task.

No simple task indeed. Arden's methods are not based on Roy's version of people "bidding" on lands which establish floor values in an otherwise free market. In fact, there are no 'bids' that control a single thing in Arden. "The Board of Assessors" report is used to determine how much money must be raised to fund the Village and the Trust, as well as pay County and School taxes. This in turn dictates "Base Land Values", which vary only by edict, using arbitrary "value capture" formulas, as also determined by the Board of Assessors.

LINK (pdf)
Excerpted from Arden Board of Assessors Report (emphasis added)

Sum of town expenses (both "non-budget" in the form of county and school taxes, and "budget" as embodied in the town's budget), and the cost of administering the trust, while maintaining a "prudent reserve". This method divides full rental value by acreage of land held privately in leaseholds, such divisions determined by assessors' formulas. The formulas, which are intended to reflect the relative value of leaseholds, are based on lot size, zoning privileges and location factors (see rates and factors below).

As I predicted, zoning privileges, which are artificially established by planners, is but one method used for value determination based on artificial scarcity which drives up value. Location factors are things like "Forest Factor", adjacency to specific areas, like preferred and non-preferred roads, proximity or adjacency to "communal green". Factors that would normally determine free market value based on individual preferences and value judgments (e.g., childless or older couple doesn't care about proximity to schools) are all made as "value" assessments, which are made up entirely by an oligarchical elite.

There is no exactness to the value capture multipliers of leaseholds, which vary by in 5% increments, and a base that equally arbitrarily adds increased value assessment to the A Rate base, like 80% for a B Rate, and 40% for a C Rate. All of these percentages are distributed shares of tax burden, the total of which is determined by the sum of the overall budget and "prudent reserve". The percentages themselves only give the impression of just 'feeling their way through', as they experiment with numbers, rather than arrive at any real-world valuations - like Roosevelt waking up each morning after his confiscation of gold to decide arbitrarily what the value of gold was going to be that day.

Arden is a very small village, with people who presumably interact with one another on a daily basis, which I would think would automatically place a natural check and balance on arbitrary abuses of power, given that everybody pretty much knows everybody by name there. That presents very limited (but certainly not impossible) ability for arbitrary political abuses on an otherwise faceless constituency. Despite this, Arden already practices what looks like totally arbitrary price-fixing absurdity to me -- something I would never want to be subjected to even that small a scale, and definitely not on the scale of an average city or county.

EDIT: For anyone who thinks that elected representatives are a check and balance on power in Arden, think again.

Trustees
The trustees collect the land rent, pay county and school
taxes, oversee administrative costs of the trust, and see
that the money remaining is spent in accordance with the
approved budget. They also invest funds and approve
the transfer of leases when houses are sold. Occasionally
they decide on requests to divide lots or adjust boundaries
(subject to zoning restrictions); give authorization to cut
trees on leaseholds; deal with encroachment issues, housing
code violations, and other matters related to the leaseholds
as designated by the Deed of Trust. Often the trustees
communicate with outside agencies affecting the welfare
of the village. When a vacancy occurs, the remaining two
trustees solicit input from the residents and nominate a new
trustee. The nominee is then approved or disapproved in a
referendum of all eligible voters. Election is for life.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Of course the most leftist of social anarchists might say that all absentee ownership is inherently authoritarian.

Actually, all ownership, absentee or not. "Property is Theft"; that's the old anarchist mantra.

I really don't see the problem with absentee ownership, in land nor anything else, but you do, so hey, what can one do? Continue to disagree I suppose.

Which is probably correct in the sense that you're using force to prevent someone from using something.

But is that force defensive or aggressive? In libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism) that is always the big question. Is the "something" their just property? If so, then force can be used to defend it. The force which the "someone" is using to try to start using the "something" would in that case be the unjust force.

Two kids are fighting over a stick. Who had it first determines who is in the right.

Force isn't always a bad thing. In a libertarian society there'd be tons of force: all around, overwhelming, and ever-present. It would just be defensive force.

@Roy L - It's pretty hard to respond to a set of meaningless decontextualised snippets.

Ha ha ha ha ha he he he!!!

 

[redbluepill]

But am I not correct in my proposal that governments, in your improved micro-secessionist world, would essentially be land-owners?

How so?

You proposed that under anarcho-capitalism, each land owner is essentially a sovereign nation, and I agreed with you that that's true in a lot of ways -- actually everyone is a sovereign, whatever the nature of his possessions and whether they include land or not.

So what difference would it make if I was a Mexican peasant in the 19th century forced to work for a wealthy landlord? Whether its government or a landlord, in the end there is no difference, I live and work under their rules.

Now I propose that likewise, under a system of micro-nations, the political rulers (if any) of each micro-nation are for all practical purposes the ultimate landowners of the territory which the micro-nation covers.

The "rulers" would be elected and have limited terms under a geolibertarian micro-nation. Same cannot be said about a landlord who rules a chunk of land til the day he dies and passes it on to an heir.

Since you didn't directly reply to this point, I assume you agree that it is basically correct. Governments = landowners. Your system does not really abolish landownership, it makes the political rulers the new landowners.

Under geolibertarianism, governments do not decide what the tax will be, the market does. The government does not dictate who, when or how its used.

In The Condition of Labor Henry George stated, "We propose--leaving land in the private possession of individuals, with full liberty on their part to give, sell or bequeath it--simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on it."

^Can't be much of an "owner" if you cant do any of those things.

You say landowning is a right. If that is the case then there is logically no right to life. In order to live we must have a right to access resources (food, water, shelter, etc). If we must ask permission for such things then there are no rights. There are only the "rights" of the landowners.