Does that include sovereignty of the individual?
I’d guess that he rejects the idea of national/collective sovereignty; I can’t imagine that he’d mean anything else.
I think the concept of “sovereignty of the individual” is essentially a rejection of the normal notion of sovereignty, which captures the idea of a right to power over a person. If no one has the right to power over others, then sure, I suppose everyone has the right to power over themselves. But I don’t see how that really captures anything new. I’d rather just say that I reject sovereignty. If that terminology bothers you, then replace it with whatever makes you happy.
You make too many assumptions here.
First, that landowners will be economically worse off - in Australia, for example, several land owners, after a LVT, became wealthier as they opened up businesses to pay for the tax i.e. idle land (with a potential for output) turns into productive land (actual putput). A person who uses the land effectively and efficiently has nothing to fear from a LVT. So it might force idle farm land to be put into use, increasing output, and therefore the profits of the landowner who owns it through ACTUAL production, not rents. Output can also lower prices and raise competition levels as well. Indeed, there could be room for a compromise i.e. a part of rents -60%- fund very basic services (e.g. roads) while the landowner has the rest (at least in the short run). In reality, not many people will sell their land and the added value component of the land could be increased - money once used to buy more land could go to improvements on the land that is owned.
Second, you assume a LVT would be introduced overnight rather than over a period of 10 years - balance sheets could adjust over this time.
Third, you forget that all other taxes are abolished - so income taxes, consumption taxes etc are gone i.e. purchasing power would go up as would demand for goods and services.
There are other problems with your statement, but that will do for now.
I’ll state for the record that I agree in spirit of the OP’s words in as much as the libertarian message has been progressively watered down over time if you consider how the NLP started and even what folks like Rand, Rothbard, and etc had wrote about in the past. Today, Libertarianism means the freedom to toke, but not the freedom to be left alone (unregulated). Today, Libertarianism is more of a buzzword for “ultra-conservative” rather than classical liberal, or market anarchist. And that shift in definition is troubling as it is an implied acceptance of the State as a viable means of socializing and getting things done. As such, I do agree that so-called reformers in the long term are not helpful. But I do believe that reformers in some aspects can be used to our advantage, though, as fodder in a ‘war’ within the State. As a means of slowing the machine down. Just as counter-economics bleeds the State dry, political finangling can make the State choke on its own vitriol.