I’m going to be debating an anarcho-communist on the subject of property in land (Georgism) and the “right to basic necessities”.
Can someone point me to some writings on Georgism, and some libertarian refutations? I know Rothbard talks about it in several books…
Rothbard talked about the least technological unit for homesteading purposes. In this manner, individuals or oganizations would make property their own when there was some unclaimed property (aka much public property) by putting the labor into it that required it to be used in that fashion. This applies to famland, and can be argued by efficiency of capital used to make that land productive, that such size would constitute the least tech. unit, or LTU. Consider a railroad track. It may require more room than the actual track, depending upon the effects it has on the next property. One could also apply rights to airspace, and underground. Under homesteading in Rothbard’s terms, you could own the oil under your neighbor’s land, if they were not already drilling it. (One of the sources of the Persian Gulf War) I believe his theory actually came about as thinking about homesteading for radio spectrum usage. In this case, a station couldn’t broadcast on all frequencies, because the technology was available to use narrow spectrums and have multiple channels. And where there was dead air, one could use the frequencies. but it interfered with an existing area.
georgism seems to be personified by nigeria, where a ‘~few privileged people owned all the land, so the rest had to be slaves basically’. ancap doesn’t allow this. the LTU homesteading idea doesn’t allow it. if it exists, it would exist as crime. use of violence is a crime. so any land-owner syndicate or rent seekers would not be allowed to use violence in the case that someone attempted to homestead what they SAID was their property, and what property actually had labor applied to acheive some purpose, and it was on no greater claim to land than the LTU.
If the rent seekers chose to initiate violence to “protect their land,” they would be attempting to establish their own laws. But as seeing that if property were apportioned by the first to establish an LTU’s worth of productivity to the land, we assume the more productive areas of society acknowledge such homesteading principles, and are protected by some law, by which insurance, defense, and investigation agencies provide service for.
Now clearly nigeria is much further from a complete eradication of violence initiated to exploit the natural resources and impoverished people. it’s not simply a debate. there needs to be a long chain of actions, very long if it were to be completely peaceful, that works to undo the existing slave-master conditions, imposed not by a free market, but by threat of violence.
i wouldn’t expect any protection agencies to come about capable of doing this anytime soon, and the impoverished people don’t have any money to pay them. as technology gets better, artificial diamonds, and alternative energies may render some of the resources less valuable, and they will be forced to build an industrial and informational exchange economy, which cannot survive under slave conditions. this plants the seed for an ancap society.
Just question the premises of his arguments and see what proof he provides. Frank Fetter is another individual who has mounted a challenge to Georgism by the way. Meambobbo’s response captures the essentials of the Austrian view on appropriation.
-Jon
…georgism has problems. it relies on some collectivist structure to determine land values, thus being able to charge land rents. If the values are purely based upon acreage, you’ll have problems, as land has different qualities…and for different purposes. in the end, you still have the same problem of government - it is a monopoly. either this monopoly will be corrupted and enrich itself by defying its stated goals, or it will be mismanaged, inefficient, and perhaps unworkable. Either it will have some representative, centralized planning board, or it will have a pure democracy. In the case of determining and collecting land taxes - how would this be any different from the stated original problem? Rather than have renters pay owners, you have owners paying renters. It is simply redistribution, via force, and via the uncertainty of collectivism - what is “public interest”? As such, it will result in not only wasted resources, but a perversion of its original intention.
I have to admit that I do like the concept in principle. It really does encourage landowners to attempt to put their land to its most productive use. Homesteading seems more practical though, and definitely more productive in usage of resources. More important than the system are the agencies that will agree to laws avowing to protect such homesteading. As I said before, agencies would be most profitable in properly enforcing laws that provide a balance of property security with abandonment/homesteading. This may vary depending upon the type of land, and the population, etc.
Furthermore, what constitutes “land” - are we talking about raw materials, diamonds, and gold? or are we talking about the Earth’s surface? How can a theory hold up when these resources can be consumed and transformed, like oil? One of the better points about Rothbard and others’ concept of homesteading was that it didn’t apply to land as a 2-D area. Someone may build a railroad, but that didn’t mean a competing railroad couldn’t make a bridge or tunnel to get to the other side. In the end, land schemes to promote exclusion over greater access to trade are likely unprofitable, except in rare situations. In these situations, market powers may overrule “absolutist” moral codes about rights, etc and simply force a more civilized approach to using private property. Of course, this would hopefully be a last resort.
And the problem with anarcho-communism is that you won’t get one big commune; you’ll get competing communes. You can take that implication all the way to the individual level. Really, cooperation at one’s expense for the benefit of some group usually works best when there are emotional ties between the group. For example, we are more concerned about sharing property and wealth at the family level, than the neighborhood, although the further geographically, personally, and in productive capacity two people are away from each other, the less likely they’ll want to be part of the same commune. In this token, there can be no public ownership of means of production, only one commune vs. another. And what if there is overlap? You end up with a complex exchange economy, with corporate ownership of capital goods. Communism seems to want to restrict such ownership “equal” in amount for each owner. Then you have to make decisions by democracy or through central planners. Then you either have inefficiency or the principle-agent problem.
The dollar, or value, vote works better. It is based upon contribution per member, not equality. Contribution is ultimately what determines productivity, which will result in the most resourceful allocation of resources, as each man risks his own resources to the extent of his possible gain. But in a free market (no taxes - no interference - no crime), his gain should theoretically be mutual with his trading partners. Thus, every individual is rewarded on his ability to deliver what others want efficiently and quickly.
When debating an anarcho-communist, hit him up with some economic calculation debate. Without private ownership of the means of production and without profit, there would be very little motivation and information to allocate resources efficiently. For example, high demand for oil has driven prices up, increasing profits. This, in turn, is an “invitation” for companies to compete who can expand the supply the most and it is also an “invitation” for new businesses to form and drive the supply up (causing prices to drop). Of course, government regulation and taxation of the oil industry prevents that, but that’s a different problem.
You also have to mention how the anarcho-communist dream of abolishing money is impractical and outright dangerous. Currency is the sole way a group of individuals can economically calculate what is best for society, unknowingly. If we abolish money, we’ll be reduced to barter, which will lead to complete disaster as there no longer will be a greater incentive to go through years of medical or doctoral school to become an expert in something since you’ll end up making the same as, say, a miner or logger. Such a policy would lead to large shortages and a huge intellectual brain drain.
There’s also the problem that during the time that no one desires medical services, and say during the time which there is nothing you’re willing to sell them for, that no trades can take place. Money arises to resolve this problem. As a side-effect, it also makes calculation much easier.
-Jon