So I’ve been examining this political movement of “geolibertarianism.” So far, I’ve failed to find that much on it here on the Mises website, so I was wondering if anyone could offer their personal explanations and views on this seemingly odd philosophy.
If you look up ‘geolibertarianism’, ‘Georgism’, ‘single tax’ and/or ‘land value tax’, there’s a lot of information about it on the site.
By and large geolibertarianism (and Henry George) has very strong correlations with Austrian economic foundations, save the bizarre tenet about the nature of property.
Leland Yeager wrote a very insightful essay about the parallels of George’s economic thoughts and those of the Austrian school in his book ‘Is The Market A Test of Truth and Beauty?’ which can be downloaded for free.
The whole idea of Georgism about nature belonging to all of humanity seems like it creates quite a paradox.
This view on land property started with Locke and Rousseau, Locke saying that land can be property, Rousseau disagreeing. Rousseauan thought continued to Proudhon, and that view on land property is found in Georgism/ Geolibertarianism.
What kind of paradox, if you would be so kind to elaborate? If anything here is paradoxal is how can one support both the labor theory of property and the notion that land can be property.
Selfownership is an axiom a part of which says we own our actions, and we own our labor. From that follows that what we create or, in Locke’s words, what we mix our labor with to remove it from the state of nature- is our property which we can consume, sell or whatever. So the product of our labor is our property.
Homesteading principle is a Lockean addition to that definition of property which says that because exclusive use of land was necessary for acquiring property (eg. growing crops or whatever) it too becomes property. This dialectical jump, or leap of faith, or non sequitur, no matter how we call it, is given a justification of “it is necessary”. This justification fails when we have Proudhonian explanation in mind- that land needs not be considered property, ius in re, in order for someone to have exclusive use of it, but it is enough for it to be a “possession”, ius ad rem, meaning that homesteading principle is not justified as an addition to the definition of property we have, that follows from the selfownership axiom, that products of labor are propetry.
Being that land is not a product of labor, and that therefore- one cannot have property over it, one can only use or abandon it. That use of land, in order to be exclusive, people agree to be ius ad rem, meaning “a right to a thing” in Latin, that is- “a right exercisable by one person over a particular article in virtue of a contract or obligation incurred by another person in respect to it and which is enforceable only against or through such other person. It is thus distinguished from jus in re which is a complete and absolute dominion over a thing available against all persons”.
Being that land is unowned, everybody has the right to go there, by the virtue of his right to freedom (of movement). And being that one, by his use of the land, has impaired others in their right to freedom, he owes them some sort of recompensation, called “land value tax”.
As the quote of Thomas Paine (which is on the wikipedia article about geolibertarianism, which you probably read) says: “Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.”
Everything on Earth came from land. Everyone owns everything. That is, until they don’t. It never ends at a principle. It’s just a ‘yeah, but’ philosophy.
Not even close.
Taxes don’t go “to everyone”. They go to a central planner, which inevitably will be a state. The state then assumes de facto ownership of all land. All land necessary for commerce and “improvement” thus slavery. “Yeah, but” and so forth. No, it’s veiled communism.
“Upside down hierarchical” state, also known as direct democratic society (or anarchist [stateless, classless] society) would make taxes belong to everyone.
Go troll somewhere else.
What if you don’t consent to the tax?
(A limitless tax advocate on an anarcho-capitalist dominated board and I’m the troll…)
What if you come into my store and take stuff and don’t consent to paying? And (as I said my first post on this topic) being that land value tax is legitimate and you owe it to the community you live in, not paying it is the same as not paying stuff you took from my store.
Yeah, communism.
Communism
noun
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
Who’s the troll?
And I sure as hell hope you aren’t the same foaming mod from the prisonplanet forums…
- Being that land is unowned, everybody has the right to go there, by the virtue of his right to freedom (of movement). And being that one, by his use of the land, has impaired others in their right to freedom, he owes them some sort of recompensation, called “land value tax”.
- As the quote of Thomas Paine (which is on the wikipedia article about geolibertarianism, which you probably read) says: “Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.”
This has always seemed like a big non-sequiter to me. Man does not have a right to go somewhere due to his “freedom of movement”, but rather because going to unowned, unoccupied, and therefore unproductive land does not inhibit the rights and property of others. While occupying land that is not being used diminishes the overall stock of vacant space, it doesn’t remove anyone’s freedoms or property as, by definition, nobody was using it or producing things from it.*
By the same logic you should also have a universal sales tax, consumption tax, “dating” tax, service-tax, etc. imposed on those who use up the available “resources” of society because it “diminishes the freedom” of others to have the oppurtunity to take part in the goods, services, and individuals.
- Please note that hunting grounds or native habitat of species hunted could be defined as being used “productively” and therefore under the scope of some sort of property rights. However, in that case it is not Humanity at large that holds those rights, but the individuals who had harvested the game.
Skeptical Metal: The whole idea of Georgism about nature belonging to all of humanity seems like it creates quite a paradox.
Papirius: What kind of paradox, if you would be so kind to elaborate?
The paradox is that, on the one hand, you say that an individual cannot own land because he did not produce it, and, on the other hand, you say that the community owns the land, though the community did not produce it either. My question is: how did the commuity become the owner of the land?
Doesn’t enhibit what rights? Like I said- right to freedom, which in itself includes freedom of movement. I don’t see what’s non sequitur. You diminish other people’s right, you recompesate them, and done deal.
Land value tax is about your using of land diminishes the freedom of others because it is unowned. Not so with goods, services or individuals. I don’t have the right to goods services or individuals, whereas, land being unowned (it cannot be owned) is under my right to freedom (of movement).
I didn’t say it did.
Me: My question is: how did the commuity become the owner of the land?
Papirius: I didn’t say it did.
If the community does not own the land, why does one owe taxes to the community for using the land?
Papirius: land value tax is legitimate and you owe it to the community you live in, not paying it is the same as not paying stuff you took from my store.
The analogy you make here indicates that you believe that the community owns the land; i.e. the reason I must pay for stuff I take from your store is that you own the stuff, and so the reason that I must pay the community for use of land is…that the community owns the land. If this is not what you meant, then I don’t see the logic of your analogy.
If I’m not mistaken, the principle of Georgism is that the land belongs to everyone, however anything created by an individual belongs to that individual. But let’s say I build a house…what’s to say that a random guy would say that he doesn’t want me building that house because it’s his land as well as mine?
That’s the paradox that I speak of. Call me a noob or whatever, but I still don’t understand how it could ever be compatible.
EDIT: And by the way, why should I owe the community anything if I already own the land? The community is not the Earth.
Because everyone who has the right to liberty, has an equal right to go trough or use unowned land. Being that no land can be own, everyone has the right to go trough or use all land (in a community that recognizes the labor theory of property and thus, that land cannot be owned) and because you, by using land, impair the right to freedom of people around you who could use it (to plow, live or just go trough) you owe those people around you some sort of recompensation for impairing their right to freedom.
The analogy was not directly about ownership but about what should be done is someone doesn’t want to pay that which he ought to pay. Just like forcing you to pay me a recompensation you owe me, likewise, it is legitimate for the community to force you to pay recompensation you owe it.
I don’t know of anyone who has such theories.
- Because everyone who has the right to liberty, has an equal right to go trough or use unowned land.
You’ve got it backwards. You do not have the “right” to go through unowned land, rather, it is other individuals who do NOT have the right to use force to stop you. When someone else begins to use an unused area of land for some other purpose, it then becomes YOU who does not have the right to interrupt them or their plans.
Going back to my sales/consumption/dating tax, your response doesn’t jive with your logical justification for the land tax. You are justifying the land tax by implying that people’s positive liberties are being infringed by other people taking up available resources that they are free to use. However, again using the same justification, you imply that by consuming goods or removing them from the market via purchase, a purchaser is reducing the available options for individuals, and thus decreasing thier capacity for positive liberties. The fact that in one case land is unowned, and in the other, the goods are owned by individuals is irrelevent to your justification.