As noted above, there could be a model where a Georgist system, under voluntary social contract, would have the effects I desire. While I do agree with you on most issues, I am not THAT cynical that we need to ABSOLUTELY abolish government. Thus, I fall into the “moderate” school of Austrians - I thought it was unfair when you accuse me of not understanding the Austrian school - I realise there are variations of Austrian school (from Von Mises to Krizner) - my analysis of government is the same as yours, my conclusions are different. Government ought to be severly reduced, in my opinion, not eliminated. The reason why you have so much hatred for government, perhaps, is cultural (i.e. where we live) and teleogical: I believe any shift to this “new world order” would simply, in the words of Foucault, be “from covert supression to overt supression” - private gangs and the like. I mean if I wanted private defence forces I would of moved to Carlton. Although there is no point debating philosophy of history here. My other criticism is what game plan do we have to convince people that our way will work better.
So, I think we should severly minimise it i.e. what Hayek adovcated in The Constitution of Liberty where he said Georgist policies present “a very strong argument”. As noted above regarding how labour gives windfall gains to rent, it seems to even contradict anarcho-capitalist tenets of private ownership and original appropriation: “particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in Locke’s phrase, ‘mixing one’s labor’ with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary – contractual – transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner”. (Hans Hoppe, AnarchoCapitalist Ethics).
The legal system in anarcho-capitalism does not necessarily violate certain arguments of mine: Murray Rothbard, while also supporting a natural prohibition on force and fraud, supports the establishment of a mutually agreed-upon centralized libertarian legal code which private courts would pledge to follow.
ps Both Von Mises and Hayek were constitutional monarchists - i.e. there is a monarch as head of state and by implication a state - the monarchy is certainly not something I support, personally.
pps Thanks for the reading list. Will read over the holidays. Reading Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State (although I did notice, ironically, that he concedes that idle supramarginal land that is put to productive use would increase output!).
Liberty student, I am not amused - firstly, David Friedman used utilitarian grounds to advance the anarcho-capitalist doctrine. Secondly, you accuse me of not knowing Austrian economics - when, in fact, it is you who is confusing Austrian economics with anarcho-capitalism - you fail to appreciate the shade or subtle variation within the movement itself. Although most Austrians have the same premise, it does not mean they come to the same conclusions - hence I pointed at Yeager and Krizner as examples of theorists who have a different definition of liberty, as say, an anarcho-capitalist would.
Georgism is not socialism, its classical liberalism (by your definition, therefore, JS Mill was also a socialist) - as I explained there is a free market case for it i.e. the quid pro rule. Due to my co-operation and labour your rents rise, I did the work. I am entitled to the fruits of MY labor. I recommend you read John Stuart Mill and his Mills tax: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/fillebrown_mill.html
And, even if, it is a tax, lol, it has been shown to make the market more efficient simply due to the fact it is not a tax but a claim on your rent - it (i.e. the unearned increment) doesn’t have to go into the hands of government, hell, it can go back to citizens in the form of a citizens dividend, by some private institution e.g. private courts under a centralised libertarian constitution which private courts are bound by (NB: Rothbard suggested the centralised constitution).
As such, if I were to describe myself, I am probably a geolibertarian or a classical liberal in the Mills-ian sense.
See above discussion of the quid pro rule: you have my co-operation in creating an increase in rents and land values (I recommend you read John Stuart Mill: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/fillebrown_mill.html). Thus you are right it is theft, except you are pointing in the wrong direction - the labour and capital markets get distorted by the land market. Consider this again. In L (labour) and K (capital good) markets, participating individuals are engaged in the value creating process. But individuals as owners of land in the R (rent) market are anomalies. The rents they claim are a pure transfer of income. There is no exchange by the individual landowner – there is no quid pro quo, no exchange of like for like value. In other words, the price of “rent” is a “surplus” - Y = rent + wages + interest. Y + R = W + I. Thus, wages and interests (including profits) are preserved. In business, and capital and labour markets, the quid pro quo rule still applies even when you speculate – while your intention may be to speculate, you still provide funds for an action to take place i.e. to create output - people starve, labor disappears, increase interest, you starve capital - landowners who on holiday, land remains). Thus, Hayek’s ideal that “each of us would be rewarded for all the benefits that we create; and we would accept personal responsibility for the cost of the damage we inflict on others” is undermined by the land market and Riccardo’s law of rent. Thus I argue: "All people deserve private property rights: land use and the property upon it, labour and capital. However, people who own property rights to labour and capital have a shared stake in rents, which by their co-operation, they help create as a group of individuals. Thus, Mills unearned increment - which if not “extracted” denies us the “fruits of our labour” - one of the core concepts of libertarian ideology.
But for a quick answer to 1) no - we already have LVT - farmers in some states here in Australia pay NO income tax and only a few dollars (often $10 in the year) as a way to dealing with the drought. So it is not an issue at least here. And also no (depending on the state) - LVT can be paid during a bank mortgage - so its between the individual and the bank or pay as you go - pensioners do not pay it.
It would not and could not - citizen initated referenda would be one, constitutional peg, the fact that its simply the full uncremental value. Also, notice your language - you say property- but its on the non-added value of the land - so not the land or the property - but Mills unearned increment. Here in Australia we have private assessors (depending on the state).
Yes, Mathew - there co-operation via the quid pro rule means they have some stake in the value they create (i.e. all people are entitled to the fruits of their labour).
No, I based my argument on factual observations in several different countries (i.e. the worlds cleanest, more stable and liveable places have LVT) and the fact, as John Stuart Mill points out, the unearned increment does not have to be given back to the big, evil, mean state per se - but can be given back to the people (cvia itizens dividend) or as Albert Jay Nocks (yes, the libertarian whos works are on here at mises.org) suggests private courts so people choose how they use it in a social contract. I am sure that may be relieved some of you. This place requires a little bit more imagination to find out, given certain amendments, georgist doctrine and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive (and if they are then it would seem labour property is in conflict with land property i.e.all fruits of ones labour at conflict with private property in land - which is NOT the case - Mills, as noted above, has the solution, and in fact advances private land ownership, as also noted a few posts ago).
I am happy to argue with all of you, if of course, you can prove logically and empirically the following:
Before the community arrived there was no intrinsic value in land or resources and that to have rent you need at least two people.
The advent of communities created demand and competition for sites which then gave them value.
Since it is the presence of the community itself which created the value, then this value must by right belong to the community and not to an individual or group or even the state which throws up a fence around it.
This community created value therefore would seem to be the logical and and the community therefore has not merely a right but a duty, through its elected representatives or social contract to reclaim this community created wealth which entitles all people to the fruits of their labour (and also causing homeownership or and employments levels to rise).
ps remember: geolibertarians draw a distinction between land ownership and land tenure.
You’re a troll, aren’t you? Because that has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Positivism is a dogma, an extreme form of empiricism that is so idiotic it is self-refuting - hence it is nonsense. Wittgenstein was NOT a positivist. He denied being one and was critical of them. And as for the Austrians, they prefer logic? Uh, what? Logic is a tool, not a methodology.
I hope you’re not quoting from a book which does not exist. At any rate, that contradicts nothing. It refers to how already appropriated goods might transfer ownership. That says nothing of the original appropriation of the goods in question.
BTW all income derives from subjective valuations and thus is, in a way, “unearned”. And scarcity, likewise, is out of one’s hands. One derives greater value from larger markets due to the division of labour. Should they be taxed for this “unearned” income too? Why stop at land?
Yes, logic is the methology.tool they prefer (logic is the way to coming to the conclusion) - i.e. induction over deduction.
As for the postivist statement it simply means we can only derive actual meaning from propositions we see (hence, debates over “god” are not wrong - they are meaningless). Best to pass them over in silence, where the sweet truths, according to Wittgenstein, reside. Hence Wittgenstein’s Tractus was an extension of Russel’s logical postivism: “whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent”.
Thus, I suggest, respectfully, Jon Irencius, given we do not know what an anarchocapitalist society looks like, you must remain silent - but I still hear what you are saying.
No, you should give Geoffrey Plauche’s article in the reading list on Aristotelianism and the Austrian method a read. As for that work of Wittgenstein’s, he largely repudiated it later on. I’m not sure if it is even a positivist work, and I strongly doubt it, as that quote can be interpreted in any number of ways; it’s just commonsense. The positivists originally thought he was one of them, but he never was.
But if you do like Wittgenstein so much, you ought to give Roderick Long’s works on Wittgenstein, Mises and Aristotle a read… again they’re available online, on the reading list.
It shows contradictory elements between labour value and land values, captured by rents. The fact is you cannot refute Mills concept of unearned increment so instead you try to say government is evil, without addressing the issue at hand i.e. how rents deprive people the full fruits or “value” of their labour.
ps the book is on amazon- admitely, there is a sample chapter of the author in it.
No, later he started talking about language games - my point is a good argument has some basis in reality. And I agree with you that Wittgenstein was not a positivist publicly, but he did indeed influence the postivists (read Wittgenstein’s Poker - good book).
And yes to the method point - tool / method - whatever - look for purpose not meaning - the point is the same - they employ logic over observation.
To the last question, because they are the value of their labour - they have the fruits of their labour retained for themselves. And, of course, when I use unearned I mean increase in value that violates the quid pro quo rule - the example you give still satisfies that rule.
Do ‘georgist’ societies exist ? If not, maybe you should remain…
The fact is you don’t understand why government doesn’t work AND also is evil. Like marxists and other crank economists you want to justify your political nonsense using flawed economics. Boring.
The discussion has veered off course. Steven, perhaps you can read some of the ancap materials mentioned by Jon and others, and then start a new thread with any questions you may have. At this point, we’re all just talking past each other, and as much as you would like it to be, Georgism is not compatible with Austrian Economics.
Georgism and Austrianism are both strong theories. It is George’s theory of Land, Labor and Capital that is the strong part, not his proposed remedy. The remedy is flawed because the method implies coercion. So the real question is how could the remedy Georgism implies be achieved without any violation of property rights.
It is much like the old argument between relativity and quantum mechanics. Two seemingly mutually exclusive theories. Simply ignoring one because it doesn’t agree with your understanding of facts from the perspective of the other is flippant and ignorant and will prevent the “scientist” from discovering any higher order theory.