Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Geolibertarianism/ Geoanarchism and health care
Having listened to folks like Ziggy and Gard discuss and consider geolibertarianism, I've been considering the health care debate in the US. Here's two forms of alternative health-care models, therefore, that I could get behind:
1) The Geo-anarchist model - Now, I would still hold that whatever a person creates and generates for themselves, in terms of income and property, should still be their own. They alone should decide what to do with such; how much they should donate to charity etc. However, I would have to concede that 'land' is not in keeping with this model. Land is not something which anyone can lay claim to, in my view - the amount of wars we see over territory, the rows over immigration etc. show just how problematic perceived land ownership can be. I suggest, therefore, that land could be used to generate an income for a society as a whole; land dwellers, home owners etc. paying a rent to a not-for-profit administrator (including representation from 'tenants', private charities etc.), to be used to pay basic socialised health care costs.
For more details on the basics of this model (I would contest the need for using the term 'tax' of course) see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
2) Not for profit health care systems - This would be similar to national health care systems, only without government or insurance companies being involved. The model may be based on the organisation I currently have health care from:
Of course, I'm only sketching out the basics here.
Any thoughts?
__________________
Land is not something which anyone can lay claim to,
Nobody can lay claim to any natural resource as nobody created it
Geolibertarians don't just believe its land no one person exclusively owns, but oil, water, wood & etc.
Agreed, Ziggy. The principle makes perfect ethical sense to me.
I have to confess that I know next to nothing about Geolibertarianism so it's possible that I have completely misunderstood the basis of your idea, but the scenario you sketch out terrifies me. An administrator that owns all land and is capable of setting and collecting "rent" from people (presumably with the threat of violence to deal with people who refuse or cannot pay?). It is not possible to live in such a society without the approval of and participation in whatever monetary system is imposed by the administrator. As far as socializing health care goes, I love the idea of a purely for-profit health care industry. Any other arrangement requires central planning, and strips the incentive for improvement and cost reduction from the system.
Regarding the ownership of land, I'm sure this has been debated thousands of times with stronger arguments than mine, but even so I have to say that I don't see land as being fundamentally different from any other resource. If I take a resource and make something out of it, I believe I own the thing I made. For example, I can make a chair out of wood, and I think I own the chair. Similarly, I can take empty land and make a home or farm out of it, which I believe I should own. Having a central administrator with the power to take my home or arbitrarily charge me money for the privilege of living there strips me of my humanity. Granting an administrator the power to remove me from my home grants the administrator power over almost all other aspects of life as a consequence. What if I use it for something that the administrator doesn't think is as worthy as someone else's use? Or if somebody else offers the administrator a greater sum of rent for my home? Maybe the population grows and thus in order to be fair, my farm has to be seized and subdivided to make houses for the new population. Since I don't own it, there's no need to compensate me and I have no say in the matter. Following that line of reasoning, nobody but the administration owns anything.
I can take empty land and make a home or farm out of it
Your entitled to the fruits of your labor but no which man did not create as in the land
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
That's an interesting site, Zig. Thanks for sharing it.
Number, thanks for the critique. I accept your challenges to the geo-lib/ geo-anarchist model(s) as extremely valid and well thought out. Let me dwell a little on it all, as I'm currently reading widely and thinking freely on the whole subject. I'll come back to you as soon as I can.
Cheers, all. I'm keen to hear other thoughts on this, by the way - pro/ against/ whatever :)
I thought I might give a little more context on my perspective about the land ownership issue: I'm a small scale organic grower. The soil I use is, in every respect, a product of my labor. In my little corner of the world we have terrible clay soil that is nearly devoid of organic matter and soil life (both of which are extremely important for the health and disease resistance of the plants I grow). It takes literally years of effort and investment to transform the native soil here into the nutrient dense soil teeming with soil organisms that plants need to be productive and healthy. The difference between tended soil and raw soil is very much like the difference between a nice piece of furniture and the trees from which it was made. The land is literally a raw material that is transformed by labor into something of actual value (quality soil).
From that perspective, the difference between building a home and working the land like I describe above seems more like a difference of degree rather than a difference of kind, which is why I would argue that the act of living on a piece of land mixes your labor with the land so that it is impossible to separate the two, and therefore it should be privately ownable.
Collective ownership of land seems like it would imply the collectivization of agriculture, housing, and roads at the very least (each of them requires permanent placement on land, hence demanding permanent collective approval). Would you agree with that analysis?
Hi, folks. I'm the owner of the geolibertrian website (geolib.com) and author of the essay, "Are You a Real Libertarian or a Royal Libertarian?" This reply is long, but it is difficult to introduce a long-lost libertarian concept briefly without engendering stereotypical reactions.
I would like to quickly note that, under the geolibertarian system, people would indeed get to hold land under their private, personal control and, if it is not a great deal of land and is not exceptionally valuable land, hold it with no obligations whatsoever. Thus the person above would indeed get to keep his organic garden without obligation to others.
It is important to distinguish absolute ownership from other forms of secure tenure, because there are many choices other than individual ownership and collective ownership. I get into this more thouroughly in the essay, "Common Rights vs. Collective Rights," which goes into how socialism has confounded the idea of common rights with that of collective rights. Common rights are individual rights that are common to all individuals, and the right of access to land is an individual, common right. It is also an equal right, and sharing rent allows some to hold better, or larger, parcels without violating the principle of equal individual rights. This is not a new idea, but an ancient one that has been revived over and over again by Locke, by the French (laissez faire) Physiocrats, by Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine and many others, right up through many current icons of libertarianism. But the best place to start is with ancient, relatively libertarian, societies.
In all pre-empire societies, whether semitic nomatic, Saxon common law, native American, ancient Chinese, etc., people could take up land and use it. Their tenure, based on use, was recognized and respected for as long as the use continued. The only common-law society I know of that had absolute property in land was the Vikings, but their economy was based on plundering other societies, and does not come under my definition of "pre-empire" in the libertarian sense.
Saxon common law is a good example, and American Indian custom is a more recent, and therefore more easily analyzed, example.
Saxon common law is pretty much what John Locke postulated. Anyone was free to take up land and hold it out of the commons, but only for as long as he was using it, for to hold land out of use was to be "a spoiler of the commons," and he had no reciprocal obligations to his community "so long as there was enough, and as good, left to others." Jumping briefly into economics, I will note that land has no rental value (and hence no selling price) if there is enough and as good that can be had for free. Getting back to Saxon tenure, we see that those who held better parcels were expected, first through custom (which is more libertarian) and then through law, to reciprocate for thier advantages. That is, those with the best land had the greatest obligations.
Saxon societies were "pre-monetary," so they met these obligations through physical labor. That is, those who held the best lands worked to maintain roads, helped feed militias during battle (or training), etc. This worked very well as both custom and law, before a governmental hierarchy arose and the demands of that hierarchy became too exacting. Nobody took more land than they were using, and the reciprocal obligations for having the best land maintained at least a crude equality of opportunity between the best and the worst. The word "tax" originates as a term of physical exertion, and we still refer to strenuous work as being "taxing," without regard to governmental exactions.
Locke notes toward the end of his section on property that the moral allocation of land and rational self-interest were compatible until the introduction of money. He did not elaborate, but the use of money made it convenient and profitable for people to continue holding land, not because they were using it, but because others would pay them to let go of it, or even better (for them), other people would pay them rent in perpetuity. Indeed, the introduction of money heralded the conversion from common-law societies to feudal societies. "Feu" is the Old English spelling of "fee," and landholders could pay a fee, based on land value, instead of (or in addition to) doing work for the community, the society, or, increasingly, the government that claimed to serve as agents of the community or society.
The early feudal goverments consisted of "lords," meaning "great people," who were chosen by acclimation for their wisdom, much as native American tribes had what we called "chiefs." (Incidentally, "nobles" were originally "notable" people, and "aristocracy" meant "government by the best.") Those who were consulted in time of war were called "war lords," and those who were consulted to resolve land-tenure disputes were called "land lords." The money they collected was called "rent," meaning "that which is torn away." (Yes, the "rent" meant what we mean by "rip-off.") "Landlords" did not own the land, but were to exercise stewardship over the land, and kings exercized ultimate stewardship (hence the royal name "Stuart"). "Hunting the king's game" originally meant hunting game under the king's protection, not hunting game that was the king's personal property.
However, because their democratic processes were crude and informal (ours being is crude and formal, with the similar results), goverment officals gradually converted responsibility of stewardship into ownership. At first, they tended to favor their supporters in land disputes, and eventually came to favor themselves. The Norman Conquest accellerated this process, but cannot be blamed for it, as it was underway before the Conquest and remained underway afterward. Much as global-warming alarmism is being used today to privatize the air-commons under "Cap and Trade," alarmism about "scarcity of game" was used to privatize the land under the enclosure acts. The landlords gradually became land "owners," creating artifically high rents, or "rack rents" by holding much of the land off the market. These land "owners" collected more and more rent, not for the benefit of "society" or "the crown," but for themselves, forwarding less and less to the ever-weakening king and spending less and less on the people from whom they exacted it.
The words "tax," "rent," "fee" (or "feu"), "impost," and "mail" were synonymous. Because the tax collector, or "impost man," had a regular route, he often delivered letters and packages from one taxpayer to another. That's how government got involved in carrying what we now call "mail." But in these early times, "mail" was "rent." As I noted above, at first only those with better lands paid rent. Being prosperous, they could afford to pay in silver. This was called "white mail." As feudalism became more pernicious, tax collectors would seize whatever they deemed to be a satisfactory substitute for silver, such as a pig, some crops, etc. As you must have guessed, this was called "black mail" and is the origin of the term we use today. It was blackmail because the small landholder paid in far more than he got in return.
By the time of the (classical) liberal revolution, common people were squeezed to mere subsistence everywhere but in the American Colonies, where rents were very low (and wages relatively high) due to the abundance of land and the scarcity of labor. The same system of landlordism-by-purchase was in effect here as in Europe, but could not squeeze high rents and land prices out of people so long as there was a vast frontier inhabited by easily conquerable Indians. There were attempts, however. The Dutch set up a plantation (poltroon) system along the Hudson, and the English tried to set up a plantation system in the South. But labor being scarce and land being cheap, England had to introduce chattel slavery to make the plantation system work. (Similarly large estates in Briton did not import slaves because landless Briton would work for less money than it cost to feed and house a slave.)
Many classical liberals in England and France, as well as in America, held up the American Indians as societies that functioned well without government. Tom Paine wrote that, "The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich." Jefferson wrote,
Their only controuls are their manners, and that moral sense of right and wrong, which, like the sense of tasting and feeling, in every man makes a part of his nature. An offence against these is punished by contempt, by exclusion from society, or, where the case is serious, as that of murder, by the individuals whom it concerns. Imperfect as this species of coercion may seem, crimes are very rare among them: insomuch that were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last: and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves. It will be said, that great societies cannot exist without government. The Savages therefore break them into small ones.
As to Indian land tenure, Jefferson wrote,
That the lands within the limits assumed by a nation belong to the nation as a body has probably been the law of every people on earth at some period of their history. A right of property in movable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yeilded for individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated and their owner protected in his possession. Till then the property is in the body of the nation.
Before the French Revolution, Jefferson noted the abject poverty in France and traced the cause to the monopolization of land.
...last of all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands?...Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural rights....
Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
Jefferson's proposal was unworkable, partly because his "geometrical progression" would invite counterproductive attempts to "game the system," and partly because aggregate payments to the government should be based on what the people have agreed to fund, not on what land happens to be worth. However, Tom Paine proposed that the revenue not be used to fund government, but be distributed on a per capita basis, first as an endowment to start a person off in business at age 21, and then as what we would now call a "social security" payment to each person beginning at age 50. What most geolibertarians favor is a straight per capita payment every year, so that those who hold less than a per capita share of land value would pay nothing and would even get back a net dividend.
The "geo" in "geolibertarian" refers to the earth, but it also refers to Henry George, who analyzed the land issue more thoroughly than anyone else in history, and who also pressed for a land value tax more stridently, mostly in the 1880s, when he was the third most famous man in the country, after Thomas Edison and Mark Twain. However, George did not embrace the idea of rent dividends until late in his life, and origially proposed land rent as a way to fund government. While he was denounced by Marxists for insisting on free trade and opposing the taxation of capital, he was temporarily applauded by money-hungry bureaucrats who cared nothing about where tax money came from, so long as it came to them. Ultimately, the land monopolists, the bureaucrats and the socialists sold out the land tax idea for income tax. That way everybody (except the productive taxpayers) got what they wanted.
Incidentally, George's book, Protection or Free Trade is regarded as the seminal work on that subject, and is on the Mises website. He is still denounced as a socialist by capitalists and as a capitalist by socialists. Lenin called him "the capitalist's last ditch." However, the free-market libertarian Albert Jay Nock wrote,
The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it.... One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry.
- "Thoughts on Utopia," Free Speech and Plain Language, February 1935, p. 159
Clearly, the primary culprit in today's depression is fractional-reserve banking. None the less, we see that the places that relied the most on taxes from land, even through the property tax, have had the most stable land prices and the least mortgage foreclosures. They also have had the highest percentage of family farms and the most economic freedom. Which state gets the highest percentage of its revenue from property taxes? Why, New Hampshire, "The Free State." Which countries get the highest shares of thier revenue from charges against land? Hong Kong (first) followed by Singapore and Taiwan, which are second and third depending on how you measure. Hong Kong is also first in every index of economic freedom I know of, followed by Singapore and Taiwan, depending on which index you look at.
It's a very libertarian concept, and holds the key to getting rid of a lot of bureaucracy. It should not be rejected out of hand.
-DS
I think Gard needs to get Ed Joyce on another podcast
'Collective ownership of land seems like it would imply the collectivization of agriculture, housing, and roads at the very least (each of them requires permanent placement on land, hence demanding permanent collective approval). Would you agree with that analysis?'
Hey Mr Number... Yep, I would agree with that analysis. The Geo-Anarchist/ Geo-lib model would also, as Zig clarified, involve collective ownership of natural resources eg. wood, oil etc. I believe it is rooted in the theories of Henry George, borrowing some elements of the mutualism that French anarchist, Joseph Proudhon (whom I disucussed in my most recent podcast with Gard) advocated.
I am keen to investigate it further as I see it as a very workable idea which makes common sense to me as well as ethical sense. Ethically, I believe your argument falls down regarding ownership of the land which you acquired, although it holds firm (to me) with regards to ownership of the produce you create with that land. To clarify, my current thinking might be this: your work on the land is the reason why it was able to bare produce and so that produce is yours. But I can't accept that carrying out such work makes the land yours any more than I can accept that someone can lay claim to your car if they carry out some repairs on it.
'Yep, I would agree with that analysis. The Geo-Anarchist/ Geo-lib model would also, as Zig clarified, involve collective ownership of natural resources eg. wood, oil etc. I believe it is rooted in the theories of Henry George, borrowing some elements of the mutualism that French anarchist, Joseph Proudhon
Technically under a geolibertarian system there wouldn’t be collective ownership of natural resources, I mean government wouldn’t actually own oil or grain.
Though geolibertarians do believe that the land should be owned in common, its pretty unrealistic that it could be & therefore this is where the land value tax comes into play. The idea is that LVT which is collected & divvied up as the citizen’s incomes is a means of compensation for land & natural resources not being commonly owned.
I forgot to point out that there also geo-socialists who obviously believe that all natural resources should be owned by the state, however is an extremely flawed system as well as wholly impractical.
I think I understand -- in this system, all natural resources are owned equally by all people. If that is the case, then I have a fundamental disagreement with that ideology because it implies that I do not own myself. Here's my line of reasoning to support that claim:
All human action involves the transformation of natural resources (there can be no product of labor without first appropriating a natural resource to your own exclusive use). If all natural resources are collectively owned, then the consent of all is required before the resources may be appropriated and transformed by any individual. Therefore, an individual can take no action without the consent of the group, and thus is owned by the collective. Further, an individual or small group can dominate the collective by withholding his consent for any action ("I will only permit you to build that road if you permit me to strip mine the land in your back yard").
As an example, let's say that I have invested the labor and resources required to make dirt into fertile soil (a few years of work and careful planning typically). I use this land to grow food that I then sell to make my living. Let's say that there's a guy living in the city who sees the amount of land I have and decides he should have some of it for a home. It's a reasonable sounding request -- after all, I don't own the land, and the distribution is clearly unfair between the two of us. This can only lead to a standoff, because I will not consent to him taking it, and he will not consent to me keeping it. Since the withdrawal of his consent prevents me from using the land, I will be deprived of the means of my livelihood and the group will be deprived of the produce I would have created without the interference. Since there is an irreconcilable difference between my view and his, there are only two outcomes possible -- either the land falls into the limbo of disuse because at least one person will always object to every use, or the group imposes some kind of majority will on one or the other of us (or both) through the use of force.
Having said all of that, I think a society like you describe could exist unmolested in a private property anarchist system, simply by gathering together like-minded individuals and collectively homesteading or buying the land. You could then apply your principles within the boundaries of your property with no interference. The reverse is not true, i.e. I could not live the way I desire within the collectivist system.
I apologize for hijacking your original thread with a debate about collectivism -- if you decide to post again about the health care issue I promise I won't interfere.
Hey 2, I'm deligthed that you've decided to debate with me on this: it helps me troubleshoot the theory much more effectively. So thanks!
Leave this with me and I'll get back to you asap. I want to check my own understanding of a wide range of 'left-libertarian' principles before addressing your concerns. In the meantime, you may wish to check the following for more of an understanding of how Henry George saw geo-lib integrating into a world where property rights to land are already established:
"We must make land common property."[2] Although this could be done by nationalizing land and then leasing it to private parties, George preferred taxing unimproved land value, in part because this would be less disruptive and controversial in a country where land titles have already been granted to individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Here's an explaination of geolibertarianism which i wrote recently
I’ll admit land reform isn’t the most sexiest of issues where libertarianism is concerned. Land reform is definitely not in my usual repertoire of topics which I typically write about. Land reform is certainly as sexy as guns, drugs, hoes & the police state, but its land reform which is the basis of geolibertarianism. Being as land reform is the basis of geolibertarianism its land reform I must write about & more specifically the geolibertarian perception of ownership of the land.
Geolibertarianism is not the easiest of concepts to explain because its in fact a marriage of two philosophical concepts of Georgism & Libertarianism. Typically the anarcho-capitalist variety of libertarianism believes that the marriage of the two concepts conflict somewhat & typically geolibertarians believe that you can’t have one without the other. In my experience its worthy noting that the left of the political spectrum 9but no exclusively so) happens to be far more open to the concept of geolibertarianism then the better know concept of libertarianism otherwise known as anarcho-capitalist. For reasons I’ll soon explain I believe this is because geolibertarianism fits in with the concept of modern liberalism.
Geolibertarianism is very much like royal libertarianism in arguing for far greater individual sovereignty, but with one crucial difference & that difference being ownership of land & resources. Geolibertarians believe for a multitude of reasons that no one person owns land & the natural resources of the world & that we all commonly own it. My own personal justification is that what man does not create man can not claim ownership of. I’d also justify geolibertarianism by pointing out that when the natural resources aren’t commonly own it leads to conflict & exploitation. My friend Ed would probably explain to that because of the various land grabs by the ruling classes that have occurred here over the last millennium has unjustly impoverished many & its this which gave rise to Marxism & the welfare state.
Easiest way to institute geolibertarian ideas on land ownership is via the Land Value Tax which is then divvied up equally amongst the population as the citizens income. A with royal libertarians geolibertarians want to see an end to tax upon labour or any tax on what man has created, but geolibertarians believe that though no matter should be taxed for any house built they should be taxed for the undeveloped value of the land which house or property is built upon. Some royal libertarians will make out that geolibertarians don’t in fact believe in property rights, this is unfair assumption as geolibertarians believe in property rights just as much as any royal libertarian, an instance being if somebody trespasses upon your property you’d have every right to eject them. I’d defend the idea of the citizens income by pointing out that its in a way of compensation to individuals not having full access to the land or natural resources.
The idea of the citizens income does attempt to levitate poverty & therefore does fit in somewhat with the modern liberal or social liberal perspective of liberty. The social liberal view of liberty is pretty much that people to be free as possible but to assist in giving the means to those in poverty to be free who might not be as free without that assistance. The ideas of geolibertarianism don’t just attempt to tackle poverty but also environmental protection or a decrease in exploitation of the environment. An oil company would still be able to profit from pumping, refining & distributing oil, but would have to pay levy for the use of the oil being as it’s a natural resource & the same would apply to logging & fishing & etc.
Though in the British Liberal Democrat party as well as in the US democrat party you’d find individuals advocating for georgist & geolibertarian principles, the party which in fact has adopted more georgist ideas then any other happens to be the Greens. The Greens adopted a policy of land tax to fund a citizens income, however in no way are the Greens anywhere near geolibertarian because they want to pornography, have stricter weapons laws etc. As it goes with royal libertarians it’s the same with geolibertarianism when it comes to guns, drugs, hoes & of course the police state.
It was the American political economist Henry George who can be credited for the fruition of the geolibertarian concept as he was the most influential proponent of the land value tax,, ironic in a way because most American libertarians don’t seem to get geolibertarianism; though David Nolan founder of the US Libertarian Party is supposedly supportive of geolibertarianism. Support fo geolibertarianism doesn’t exclusively come from the left of the political spectrum; Milton Freidman, F.A Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, amongst others have shown appreciation for the geolibertarian argument. The grand daddy of modern liberal John Locke once said that which you apply you labour to you is your own but natural of which you build (ie the land you build whatever upon) is held in common. Perhaps the best summary of geolibertarianism is Thomas Paine's assertion that "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."
I’m sure I’ve not comprehensively covered the concept in this quick burst of writing, being as there are different interpretations of geolibertarianism. The above explanation though is something I’ve gained from talking to Ed Joyce & one other libertarian acquaintance who do inform me that my description is about right.
Ziggy, I enjoyed reading this - very concise and clear overview. I particularly found your pragmatic examples useful.
Dan, it's great to have your input! An invaluable piece you've shared. You write in a concise and compelling style that proves very accessible. I also enjoyed your piece on Libertarians and Greens and this quote in particular:
'Private ownership of the earth and its resources is the one area where Libertarians depart from their own philosophy. After all, their justification of property is in the right of individuals to the fruits of their labor. Because the earth is not a labor product, land value is not the fruit of its owner's labor. Indeed, all land titles are state-granted privileges, and Libertarians deny the right of the state to grant privileges.'
I wonder would you be able to suggest further reading material on the geolib movement, and in particular the geoanarchist off-shoot? I have purchased this book:
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/9781156777923/Left-Libertarianism
... but can't seem to locate much else on the subject.
I would really enjoy a 'debate' LC podcast where Gard and you could exchange ideas on the matter.
Albert Jay Nock is supposedly of written extensively upon the concept
I disagree with the assertion that owning property is a departure from the ideals of freedom. I would say that the establishment of an entity with the power of taxation and a monopoly on the use of force is counter to those ideals, and such an entity would have to exist in order to enforce collective ownership of anything. The opportunities for graft, corruption, and cronyism exist in this system as they do in other states because of the power relationship between those "in" the state and those "renting" from it.
I agree that there is no legitimate way for a state to grant titles to land -- the state doesn't exist independently of individuals, and thus has no ability to own anything. In the collectivist system, a state is created that owns everything at all times. The only way I can see to justly allocate land is to apply the same principles informing other property ownership in a libertarian system: namely, you own what you make or what you buy. Land exists as a part of nature, just as humans do. We have the ability to "make" land by fundamentally altering it from its wild state. Because of this, the land that I have made as a part of my farm is not the same as the land that sits under the gravel road by my front door, nor is it the same as the land under an old growth forest. They all may have high value, but certainly not to the same people.
In the case of land, all land is not equal. There is no such thing as an undeveloped value because the value of any resource is determined solely by its worth to individuals who would use it. In order to apply a tax based on such a notion, you would have to come up with some agency to rate all pieces of land in order to assess the current tenant's tax liability. This liability would naturally change over time, as the value of the raw land changes with the activities of its occupants. In fact, in my particular case, the value of the land would increase proportionally to the labor I put into improving its fertility. That implies that my taxes would go up as well, reducing my incentive to make land better.
My biggest fear with the model you describe is that it creates a compulsory tenant/landlord relationship for all occupants who aren't part of the state apparatus overseeing the land tax. It is a relationship that the tenants cannot enter or leave voluntarily, and one in which they must pay or face (presumably) prison, fines, or death. It may be comforting to think that the tax would be used for the elevation of the poor, but the historical precedent for such activity is non-existent (the taxes are used for the elevation of the power class by creating a dependent class via dole payments).
In order to establish collective ownership, rationing must be implemented immediately. A board or some related construct must be delegated the responsibility of deciding how much of anything any individual may use. That job is impossible, even if the board has the best intentions and extreme intelligence and energy. The reason that it's impossible is that they could never know the value of whatever resource because the value comes from each individual's preferences. For example, if I am a farmer and discover a new method for producing vegetables that is far more efficient, I can use more land. The value of that land to me is such that I would pay a premium to buy it from a neighbor. However, in a collectivist system my neighbor and I are not free to make that negotiation. I must instead appeal to the board of rulers, who will then decide whether I deserve that land more than my neighbor. No matter what their decision is, there is a winner and a loser. If we were free to negotiate on our own terms, we could either come to an arrangement that is mutually beneficial or I would have to look elsewhere for a different mutually beneficial arrangement. In a collective land system, there is no place I can look to find an arrangement that will not hurt the person from whom the land is taken, and hence any growth in my business comes are the direct cost of using force against otherwise peaceful people to take their land.
Collectivism requires the central setting of prices, which gives the state complete power over the economy and hence over all human action. It would make everyone into a beggar, begging for privileges granted from the masters who control the resources.
Another way to look at it is on a sliding scale of compatibility with human nature. If a system were devised that is completely compatible with human nature, there would clearly be no need for the institutionalized application of force because people would exist happily by following their nature. Any state with a monopoly on taxation and violence must pick a certain set of qualities to suppress in human nature, then suppress them. The force required to achieve the suppression is proportional to its divergence from the nature of the people being oppressed. In this case, it is the innate desire to own and control that which you require for survival that is being suppressed. By completely stripping society of the institutionalized use of force, we allow human nature to reach its full expression. Anything requiring force is the involuntary imposition of one individual's ideals onto another.
Hey Number 2, some excellent counters you've made there. I don't have the knowledge, at present, to effectively challenge them but here's a few broad strokes (which may/ may not be hitting the right notes - Dan and Zig can help out, I'm sure):
You refer to the 'state' and board as potentially corrupt in a geo-lib situation and of course that is always a possibility (and with the state usually the norm). Later, however, you refer to a preferable system where people act according to their nature - yet that nature has already been described by you as questionable with regards to the nature of the people ruling. Perhaps you're suggesting that the individual nature is different to a collective nature when it comes to humanity? Or that power of any type inherently corrupts? If so, how would the non-state power held by a private employer/ land owner differ? Surely the same corruption could happen in any situation... Anyway, my view is that the state should have no part in a geo-lib situation (although I'm advocating for an anarchist system while Zig and Dan may go for a minarchist system?).
I do acknowledge the potential for corruption you correctly highlight, yet feel it could be limited by rotating lobbyist groups/ charity reps within a board of decision makers re: land/ resources alongside not-for-profits looking after other commons such as roads, public parks etc. I feel that full transparency would be vital and much more likely within a rotating and decentralised system.
My concern with the anarcho capitalist system is that multi-national corporations and businesses are every bit as likely to become as corrupt as central governments - despite the incentive to address the needs of their customers. Globalisation is not just a statist problem - it's happening in the private sector, often in conjunction/ allied with states - and within private globalisation preference will always be given to those with the most to spend, creating a type of cast system all too similar to that within monarchism.
In terms of the use of force, I dare say that any judicial system would involve the use of force against a person who feels they are in the right - even a private judicial system. It's the nature of dispute resolution, regardless of who is involved in the process. I can't see how that can be avoided any more within an anarcho capitalist system but perhaps I am missing your point?
However, according to how I read the geo-lib position, as long as the land is being used, there is no quarrel. It's whenever the land is not being used that a person's claim over it is called into question. My thoughts would be that a person who is not using land would have no interest in paying community rent on it - just as a person not living in a house is unlikely to want to pay rent, or a person not using their gym membership is unlikely to want to maintain their monthly subscription. Once capital value is removed from land or natural resources, the incentive to accumulate such becomes pointless. And if we are to see no ethical right to hold that land, what with it not being something we can say we have created, then the moral right to that land as property is removed. Yet, in the geo-lib position (unlike say in communist systems - as I understand such) the incentive to work and create and evolve in order to fiancially/ materially better oneself, in a general sense, is not removed.
Another thing, my interest in Libertarianism has always been ethical, even social. I'm not as interested in the economic side of things - although I admit that such is of course important in the grand scheme of things. What I've always applauded within the anarcho-capitalist system is the non-aggression principle and the anti-war status that evolves from such. So, if the pursuit of land and natural resources (such as oil) was removed from the equation, we would have very few (if any) of the most prolific wars in the middle-east happening now. The effects of such a change in position regarding land ownership in the West would be mind-blowing, just like the end of the slave trade. Now, I in no way suggest that a geo-lib position would create world peace and utopia, but it's a grand step towards setting an example which may make such a lot more viable...
Definitely some good points here. People are certainly corruptible, which is one of the first and strongest reasons to not institutionalize power (i.e. in a free society, nobody has the legalized power to force anybody to do anything, so the effects of their corruption are minimized). I would say that, given the corruptibilty of people, we must prevent them from gaining dominance over others at all costs.
I don't agree that abuse of power can be limited by rotating people though government (or whatever we call the organization that can levy taxes). The position is one of power, which inevitably draws those who want power. I belive that all power achieved through coercion is morally wrong, so I would claim that anyone drawn to gain such power is by default already corrupt. The democratic governments of the world today I think bear witness to this phenomenon.
Regarding the corporatism, I agree with you 100%, at least as it exists in our world today. However, the problems I see inherent in the corporatist model today seem to arise basically from the collusion between business interests and governments -- I don't think they could arise in a true free society. For one thing, there is no state-run legal system granting exclusions and immunities to the corporations with the largest lobbying arms or the most "generous" donations. Also, there is no way to protect employees of a business from direct liability for damages under some notional aegis of "the corporation" when there is no legal definition of such. Because of that, any corporate employee carrying out some action would be just as vulnerable to litigation as a result of his actions as would a tiny independent contractor. Many of the advantages of large-scale corporatism disappear when they are not protected by the state, and I think the net result would be to render that business model obsolete. Large vertically integrated organizations are less efficient than groups of smaller producers when you remove the constraints of regulation and taxation from the picture. Their inefficiencies are allowable because they have lobbied to get the state to drive smaller producers out of business. This is rampant in farming today (check out Monsanto and ADM for some examples), and I suspect it is also prevalent in many other industries with which I'm less familiar.
The idea of corporations ruling the world hung me up for a long time on the Anarcho-capitalism thing too. I finally decided that they just can't exist in the same form as they do under state protection though, because they are more accurately described as part of the state than as part of the free market. The free market strips the mythology of the single minded corporation away from what is fundamentlaly just a collection of individuals bound together by contracts, and individually liable for their actions.
I have to run off for now -- I'll add a followup when I can get back on the computer.
I'm advocating for an anarchist system while Zig and Dan may go for a minarchist system?).
Not sure about Dan but myself & Ed would be advocating a minarchist government solution being as its the most pragmatic.
This isn't to say that there couldn't be some mutualist body set up to over see things.
I'm not as interested in the economic side of things - although I admit that such is of course important in the grand scheme of things. What I've always applauded within the anarcho-capitalist system is the non-aggression principle and the anti-war status that evolves from such. So, if the pursuit of land and natural resources (such as oil) was removed from the equation, we would have very few (if any) of the most prolific wars in the middle-east happening now.
A very good point Wayne & one I’ve made on a number of occasions
Zig, do you have many closet geo-libs in the Lib Dems?
Yeah there are a few (including one who ran for parliament)
'Closet' Lib Dems with links to Georgist organisations are listed at the following web site
http://www.libdemsalter.org.uk/
They include
Nick Clegg - Deputy Prime Minister of the UK
Vince Cable - Secretary of State for Business
Chris Huhne - Secretary of State for Energy
All the above are Liberal Democrat MP's and Cabinet Ministers (The Cabinet is the leading 23 members of the UK government)
The situation is different in the US and the UK. In the USA land was appropriated from the native americans. There are many arguments that can be constructed that this was legitimate (that I am dubious of). In the UK the land was siezed in the Inclosure Acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts
The problem is that the vote was not universal and the law was arranged in the interests of those who had the vote. This was totally illegitimate. It also led to the development of the Welfare State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1832_Royal_Commission_into_the_Operation_of_the_Poor_Laws
The idea that there is a valueless field with poor clay in the whole of England is fanciful. All the land of England that could have a hut erected on it is valuable. Anyone who wants to own land will have had to have siezed it at some point using the power of weaponry, generally in the Norman conquest where the vast majority of significant tracts of privately owned land changed hands.
PS I am an elected representative of approaching 10,000 people in the UK and part of the ruling group of a borough of 150,000 residents. I do not believe in the 'Broken Window' and do not understand why that is in the heading of the website. I do not wish to be a 'conspirator'. I seek to work with people of all parties and those of none who wish to build a better society whilst supporting the values of freedom (classical liberalism) and fairness (fair low taxation).
Ed Joyce
Shit I forgot about ALTER though I remember being told though it had georgist members it wasn’t specifically georgist.
The Democratic Freedom Caucus is geolibertarian from what I’ve been informed
http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/
As for the Lib Dem cabinet members well I can’t say that I’ve heard anything terribly georgist or terribly libertarian from any of them.
I know for a fact that Chris Huhne supports drug prohibition because he said so to my face.
Okay ML did tell bvoth of us that Nick Clegg is supposedly more libertarian in private but now he’s in government I doubt he’s going to rock the boat with anything libertarian that needs to be said.