I am looking for a sound critique of the LVT. I have read some critiques of Rothbard's critique and it seems Rothbard didn't adequately debunk the LVT. Do any of you know of any better resources/arguments? Or should I consider the LVT a valid component of a free society? Any geo-libertarians here?
Also, apparently the LVT has been implemented with great success in Hong Kong.
Steven Handel:Semantic quibble. I don't mean "take" in any immoral sense of the term.
I thought it was interesting you used take, because it seemed to demonstrate your lack of understanding about markets. It is clearly the wrong word to use.
Steven Handel:Right, and I am saying there could very well be a tendency for landlords to not sell land privately and to only engage in rent once all land is owned privately
Which is a hypothetical and nothing more.
Steven Handel:(which in many ways it clearly does: selling land privately is a one time deal, but engaging in rent is an ongoing stream of income.
And yet people engage in many one time deals every day when they could choose to work on a residual payment or income model. The notion of wage labor vs capitalist investment is an example of this.
One of your mistakes is assuming landowners are a class (they act with the same interests). The interests and goals of each landowner are unique.
Steven Handel:Even if the very best renters in the market win out, they are still holding what amounts to a monopoly/cartel over land, which creates huge barriers of entry for new individuals to privately own land with the exception of inheritance
Again, you assume class interest (on a global scale apparently). This is why leftist libertarianism like mutualism and georgism fails. It's not rooted in methodological individualism.
The Georgist argument which you are trying to articulate is the same as the "what if my neighbors landlock me" argument, used by people to justify public roads.
Steven Handel:You're begging the question again.
Steven Handel:There is nothing inherently immoral about homesteading or rent (in fact there is very much that IS moral about it),
Steven Handel:in a world where all land is owned privately
Steven Handel:where individuals can ONLY seek land through rent
Steven Handel:is, to me, a topic of major concern for advocates of freedom (this is assuming rent is more of a profit-maximizer than selling land, which seems to be the case).
Steven Handel:It essentially becomes impossible for some individuals to ever own land privately, and we have essentially produced a new form of state - where landowners charge rent not at all unlike a form of taxes.
Steven Handel:I am not saying this is necessarily an outcome of NAP or the free market, but it is a possibility
Steven Handel:I have yet to hear a good rebuttal for why this wouldn't be the case.
Steven Handel:At best it seems we can cross our fingers and hope land is always plentiful and available for purchase.
Steven Handel:Not if landlords make more money through rent and therefore aren't willing to sell it.
Again, profit is not guaranteed.
Steven Handel:Please note I am not a Georgist and I am completely open to a thorough critique of the LVT or a better argument for why it wouldn't be necessary (that is why I came to the forums), but you have not provided one yet.
You got it already. See below. All of the defenses of Georgism you have offered are based on hypotheticals that have never occurred and are unlikely to ever occur. But even if they did, how could you make a moral argument to subvert the market process?
mgmcintyre:LVT is a tax, therefor it is incompatible with a voluntary society.
All taxes are theft. No institutional theft can be compatible with the free society. Perhaps you should elaborate further on what is your question.
I tend to agree. Georgism is a relatively new idea to me though, and it is mostly a response to when all land is privately owned and therefore has only "rental value" to future persons. From this FAQ:
Geolibertarianism is the belief that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, and thus an exclusive right to the value of those fruits; and that all individuals have an equal right to land, and thus an equal right to the value of land. By embracing this belief, geolibertarians are simply taking the core libertarian principle of self-ownership to its logical conclusion: Just as the right to oneself implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere. Hence John Locke's proviso that one has "property" in land only to the extent that there is "enough, and as good left in common for others." When there is not, land begins to have rental value. Thus, the rental value of land reflects the extent to which Locke's proviso has been violated, thereby making community-collection of rent (CCR) a just and necessary means of upholding the Lockean principle of private property. In the late 19th century, CCR became known as the "Single Tax" -- a term often used to denote Henry George's proposal to abolish all taxation save for a single tax on the value of land (irrespective of the value of improvements in or on it).
Geolibertarianism is the belief that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, and thus an exclusive right to the value of those fruits; and that all individuals have an equal right to land, and thus an equal right to the value of land.
By embracing this belief, geolibertarians are simply taking the core libertarian principle of self-ownership to its logical conclusion: Just as the right to oneself implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere. Hence John Locke's proviso that one has "property" in land only to the extent that there is "enough, and as good left in common for others." When there is not, land begins to have rental value. Thus, the rental value of land reflects the extent to which Locke's proviso has been violated, thereby making community-collection of rent (CCR) a just and necessary means of upholding the Lockean principle of private property. In the late 19th century, CCR became known as the "Single Tax" -- a term often used to denote Henry George's proposal to abolish all taxation save for a single tax on the value of land (irrespective of the value of improvements in or on it).
LVT is a tax, therefor it is incompatible with a voluntary society.
Steven Handel:I tend to agree. Georgism is a relatively new idea to me though, and it is mostly a response to when all land is privately owned and therefore has only "rental value" to future persons. From this FAQ:
This presumes that land cannot be purchased. Also, there has never been a time when all land was privately owned.
Steven Handel: Geolibertarianism is the belief that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, and thus an exclusive right to the value of those fruits; and that all individuals have an equal right to land, and thus an equal right to the value of land.
No one has an equal right to property.
Steven Handel: By embracing this belief, geolibertarians are simply taking the core libertarian principle of self-ownership to its logical conclusion: Just as the right to oneself implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere.
By embracing this belief, geolibertarians are simply taking the core libertarian principle of self-ownership to its logical conclusion: Just as the right to oneself implies the right to the fruit of one's labor (i.e., the right to property), the right to the fruit of one's labor implies the right to labor, and the right to labor implies the right to labor -- somewhere.
An anachronism, like most leftist libertarianism. Thankfully modern Georgists haven't found a way to earn a living from tilting at windmills, or this stuff would be more widespread than it already is.
Thanks for the response, although there are still some nuisances I haven't yet reconciled.
For example, yes, land could still be purchased in such a scenario - but might there be a greater tendency for landowners to withhold selling land at the greater profit of retaining ownership while still maintaining a profit stream through ongoing rent?
Also, yes, land has never been 100% privately owned in the past. But this is afterall the ideal of the libertarian philosophy - and I still see potential drawbacks to such an outcome as argued by Georgists.
I agree that no one has an equal right to property. But if individuals are to exercise self-ownership there needs to be available space to do so. If a libertarian society were to be overun by private landlords and rent-seekers, while in complete congruence with the NAP and the homesteading principle, this could theoretically become a mild (if not more than mild) form of slavery.
I am not convinced one or the other - I just think this is a valid concern.
Steven Handel:For example, yes, land could still be purchased in such a scenario - but might there be a greater tendency for landowners to withhold selling land at the greater profit of retaining ownership while still maintaining a profit stream through ongoing rent?
It's possible. But profits are not guaranteed, so that sort of outcome doesn't worry me.
Steven Handel:I agree that no one has an equal right to property. But if individuals are to exercise self-ownership there needs to be available space to do so.
Sounds to me like property is implicit in a society where self-ownership is practiced. A non-issue.
Steven Handel: If a libertarian society were to be overun by private landlords and rent-seekers
These two are not the same thing.
Steven Handel:... while in complete congruence with the NAP and the homesteading principle, this could theoretically become a mild (if not more than mild) form of slavery.
So we can have slavery with the NAP? Contradiction?
Steven Handel:I am not convinced one or the other - I just think this is a valid concern.
There will be all sorts of concerns regardless of the way society is organized. There is no Utopian system. There will be risk, errors, problems and conflicts however things are organized. I am wary of systems which purport to solve issues that the market needs an opportunity to resolve before we imagine we can plan around them.
Land, in economic terms - also includes the oceans.
By golly josh.. we're running out of ocean!?
liberty student:It's possible. But profits are not guaranteed, so that sort of outcome doesn't worry me.
Profits may not be guaranteed for all renters - perhaps a landlord can build another couple stories onto a building and take someone else's share of the market - but it is essentially guaranteed as a whole, as people need to live somewhere, right?
liberty student:Sounds to me like property is implicit in a society where self-ownership is practiced. A non-issue.
You're begging the question here.
liberty student:These two are not the same thing.
Libertarians don't hold all land being privately owned as an ideal?
liberty student:So we can have slavery with the NAP? Contradiction?
My point exactly. The NAP can theoretically lead to oppressive conditions. It is a good rule of thumb, but there are blurry lines when we take the NAP to certain logical extremes. A society where everyone is subject to rent and can't avoid it is certainly a form of slavery in my mind.
Conza,
Libertarians also advocate private ownership of parts of the ocean, so the logical ends are still there it just may take longer to get there.
Steven Handel: liberty student:It's possible. But profits are not guaranteed, so that sort of outcome doesn't worry me. Profits may not be guaranteed for all renters
Profits may not be guaranteed for all renters
What do you mean, "may not be". They are not.
Steven Handel:perhaps a landlord can build another couple stories onto a building and take someone else's share of the market
Your use of language in this discussion bothers me. He cannot "take" anything. He can earn a greater share of the market by having lower prices, more inventory to rent, better accommodations. In other words, by serving his clients better. But he certainly cannot TAKE.
Steven Handel:but it is essentially guaranteed as a whole, as people need to live somewhere, right?
So there is a persistent market for that good. That says nothing about how property ownership will be arranged, or where people will choose to live.
Steven Handel: liberty student:Sounds to me like property is implicit in a society where self-ownership is practiced. A non-issue. You're begging the question here.
You're claiming that it is implicit in existence that people must have somewhere to live, and my reply to you is an extension of that.
Steven Handel: liberty student:These two are not the same thing. Libertarians don't hold all land being privately owned as an ideal?
You conflated private property owners with rent seekers. Surely you know the difference?
Steven Handel: liberty student:So we can have slavery with the NAP? Contradiction? My point exactly. The NAP can theoretically lead to oppressive conditions.
My point exactly. The NAP can theoretically lead to oppressive conditions.
Then the NAP would not be in effect.
Steven Handel:It is a good rule of thumb, but there are blurry lines when we take the NAP to certain logical extremes.
Such as?
Steven Handel:A society where everyone is subject to rent and can't avoid it is certainly a form of slavery in my mind.
But someone owns the land right? So not everyone is subject to rent. And those who pay rent and no longer wish to can choose to buy land.
liberty student:Your use of language in this discussion bothers me. He cannot "take" anything. He can earn a greater share of the market by having lower prices, more inventory to rent, better accommodations. In other words, by serving his clients better. But he certainly cannot TAKE.
Semantic quibble. I don't mean "take" in any immoral sense of the term.
liberty student:So there is a persistent market for that good. That says nothing about how property ownership will be arranged, or where people will choose to live.
Right, and I am saying there could very well be a tendency for landlords to not sell land privately and to only engage in rent once all land is owned privately, especially when this process maximizes profits (which in many ways it clearly does: selling land privately is a one time deal, but engaging in rent is an ongoing stream of income. Even if the very best renters in the market win out, they are still holding what amounts to a monopoly/cartel over land, which creates huge barriers of entry for new individuals to privately own land with the exception of inheritance).
liberty student:Then the NAP would not be in effect.
You're begging the question again. There is nothing inherently immoral about homesteading or rent (in fact there is very much that IS moral about it), but in a world where all land is owned privately and where individuals can ONLY seek land through rent is, to me, a topic of major concern for advocates of freedom (this is assuming rent is more of a profit-maximizer than selling land, which seems to be the case). It essentially becomes impossible for some individuals to ever own land privately, and we have essentially produced a new form of state - where landowners charge rent not at all unlike a form of taxes.
I am not saying this is necessarily an outcome of NAP or the free market, but it is a possibility, and I have yet to hear a good rebuttal for why this wouldn't be the case. At best it seems we can cross our fingers and hope land is always plentiful and available for purchase.
liberty student:But someone owns the land right? So not everyone is subject to rent. And those who pay rent and no longer wish to can choose to buy land.
Not if landlords make more money through rent and therefore aren't willing to sell it.
Please note I am not a Georgist and I am completely open to a thorough critique of the LVT or a better argument for why it wouldn't be necessary (that is why I came to the forums), but you have not provided one yet.
Perhaps a better angle at arguing the Rothbardian tradition of land-ownership is to explain how the Land Value Tax would lead to a much worser outcome.
The complaint is that an established ownership of land will put newborns at a disadvantage. That is simply a permanant feature of reality. The people that come before will always reign over the people that come after. It will manifest in countless ways under all circumstances.
Steven,
Your idea of profit maximization completely ignores time.