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.
Don't waste that energy required to pump that blood into those fingers.
This concern of yours stems from a basic misunderstanding you have about land value and profits. All income derived from land ownership will tend to converge towards the rate of interest. The rent on land is basically the rate of interest. The capital value of land is, like any other factor of production, equal to the expected future rents minus the discount rate. Profit opportunities arise only on the account that there is a discrepancy between the present market value of a piece of land and the future rents that it actually renders. Entrepreneurs who can accurately predict this discrepancy can profit by buying land if it is undervalued and selling it when it is overvalued. Therefore, landowners who simply hold on to land for the sake of holding on land will incur losses.
There is obviously no advantage in owning land over say a factory, or a tractor, or whatever else has value due to the services it renders. In a Capitalist economy, the landowner is hopeless without the multitude of other factors of production required for production.
There is nothing special about land. The whole thing is a fallacy.
You can be a billionaire and not own any land in a Capitalist economy.
Cporter, why does it ignore time? Don't entrepreneurs typically aim to increase profits over the long-term? Why wouldn't rent maximize profits more-so than a one time sale? Not to mention you still retain ownership if you are only renting. I think there are clear advantages of rent over a one-time sale - mind explaining why this would be wrong?
liberty student:Which is a hypothetical and nothing more.
Most anarchocapitalist theory is hypothetical, let's analyze it logically.
I'm taking two assumptions that most anarchocapitalist will believe:
1) the libertarian ideal is to have all land owned privately.
2) entrepreneurs tend to maximize profits long-term
And then my added concern is:
3) rent will tend to lead to greater profits than the outright selling of land
4) therefore, this will tend to happen if all land is owned privately and there is no more land to homestead.
liberty student: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.
I think it depends on the nature of the good. Obviously entrepreneurs don't rent out everything, like a car, because other competing firms are selling cars to others - so you don't need to always rent one. The same can be said about land to an extent, but there is a fixed amount of land, and my hypothetical scenario is when all land is already owned privately. If cars were also in a fixed amount (and there were no substitutes), then people would presumably have to rent out one of these fixed cars to use. Perhaps someone would also sell a car because they found they didn't need X amount of cars, but if cars are necessary for survival (as is land) this would be done to a limited extent and eventually there will be a rigid class of "car owners" and a class of "car renters."
liberty student: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.
Perhaps I am mind-reading into landowners too much. Maybe some will become tired of maintianing property to rent, or there will be times when they need some quick, urgent cash so they decide to sell some extra land. This is a valid point. (Perhaps this is also what cporter meant by me "ignoring time")
liberty student: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.
I am assuming class interest to the extent that Austrians presume entrepreneurs are profit-seeking. Now maybe my limitation is that I am only thinking of profits in the monetary sense.
liberty student: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.
I do find "landlocking" to be a worthy criticism of the homesteading principle. Given, I still think the homesteading principle is a great rule of thumb. If people can't homestead wherever there is unused land (because it surrounds someones house presumably) than I think it is worth saying that the homesteading principle is not dogmatically true. What is wrong with that? And if law is arbitrated on the market I think there will be cases where an otherwise legitimate "homestead" may be overturned because of other oppressive qualities of the homestead. I don't think we can automatically say, "Well if it's not moral/peaceful then it's not homesteading." - that IS begging the question.
Why can't we just agree that morality can get blurry in certain cases? It would help some thick libertarians to sound a little less dogmatic in their principles and to acknowledge cases where things are not dogmatically right/wrong.
liberty student:It's not a concern, which is why Georgism is marginalized crankism, and we get a Georgism thread here about once a year, and we have to trot out the same old BS. Rothbard's law comes into effect here. Henry George was great on many things, but the land tax was not one of them.
Well, it's a concern to me. You have brought up some good points but I am still not 100% convinced. I will admit, a part of me is playing devil's advocate, but I think it doesn't hurt libertarians to be more precise about their beliefs. A Georgism thread once a year sounds like a healthy refresher. :
liberty student:Charging rent is not a form of statism. The fact that people may have limited options on where to live, is a consequence of existence, not the fault of a lack of land, or a lack of homesteaders willing to sell land.
You're right- charging rent is not a form of statism. But if my only option is to pay rent at Place A or pay rent at Place B, it sounds pretty close to pay taxes at Nation A or pay taxes at Nation B. If you want to argue that the former situation isn't possible/likely - stick with that argument - but don't tell me the situation I am painting (however likely or unlikely) is desirable in a free society.
liberty student:You assume (as Georgists do) a static model for the relationship between landowner and those without land. You assume all those without land will not be able to pool resources to buy land as a corporation or some other contractual organization, or that all landowners will maintain the cartel because ... You also assume that people would be born into a world with nowhere to stand, and that a society wouldn't devise mechanisms to deal with eviction that didn't result in slavery or instant death. That there would be no competition between landowners, that someone owning a desert would have no difference in his price or value proposition than someone who owned grassland, or mountains.
Fair points across the board, and this is the type of argument I wanted to hear - not the libertarian mantra "all taxes are bad, everything NAP is good" (I'm exaggerating, but that is sometimes how it feels when I try to dive into some of the nuisances of the libertarian philosophy.) Keep in mind, I wrote this thread in the form of a question - not to assert that Georgists "checkmated" anarchocapitalists.
liberty student:Sure you have, you just refuse to acknowledge them.
Either I didn't understand the deeper structure of your arguments or I wasn't convinced. It is no benefit to me to preserve falsehoods no matter where they come from.
liberty student:Or maybe the market will create arrangements where there is a disincentive to hold property in perpetuity or try to charge outrageous rents. Oh yes, I believe those might be competition and the profit incentive...
Maybe, but I'd rather hear some theoretical reasons for why/how this might be done rather than some version of "the spontaneous order of the market will take care of it." I think sometimes in today's statist world it is difficult to see exactly where markets end and government-influenced markets begin. Legal entities such as "corporations" are one example of this.
liberty student: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?
I think it is perfectly reasonable that if non-aggressive means inadvertently lead to oppressive ends that there needs to be some questioning on what exactly "the market" is and whether it is desirable in a free society.
I DO appreciate this conversation, and you will see me posting a lot more on these forums (sometimes being more contrarian than other times but ALWAYS with liberty on my mind). :)
Steven Handel:1) the libertarian ideal is to have all land owned privately.
Steven Handel: 3) rent will tend to lead to greater profits than the outright selling of land 4) therefore, this will tend to happen if all land is owned privately and there is no more land to homestead.
You need respect for homesteading rights, which mirrors conventional "land ownership" closely. Its the only way to put a meaningful price on something, and prices induce conservation. The alternative is to attack homesteaders, discouraging conservation/entrepreneurship. And I would claim this problem is not unique to land. There can be a limited amount of growable food, oil, clothes, etc...
Steven,
Your participation in the Mises Academy has been fantastic, and it's great to see you'll be posting here frequently too!
Thanks Grayson. I absolutely love everything about the Mises Institute. It is an endless resource. I try to listen to at least one or two audio/video lectures everyday, I download pdfs all of the time, and my experience with the Mises Academy has been phenomenal (expect to see me in future classes!)
Steven Handel:Cporter, why does it ignore time? Don't entrepreneurs typically aim to increase profits over the long-term? Why wouldn't rent maximize profits more-so than a one time sale? Not to mention you still retain ownership if you are only renting. I think there are clear advantages of rent over a one-time sale - mind explaining why this would be wrong?
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Sometimes selling land to get money is the right move to increase profits over the long-term. Sometimes you just want to get the cash right now and rents don't do that. Sometimes a guy that owns a ton of land dies and his heirs continue renting, sometimes they'd rather sell it all and go yachting and wine tasting for the rest of their lives.
If long term income from rents were all that mattered to people then they would already hold onto all land they owned. Instead we see ownership exchanges of land regularly, so I don't think you need to worry about a world where land (or any other capital) never changes hands and is instead forever rented.
And even if it did occur (and it could, technically), others have already explained why it's still not a big deal.
Steven Handel:Most anarchocapitalist theory is hypothetical, let's analyze it logically.
Anarcho-capitalism isn an ethical system. It cannot be analyzed logically. You will have to decide if you want to discuss economics or ethics. One is value free, one is not.
Steven Handel:Perhaps I am mind-reading into landowners too much. Maybe some will become tired of maintianing property to rent, or there will be times when they need some quick, urgent cash so they decide to sell some extra land. This is a valid point. (Perhaps this is also what cporter meant by me "ignoring time")
I like cporter.
Steven Handel:I am assuming class interest to the extent that Austrians presume entrepreneurs are profit-seeking.
Everyone is profit seeking. No one would exchange if not for the belief that it is profitable to do so.
Steven Handel:Why can't we just agree that morality can get blurry in certain cases?
I absolutely agree. But if we're going to take about libertarianism, then we're going to be talking about free markets and non-aggression.
Steven Handel:It would help some thick libertarians to sound a little less dogmatic in their principles and to acknowledge cases where things are not dogmatically right/wrong.
We've only just been introduced, but you'll find that statement doesn't apply to me.
Steven Handel:Well, it's a concern to me. You have brought up some good points but I am still not 100% convinced.
I'm not in the business of convincing. I am in the business of discussing ideas. Any religious conversions and exorcisms are a coincidence.
Steven Handel:I will admit, a part of me is playing devil's advocate, but I think it doesn't hurt libertarians to be more precise about their beliefs.
When I try to be precise, you claim I am begging the question. When I discuss libertarian ethics you want to discuss blurry morality. Now you want me to be more precise about libertarian beliefs.
Steven Handel:But if my only option is to pay rent at Place A or pay rent at Place B, it sounds pretty close to pay taxes at Nation A or pay taxes at Nation B.
Indeed it does. Sounds like they will have to compete for you.
Steven Handel:If you want to argue that the former situation isn't possible/likely - stick with that argument - but don't tell me the situation I am painting (however likely or unlikely) is desirable in a free society.
It conforms to a free society, so why wouldn't it be desirable?
Steven Handel:Fair points across the board, and this is the type of argument I wanted to hear - not the libertarian mantra "all taxes are bad, everything NAP is good" (I'm exaggerating, but that is sometimes how it feels when I try to dive into some of the nuisances of the libertarian philosophy.)
If you want to discuss ethics on a forum filled with libertarians and anarchists, you can expect libertarian ideas to carry the day. Characterizing libertarian ideas as nuisances, dogma or mantras is not good form.
Steven Handel:Either I didn't understand the deeper structure of your arguments or I wasn't convinced. It is no benefit to me to preserve falsehoods no matter where they come from.
That I can identify with.
Steven Handel:Maybe, but I'd rather hear some theoretical reasons for why/how this might be done rather than some version of "the spontaneous order of the market will take care of it."
We all like to be lied to, but I try not to make a habit of it on the Mises forums.
Steven Handel:I think it is perfectly reasonable that if non-aggressive means inadvertently lead to oppressive ends that there needs to be some questioning on what exactly "the market" is and whether it is desirable in a free society.
So we might have to use oppression to stop oppression?
Steven Handel:I DO appreciate this conversation, and you will see me posting a lot more on these forums (sometimes being more contrarian than other times but ALWAYS with liberty on my mind). :)
I do appreciate you being a good sport. I do look forward to you being a libertarian nuisance to someone else one day.
liberty student:Anarcho-capitalism isn an ethical system. It cannot be analyzed logically. You will have to decide if you want to discuss economics or ethics. One is value free, one is not.
Sure an ethical system can be analyzed logically. Libertarianism calls for certain values (we can think of these as axioms), including the "maximization of individual liberty," but then we can logically come up with principles and practices of this ethical philosophy so that these values are being properly fulfilled. If someone proposes a principle or practice and it doesn't adequately meet those values, we can say that ethical system is logically inconsistent.
liberty student:Everyone is profit seeking. No one would exchange if not for the belief that it is profitable to do so.
Agreed.
liberty student:When I try to be precise, you claim I am begging the question. When I discuss libertarian ethics you want to discuss blurry morality. Now you want me to be more precise about libertarian beliefs.
The homesteading principle, in a nuthsell, is that anyone who finds unused land can own it after they mix their labor with it. This is usually coherent with the NAP. However, if that unused land happens to border someones home, and in return the builder charges a toll everytime someone crosses their property, this essentially amounts to kidnapping - then obviously there is some inconsistency between NAP and the homesteading principle. That doesn't mean either principle is wrong - only that they need some re-polishing - or perhaps that they are better as rules of thumb.
Earlier you say, "Sounds to me like property is implicit in a society where self-ownership is practiced. A non-issue." Yet, if all property is privately owned these private owners have a say on what kinds of rules/restrictions you must abide to whenever you are on their property. Walter Block argues this all the time, sometimes to such extreme ends as an employer is allowed to pinch a woman's ass because by virtue of her working for his company she implicitly accepts the conditions in which she must work. If one doesn't own any property privately, they are implicitly abiding to all kinds of different sets of rules and restrictions that seem to contradict a true sense of "self-ownership" (which ultimately means the right to be left alone).
liberty student: Steven Handel:But if my only option is to pay rent at Place A or pay rent at Place B, it sounds pretty close to pay taxes at Nation A or pay taxes at Nation B. Indeed it does. Sounds like they will have to compete for you.
So why even worry about our current state of affairs? We already have a market of 100s of different legal systems to choose from - apparently we already live in an anarchocapitalist world? Choice between one tyranny or another is not freedom.
liberty student:If you want to discuss ethics on a forum filled with libertarians and anarchists, you can expect libertarian ideas to carry the day. Characterizing libertarian ideas as nuisances, dogma or mantras is not good form.
I don't regard any ideas as dogmatic unless they are treated as such by the individuals who hold them. If I try to point at a concrete example where Principle X might fail in practice, you can't just say, "Well then its not Principle X." That IS begging the question and altogether avoiding the point I am trying to make.
I don't use nuisance as a derogatory word in this sense - I am just saying these principles, in practice, become more complex than A=A.
liberty student:So we might have to use oppression to stop oppression?
Let's re-word it in a less controversial way: "might we have to use force to stop force?" Unless you are a pacifist, the answer is most clearly yes.
Steven Handel:Sure an ethical system can be analyzed logically. Libertarianism calls for certain values (we can think of these as axioms), including the "maximization of individual liberty," but then we can logically come up with principles and practices of this ethical philosophy so that these values are being properly fulfilled. If someone proposes a principle or practice and it doesn't adequately meet those values, we can say that ethical system is logically inconsistent.
Your definition of libertarianism seems somewhat loose. The maximization of individual liberty is completely open to interpretation. I prefer to start with property rights.
Steven Handel:Earlier you say, "Sounds to me like property is implicit in a society where self-ownership is practiced. A non-issue." Yet, if all property is privately owned these private owners have a say on what kinds of rules/restrictions you must abide to whenever you are on their property.
Absolutely. You can't be an owner if you can't exercise control including the right to exclude.
Steven Handel:Walter Block argues this all the time, sometimes to such extreme ends as an employer is allowed to pinch a woman's ass because by virtue of her working for his company she implicitly accepts the conditions in which she must work.
That's not relevant to our discussion.
Steven Handel:If one doesn't own any property privately, they are implicitly abiding to all kinds of different sets of rules and restrictions that seem to contradict a true sense of "self-ownership" (which ultimately means the right to be left alone).
What is a "true sense of self-ownership"? Some positive obligation you place on another to provide things for you with their property? What about their self-ownership?
Steven Handel:So why even worry about our current state of affairs? We already have a market of 100s of different legal systems to choose from - apparently we already live in an anarchocapitalist world? Choice between one tyranny or another is not freedom.
Except anarcho-capitalism has to do with the NAP. Right?
Steven Handel:I don't regard any ideas as dogmatic unless they are treated as such by the individuals who hold them. If I try to point at a concrete example where Principle X might fail in practice, you can't just say, "Well then its not Principle X." That IS begging the question and altogether avoiding the point I am trying to make.
But principle X hasn't failed. You have defined something not X as X, and then you claim X failed. It's utterly fallacious. I am not innocent if I am a murderer, so don't tell me innocent people are cold blooded killers.
Steven Handel:I don't use nuisance as a derogatory word in this sense - I am just saying these principles, in practice, become more complex than A=A.
How can you appeal to logic, then claim that the law of identity is insufficient?
Steven Handel:Let's re-word it in a less controversial way: "might we have to use force to stop force?" Unless you are a pacifist, the answer is most clearly yes.
Why re-word it? That was clearly what you wrote. You believe you should pre-emptively be able to oppress people to prevent oppression of someone else. That is precisely what a tax is. It is stealing from one party to reward another. It's not any more complicated than that.
You can take the teeth out of the language, but it is what it is. Theft and the initiation of violence.
OK this is going absolutely nowhere. Good night.
I'm sorry you feel that way, I hope you're willing to try again tomorrow.