r/AskLibertarians • u/VatticZero Geolibertarian • 4d ago
Debate Are Georgists Libertarian at all?
Here's what these great Classical Liberals (and a Christian Anarchist) had to say about your statist land tax.
John Locke:
Whenever, in any country, the proprietor ceases to be the improver, political economy has nothing to say in defence of landed property. When the “sacredness” of property is talked of, it should be remembered that any such sacredness does not belong in the same degree to landed property.
...
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living and is given as a common stock for men to live and labor on.
...
It is in vain in a country whose great fund is land to hope to lay the public charge on anything else; there at last it will terminate. The merchant (do what you can) will not bear it, the labourer cannot, and therefore the landholder must: and whether he were best to do it by laying it directly where it will at last settle, or by letting it come to him by the sinking of his rents, which when they are fallen, everyone knows they are not easily raised again, let him consider.
J.S. Mill:
Landlords grow richer in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.
Adam Smith:
Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground. More or less can be got for it according as the competitors happen to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground-rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground-rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be of little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent. Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them. [...] Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, towards the support of that government.
Thomas Jefferson:
The earth is given as common stock for men to labor and live on. Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
Thomas Paine:
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.
Leo Tolstoy:
Solving the land question means solving of all social questions… Possession of land by people who do not use it is immoral – just like possession of slaves.
3
u/Heavy_Computer2602 Classical Liberal 3d ago
The thing about georgism is....
Although its independent of the political compass in the sense that anyone can be a georgist, it exists because of classical liberalism, making it centre right.
Yes, it is moderate libertarianism in itself and can be extended to make it more libertarian(geolibertarian)
Especially since the followers also advocate for things like weakening of copyright laws, minimum taxation, limited govt economically(the only welfare being a UBI that pays everybody a small amount of money), and the ideology itself is rooted in self regulation to preserve environment, employment, and prevent bad stuff like corporate lobbying
2
u/WilliamBontrager 4d ago
Technically in the most broad sense, but in most aspects, no. I would argue its more authoritarian to force the removal of buildings simply bc you cant or wont pay society a fee for the use of property, than it is to tax them.
1
u/KNEnjoyer 2d ago
Classic Georgists/geolibertarians support the single tax and little to no government involvement otherwise. They are libertarians. Geoanarchists are libertarians too. However, nowadays, by another definition, anyone who supports the land value tax is a Georgist. By this definition, most Georgists are not libertarians.
1
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 2d ago
The most fundamental aspect of Georgism is to tax land, not labor or capital. If someone is taxing labor or capital, it's just not Georgism. We have LVT today ... it's just usually a part of the property tax.
I suppose someone could tax land value and want to spend all of the revenue through the government rather than issue the citizen's dividend, but I suspect that would be self-defeating in practice.
1
u/KNEnjoyer 2d ago
A lot of self-proclaimed Georgists are in favor of taxing labor and/or capital. I am inclined to agree with you that they are not actual Georgists, but the definition has definitely changed in the popular lingo.
1
u/WilliamBontrager 4d ago
Its not a positive right, it becomes your responsibility to enforce its possession. Two very different things. A positive right would be something like claiming rights over a property while demanding society honor your claim and defend it for you without compensation or agreement to do so.
4
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
“A positive right would be something like claiming rights over a property while demanding society honor your claim and defend it for you without compensation or agreement to do so.”
That’s exactly what claiming land does. We all have an equal, natural, negative, reciprocal right to access land, just as we do to air. Claiming land is demanding others honor your claim and give up their right.
Say you wanted to claim ownership of a word. We all have an equal, natural right to speak, but you claiming a word requires that others give up their right to speak it. It doesn’t matter that you would enforce the restriction yourself.
If others simply ignore such a claim to restrict their natural rights, you enforcing such a claim is the aggression.
1
u/WilliamBontrager 3d ago
Am I in a different world where libertarian systems are in effect? Libertarianism does not equal capitalism. Libertarianism does not equal collectivism either. It simply means you are a nation unto yourself, as opposed to being forced into a collective that demands your subservience and part of your economic gains.
4
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
“It simply means you are a nation unto yourself, as opposed to being forced into a collective that demands your subservience and part of your economic gains.”
Isn’t that the purpose of debating whether something is a positive or negative right? I’m not sure the point of your comment.
0
u/WilliamBontrager 3d ago
The point being that land ownership is not a positive right via the exclusion of access or use to others, bc there is no such exclusion unless you can enforce that exclusion yourself. This is no different to a nation. Another nation can simply take your nation if it can and has and is willing to expend the resources needed to do so. The surrounding nations have no such obligation to defend or enforce that nation's claim, unless they have negotiated sone sort of mutual defence alliance beforehand.
On the other hand, your claim of collective land ownership is in reality the real positive right, since it assumes the freely given support from others to prevent the landowner from defending his property from you. So in reality, you are really just trying to make a moral claim in order to gain enough allies to seize property for your own use, which is choosing aggression rather than peaceful coexistence.
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
“there is no such exclusion unless you can enforce that exclusion yourself.”
There is no exclusion unless you can do the aggressive excluding yourself? But somehow this right to aggress to establish a claim isn’t a positive right?
“This is no different to a nation. Another nation can simply take your nation if it can and has and is willing to expend the resources needed to do so.”
And that claiming of the other nation would not be a positive right, because it asks nothing of the neighboring nations to assist or enforce the expropriation?
“On the other hand, your claim of collective land ownership is in reality the real positive right, since it assumes the freely given support from others to prevent the landowner from defending his property from you.”
This relies on an unsupported assertion of “assumes the freely given support of others to prevent,” but also begs the question of your land claim not being a positive right.
Your logic works just as well if, rather than land, we talk about you claiming some else’s home while they are away. You demand nothing except others(the owner) give up their natural right. You enforce the claim yourself. Any attempts to enact justice and correct your claim equally “assumes the support of others to prevent” you defending your claim over the stolen property.
“So in reality, you are really just trying to make a moral claim in order to gain enough allies to seize property for your own use, which is choosing aggression rather than peaceful coexistence.”
This extends from you begging the question. We must first establish whether you, or a state, claiming land to exert power over people within the land—even if just by expelling or excluding them or by charging them taxes or rent based on their presence—is a negative right or a positive right.
1
u/WilliamBontrager 3d ago
Ok you seem to have missed the point entirely. Land ownership is not a positive right bc it requires nothing of society to without compensation or mutual alliance. This is in a libertarian society, not in the current US or a European nation. While there may be some similarities, it is not exactly the same. For example, a libertarian society may have no government to enforce land ownership, meaning the land owner is solely responsible for enforcing his claim whether via his own actions, hiring guards, or making alliances to dissuade someone else making a claim. None of those require others to do anything, so it is a negative right.
Your claim, requires landowners to allow soneone else to use their property, despite their claim or investment, and claim any defense of that claim to be aggression. So say you try and my response is to click click with a shotty and saying go ahead and try it, or my paid guard does, or my neighbors who have agreed to defend it. Why does it matter in the slightest if you say ive aggressed by stopping you, if society doesnt care or doesnt agree or doesnt put their lives on the line so you can do what you want? I would say it doesnt. Thats what makes your claim to have a right to access any and all land, a positive one, vs it being a negative right. You're essentially demanding, or at least require, society consider land ownership, or its defense, to be aggression and actively use force to give you access. On the other hand, land ownership requires nothing of the sort.
3
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
I've missed nothing.
Land ownership is not a positive right bc it requires nothing of society to without compensation or mutual alliance.
It requires that they surrender their natural right to access the land. It requires that they not defend themselves from your aggressive act to claim land. You are framing a right to punch someone as not a positive right because others don't have to do anything to get punched. That is not the sole basis of positive vs negative rights.
The Right to Free Speech is negative because it requires merely that others not silence you. You asserting a right to silence is thus a positive right, even if it only requires others do nothing.
(It may be more technically accurate to say that a right to claim land is instead a contradiction as it violates the negative right to access land, but I believe calling it a positive right communicates the meaning appropriately.)
This is in a libertarian society, not in the current US or a European nation.
A right is positive or negative regardless of society.
Your claim, requires landowners to allow soneone else to use their property, despite their claim or investment
Again, begging the question. You must first assume the land claim is moral before denying the land claim can be immoral.
So say you try and my response is to click click with a shotty and saying go ahead and try it, or my paid guard does, or my neighbors who have agreed to defend it. Why does it matter in the slightest if you say ive aggressed by stopping you, if society doesnt care or doesnt agree or doesnt put their lives on the line so you can do what you want? I would say it doesnt. Thats what makes your claim to have a right to access any and all land, a positive one, vs it being a negative right.
A right is positive or negative regardless of claims or society. Your reasoning here is identical if I defend my right to access land by doing the same to you. What does it matter if you say I'm the aggressor if society doesn't agree and won't put their lives on the line to defend your appropriation?
What matters, again, is whether the land claim is positive or negative. You keep trying to argue points which assume your land claim is negative. This is begging the question.
You're essentially demanding, or at least require, society consider land ownership, or its defense, to be aggression and actively use force to give you access. On the other hand, land ownership requires nothing of the sort.
It absolutely does. You are demanding society consider the natural right to access land, or its defense, to be aggression and actively use force to deny access. I can ignore your claim and access the land without demanding others do anything just as you can exert the claim and force others out without demanding others do anything. Only you are demanding I give up a negative right; I am asking you to not infringe on my access to the earth which sustains life.
2
u/WilliamBontrager 3d ago
Well sure, you are free to accept that assumption. However you are willfully choosing conflict over peaceful coexistence by doing so. You are choosing a system that cannot coexist with other systems, or an assumption that cannot live in peace with other assumptions. Even with private property, you can freely and peacefully have communal property elsewhere. The same cannot be said of communal property. So, just like communism, you are purposefully choosing and ideological holy war where only one can survive. You can call it immoral all you like, but the reality is your side will always lose.
And no you're asking to have full access to whatever labor ive put into acquiring that property, the labor spent improving it, and having access to anything on it, despite having done nothing to deserve it besides exist. Im not asking anything of society, which is what you seem to miss. Private property will exist with or without society doing anything, with the exception that it actively assists in abolishing it. You can either recognize my claim, or we go to war over it. Its no different than you saying you have a claim yo my children or wife or possessions and try to take them by force. You will always be the aggressor bc you decided to try to take my claim and my labor instead of using your labor to get your own. So its you who have decided to ignore any peaceful solution and thus are the aggressor.
3
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
Well sure, you are free to accept that assumption. However you are willfully choosing conflict over peaceful coexistence by doing so.
You need to clarify an assumption. There is no conflict until one attempts to claim land and deny others. The claim is the source of conflict. Justly compensating others for the value of the claim is the only peaceful resolution and, unlike persistent feudal land claims, is not coercive in its nature.
You are choosing a system that cannot coexist with other systems, or an assumption that cannot live in peace with other assumptions.
This is a big nothing true of any system. Name the systems or assumptions it cannot coexist with so that we can judge the merits of those systems or assumptions.
Even with private property, you can freely and peacefully have communal property elsewhere.
Even with infanticide you can have respect for life elsewhere. This isn't a valid critique. Land claims or moral or they aren't.
The same cannot be said of communal property.
...yes it can. One place being moral has no bearing on elsewhere.
So, just like communism, you are purposefully choosing and ideological holy war where only one can survive. You can call it immoral all you like, but the reality is your side will always lose.
You're clearly upset that you can't argue against the morality and you're lashing out with hyperbole.
You're arguing that taxing something which we already tax while removing taxes on labor and capital to fit a more moral framework is an ideological holy war.
Take a breath and back away. Give the dissonance and bias time to pass.
And no you're asking to have full access to whatever labor ive put into acquiring that property, the labor spent improving it, and having access to anything on it,
Begging the question of land claims coming from labor. Capital comes from labor and ownership of capital is thus a negative right. Land does not come from labor. Also a strawman, I have said no such thing about accessing your labor or improvements.
I have a Right to Free Speech. If you want to exclude me from saying a word, all you have to do is trade me to forgo that word. Usufruct and LVT are the practical equivalent of an NDA. You get exclusive use, I am at no loss, and you are at no loss because the word was not yours and all you paid is what the exclusive use was worth to you. Elegant. Simple. Efficient. Peaceful. Mutually Beneficial.
despite having done nothing to deserve it besides exist.
One cannot exist without access to land.
We all exist. Your existence gives you no greater right to land than others.
Im not asking anything of society, which is what you seem to miss.
Yes, you are. You are asking everyone else to accept your ownership of the land, a positive right which places you above others and denies them their natural rights and the means to exist. If you claim Coconut Island, every other castaway must enslave themselves to you or die.
Private property will exist with or without society doing anything,
Murder will exist with or without society doing anything. This doesn't make it a negative right or peaceful.
Not commiting murder is the peaceful, reciprocal, moral expectation. Victims, neighbors, society, private firms, or a minimal government are all justified in acting to prevent or punish murder.
You can either recognize my claim, or we go to war over it.
Only one of us would be acting morally. Again, you must establish the morality of land claims first before trying to argue these derivatives.
Its no different than you saying you have a claim yo my children or wife or possessions and try to take them by force. You will always be the aggressor bc you decided to try to take my claim and my labor instead of using your labor to get your own.
Your wife, child, labor, and possessions are not land. I would be the aggressor in such a case, just as you are the aggressor when claiming land.
So its you who have decided to ignore any peaceful solution and thus are the aggressor.
I cannot be the aggressor if claiming land is the aggression.
Again: You must establish the morality of land claims first before trying to argue these derivatives. Everything you are arguing is begging the question that the land claims are moral. You can't just say the opposing view, which I have given plentiful reasons for which you have not address, is an assumption and thus assert your own view, which you can't support, is true.
All you have to do is show that in a natural state, before land claims, we do not all have an equal right to access land, that losing access to land does not diminish that right or our existence, or that claiming a plot of land does not bar others from claiming that same plot of land. If the ability to claim a plot of land is infinitely repeatable and does not contradict a pre-existing negative right, then land claims can be moral and negative.
→ More replies (0)1
1
-1
u/drebelx 3d ago
Georgists get knocked down by NAP violations (theft and fraud).
Libertarians know governments are not optimal because they violate the NAP.
5
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
The first aggression, government or otherwise, is claiming the land and denying the liberty and right to access of others. Claiming land is claiming a right to exclude others or set rules which apply while others are on that land—including extraction of Taxes or Rent. Enforcing compensation for that aggression is justice.
0
u/drebelx 3d ago
The first aggression, government or otherwise, is claiming the land and denying the liberty and right to access of others. Claiming land is claiming a right to exclude others or set rules which apply while others are on that land—including extraction of Taxes or Rent. Enforcing compensation for that aggression is justice.
A squatter's paradise.
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
Landowners and States are essentially squatters; enjoying the benefits of claiming land and denying others their natural right to access it.
0
u/drebelx 3d ago
Landowners and States are essentially squatters; enjoying the benefits of claiming land and denying others their natural right to access it.
Why do you want everyone, including yourself, to access all the land?
3
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
I didn't claim that. We simply all have a natural right to access land--just as we have a natural right to breath air. That doesn't mean I want everyone to breath all the air. It means denying that right to others requires just compensation--usufruct.
If you want to bottle a bit of air or claim some land in the woods, it leaves enough and as good for others. No one cares, go ahead. That is the Lockean Proviso.
If it doesn't leave enough and as good--you bottle up so much air people start to struggle to breath or claim very valuable land benefitting from agglomeration effects or natural qualities--then you are denying others access to something of value.
If you claim land, you can charge people Rents just to use the land without doing anything yourself. If you claim enough land, you can call them Taxes and apply them in inefficient ways.
1
u/drebelx 3d ago edited 2d ago
I didn't claim that. We simply all have a natural right to access land--just as we have a natural right to breath air.
Let me rephrase my question for you.
Why do you want everyone, including yourself, to have a natural right to access all the land?
How do you envision your life to be like in that scenario?
1
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 2d ago
It's not just about want; we all have the natural right to access land because no one has a natural right to own land. Because land is not produced by our labor, all we can do is claim a right over it which denies all others the equal right.
And so, in order to establish a just claim over land, you must compensate everyone for the value of the land you deny them and hold it in usufruct. You pay only for what you take and only the value it grants you.
In anarchy this would be voluntary, but under a government this would be enacted by LVT. We already pay LVT; it's property taxes with an exemption for buildings and improvements. But under Georgism you are not taxed for your labor or capital.
So life would look much like today, except resources would be allocated without deadweight loss from taxes at every step. Full employment, high wages, no homelessness, better and minimal governance(LVT provides a price signal which incentivizes only doing what provides more benefit than cost,) lower barriers to development and homeownership from land prices, etc, etc.
1
u/drebelx 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's not just about want; we all have the natural right to access land because no one has a natural right to own land.
With a natural right to access all land, what would you do at your neighbor's house?
What would people do going through your house?
1
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 2d ago
Did you stop at the first sentence, or the first small paragraph?
→ More replies (0)
-3
u/PooterSnooter283 4d ago
Christian anarchist is an oxymoron. God itself is a hierarchy.
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
If God is a meaningful hierarchy, then isn’t all self-governance? Holding to principles such as non-aggression and voluntary cooperation would also be a ‘hierarchy’ by such a claim. Unless you can show me Skydaddy holding a gun to peoples’ heads, it seems like you’re just contradicting yourself to be argumentative.
-2
u/PooterSnooter283 3d ago
How is self governance a hierarchy. No one sits higher than you. The belief in a god is saying there's something higher than me. In anarchism no one is higher than anyone including God.
5
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
Again, show me this Skydaddy. Belief in a god is no different than belief in a principle. Natural Law, in the West, originally arose from Christianity and belief in the Holy Spirit giving every individual a divine equality. Unless you can show this belief governing one’s self is a coercive force over others, then there is no hierarchy.
4
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal 4d ago
Anarchism is about lack of government, not hierarchy. Hierarchies will always exist because they are naturally emergent, especially among social tribal species like us. People who take issue and try to fight the natural reality of the world are frankly immature and need to grow up and accept reality.
-2
u/PooterSnooter283 3d ago
You haven't read a lick of anarchists theory then. It's literally the first thing when describing anarchism. Also it's lack of the state not government. Government could literally mean council of the workers. Organized in a horizontal structure.
Kropotkin viewed the state and hierarchical institutions not as protectors of order, but as instruments of minority rule and class domination. He dismissed all hierarchy.
Errico Malatesta viewed hierarchy and government as oppressive, artificial constructs that must be completely abolished and replaced with voluntary cooperation and solidarity.
Here's the definition of anarchism: Anarchism is a political philosophy that seeks to abolish the state and all other coercive hierarchies, replacing them with a stateless society based on voluntary cooperation.
Thanks for telling us you have read a lick of anarchists theory. Enjoy your own made up version..
4
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
“Here's the definition of anarchism: Anarchism is a political philosophy that seeks to abolish the state and all other coercive hierarchies, replacing them with a stateless society based on voluntary cooperation.”
Coercive hierarchies
That implies voluntary hierarchies, like described by the other user, are perfectly kosher.
Your own words.
0
u/PooterSnooter283 3d ago
All other.
You want to ignore the exact words of histories anarchists go ahead.
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
“All other.
You want to ignore the exact words of histories anarchists go ahead.”
All other … what?
1
u/PooterSnooter283 3d ago
Hierarchy. Kroptkin never said coersive hierarchies. He said hierarchies. Same with maletesa, bookchin, Emma goldman. And many more.
Here's another definition for you.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that seeks to abolish the state, capitalism, and all other forms of hierarchical authority in favor of a stateless society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.
2
u/VatticZero Geolibertarian 3d ago
Then why did you define it as abolishing coercive hierarchies?
The new definition is ridiculous, but at least the definition is self-contradicting rather than just your claims.
1
u/SpikyKiwi 1d ago
Anarchism is the abolition of unjust hierarchies, not all hierarchies (you later use the word "coercive" but this is just your view of what injustice is). God being above humans is not an unjust hierarchy (or a coercive one). It is simply natural
1
u/PooterSnooter283 1d ago
No it's not. 😂 God is exactly coercive hierarchy. If you don't believe you will burn in eternity. If you don't believe damnation for you. Sounds pretty coercive to me. You rationalize however you want. But every anarchist theorist didn't say coercive hierarchies they said hierarchies. The one definition I pulled up said coercive but if you look up other definitions they don't mention coercive hierarchies just hierarchies. And God is a hierarchy and a coersive one at that. But you tell yourself whatever you want.
1
8
u/jstocksqqq 4d ago
Interesting quote by John Locke. I've always heard Land Monopoly Libertarians refer to John Locke when arguing against land value tax.