Geolibertarianism by other means — Part 1: current system — advantages

Subject: Land use and rent (land and natural resources) revisted OR geolibertarianism by other means — Part 1: current system — advantages

I’ve been thinking a lot about this one lately. Given the mobility of finanacial “capital” and the fixed-source nature of rent (land and natural resources) (plus the fact that surface area cannot be moved and is difficult/expensive to make) I wonder about the workability of taxes on land and natural resources. It is true that taxing the value of surface area has fewer problems in a global economy. It is not however, without some problems.

Land and natural resources were capitalized in a manner that is no different than theft by pirates, the only difference is that it was the government and elites that did the pirating.

Despite being very inequitable, the current system has its advantages. The various aspects and a discussion of each follows:

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP allows for flexibility that is more and more necessary as the rate of change increases. Even goergists/geolibertarians do not wish to nationalize land.

ABILITY OF LAND OWNERS TO HOLD OUT: I’m not so sure this is advantageous, but I wonder if there is another side to this story. Would a 95-99% tax make land owners who cannot move there property too much at mercy of the jurisdictions they are in and the organizations and people around them?

MARKET CAPITALIZATION: In nations and regions of anarchy (or more like chaos, which is quite different) it isn’t possible to use the market value of real estate as security for loans. This seems to interfer with economic development, or so today’s conventional wisdom goes.


Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Geolibertarianism by other means — Part 1: current system — advantages”

  1. jeepndesert Says:

    i think most georgists agree that the free market is a convenience for distributing land and natural resources.

    however, the excessive consumption of both should be discouraged by taxes. furthermore, the taxes should be redistributed back to everyone equal so everyone can afford land and natural resources that they have equal claim.

    having access to land and natural resources is the foundation for any economy of free people.

  2. jeepndesert Says:

    the free market is valid for free people to have rights to their own labor.

    however, it fails when it comes to land and natural resources. everyone
    deserves the ability to put their feet on the ground, drink the water, and forage for food without having to work for someone else.

    thomas paine proposed a system where people get a lump sum payment at age 18. however, i think checks through lvt, natural resources taxes, and general consumption should redistributed equally back to the people monthly so they’ll always have access.

  3. autumnofburnoutcommie67 Says:

    My current thinking is that we should focus on natural resource taxation, especially mineral rights. Redistributing at least part (if not all) of the proceeds is probably a good idea. It is likely that land has no intrinsic value. Any value may well be due to improvements or proximity to improvements and talented people.

    On the other hand, I believe that improvements should be paid for by landowners, either directly (when practical) or through taxation (on land when direct payment by landholders isn’t practical). I consider Interstate highways to be improvements, even in cases where the highway is several miles from a given plot. Distance should be considered in the calculation of tax.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: