What I have done in this book, if I have correctly solved the great problem I have sought to investigate, is, to unite the truth perceived by the school of Smith and Ricardo to the truth perceived by the school of Proudhon and Lasalle; to show that laissez faire (in its full true meaning) opens the way to a realization of the noble dreams of socialism.
Yeah, I would agree they aren't necessarily at odds most of the time. I do think there is a certain point where the necessarily would become at odds. if that makes sense? Probably not. Try 2 would be: Whether they are at odds would depend on the conditions and standards.
Like if you want absolute equality of wealth/benefits from society. Then it seems pretty apparent that would rub against freedom pretty quickly. Since in that case, even things produced without the use of capital would end up being redistributed for the benefit of the collective.
However, there are many ways to increase freedom or equality without decreasing the other.
And to an extent, massive power imbalances are likely to lead to negotiation being unfair.(Inequality) Which naturally leads to less freedom.
Great piece, thanks Martin! Even as a self-identified left-libertarian this helped me understand a lot more about what that means.
One different perspective I have is that I don't really see the unpopularity of LVT as a consequence of a minority of politically-connected wealthy elites. Rather, I think it's just that two-thirds of households own their homes, and thus most of their net worth (and therefore their class) is vested in propping-up the value of that asset, so for the majority of voters an increase in land taxes is basically off-the-table.
Thank you Stephen! I am very happy that you found the essay interesting! And you you make a great point that widespread home-ownership is another reason why people are put-off by land value taxation. But the way I think about it, the main conflict is not between those who own some land and those who own no land, but rather, as per the law of equal liberty, between those who own more than is compatible with the equal shares of other, and the rest. And given the concentration of landownership, this is a rather small but influential fraction of the population.
I do think that is an issue as well. However, improving your home in a way that doesn't cause a spiraling effect for the community is disincentives under the current system. If you renovate your kitchen then you will likely pay more in taxes.
Thanks for the article. You said - "While abolition of the land monopoly might be necessary to abolish economic privilege, it is not sufficient."
Could you explain? What other economic privilege would be left? I'm assuming, of course, that by "the abolition of the land monopoly" you mean the single tax.
So, I get the impression that Geoist is a different spelling of Georgist? Not sure though? Although, maybe it is a name for a more general philosophical movement which is aligned? not sure?
[E]veryone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters / arsonists / looters who used to provide such "services" in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia. (In general, if thoughts of the Eastern Congo intrude, I suggest waving them away with the invisible hand and repeating "that's anarcho-capitalism" several times.) Nothing's happening but a buzzing noise, right?
-----
Nonetheless, we could drastically curtail bureaucratic interference in everyday life (stuff like excessive professional licensing regimes, most of Euclidean zoning, etc). But you're going to need some kind of state monopoly on force for basic policing, tax collection, and distribution of the UBI.
The time problem boils down to the very people capable of understanding the potential are incapable of controlling the wealth and vise versa: the people controlling the wealth have no time the theoretical nicietities because the are constantly accumulating more more money. The best you a get is philanthropy, which we see constantly and the inability to form a party around these principals - for example Proudhon's unwillingness to do so.
TL;DR If you have the time you do not have the weath; if you have the wealth you do not have the time.
I would imagine that many of the people who are accumulating money can easily understand the potential. It's not rocket science. I would imagine the problem is the opposite. Most of the people who are being exploited do not have the capacity to understand to potential and so do not vote accordingly. However, we might agree that those with money do not have the motivation and have significant power to oppose such a change. However, these arguments do not prove that Geoism would not work - only that our current system is unlikely to try it out.
I liked this article! I think the idea that liberty and equality are fundamentally at odds is very limiting. Thanks for putting this out.
Yeah, I would agree they aren't necessarily at odds most of the time. I do think there is a certain point where the necessarily would become at odds. if that makes sense? Probably not. Try 2 would be: Whether they are at odds would depend on the conditions and standards.
Like if you want absolute equality of wealth/benefits from society. Then it seems pretty apparent that would rub against freedom pretty quickly. Since in that case, even things produced without the use of capital would end up being redistributed for the benefit of the collective.
However, there are many ways to increase freedom or equality without decreasing the other.
And to an extent, massive power imbalances are likely to lead to negotiation being unfair.(Inequality) Which naturally leads to less freedom.
Great piece, thanks Martin! Even as a self-identified left-libertarian this helped me understand a lot more about what that means.
One different perspective I have is that I don't really see the unpopularity of LVT as a consequence of a minority of politically-connected wealthy elites. Rather, I think it's just that two-thirds of households own their homes, and thus most of their net worth (and therefore their class) is vested in propping-up the value of that asset, so for the majority of voters an increase in land taxes is basically off-the-table.
Thank you Stephen! I am very happy that you found the essay interesting! And you you make a great point that widespread home-ownership is another reason why people are put-off by land value taxation. But the way I think about it, the main conflict is not between those who own some land and those who own no land, but rather, as per the law of equal liberty, between those who own more than is compatible with the equal shares of other, and the rest. And given the concentration of landownership, this is a rather small but influential fraction of the population.
I do think that is an issue as well. However, improving your home in a way that doesn't cause a spiraling effect for the community is disincentives under the current system. If you renovate your kitchen then you will likely pay more in taxes.
Thanks for the article. You said - "While abolition of the land monopoly might be necessary to abolish economic privilege, it is not sufficient."
Could you explain? What other economic privilege would be left? I'm assuming, of course, that by "the abolition of the land monopoly" you mean the single tax.
So, I get the impression that Geoist is a different spelling of Georgist? Not sure though? Although, maybe it is a name for a more general philosophical movement which is aligned? not sure?
Maybe we'll get to test the idea : "Detroit wants to be the first big American city to tax land value" from The Economist https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/10/05/detroit-wants-to-be-the-first-big-american-city-to-tax-land-value
I read some articles about geolibertarianism in college in the '90s and always found it appealing.
I'm skeptical that one can "do away with the institution of the state". As Belle Waring once put it:
https://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_were_.html
-----
[E]veryone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters / arsonists / looters who used to provide such "services" in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia. (In general, if thoughts of the Eastern Congo intrude, I suggest waving them away with the invisible hand and repeating "that's anarcho-capitalism" several times.) Nothing's happening but a buzzing noise, right?
-----
Nonetheless, we could drastically curtail bureaucratic interference in everyday life (stuff like excessive professional licensing regimes, most of Euclidean zoning, etc). But you're going to need some kind of state monopoly on force for basic policing, tax collection, and distribution of the UBI.
This argument has been made before. It fails because the time problem. No marks.
I'm intrigued. Please explain.
The time problem boils down to the very people capable of understanding the potential are incapable of controlling the wealth and vise versa: the people controlling the wealth have no time the theoretical nicietities because the are constantly accumulating more more money. The best you a get is philanthropy, which we see constantly and the inability to form a party around these principals - for example Proudhon's unwillingness to do so.
TL;DR If you have the time you do not have the weath; if you have the wealth you do not have the time.
I would imagine that many of the people who are accumulating money can easily understand the potential. It's not rocket science. I would imagine the problem is the opposite. Most of the people who are being exploited do not have the capacity to understand to potential and so do not vote accordingly. However, we might agree that those with money do not have the motivation and have significant power to oppose such a change. However, these arguments do not prove that Geoism would not work - only that our current system is unlikely to try it out.
But then you get to marginal costs of doing better.
As long as the costs are less than the benefits, we're OK. (PS I love short contributions but I'm afraid I find yours to be somewhat cryptic)
This is Econ 201, so admittedly its a bit topsy turvy. I am using Barro Macroeconomics.