While I feel that most forms of taxation are theft, I can almost handle the single land-value land tax like Thomas mentioned earlier as well. It’s not ideal, but I am not an anarchist and don’t want a stateless society (I personally don’t think it’s workable due to human nature), and a government needs some sort of funding. I’d rather use something else, but a land-value tax is uniform regardless of what you do with it…and I can live with something like that.

Thank you for taking the time to answer. I can see we’re obviously on different sides of this issue.

I do see a problem with someone else claiming 95% of an island just because they say “this is mine.” I have an even larger problem with him ‘selling it’ when he isn’t even using it, given that he did nothing to acquire it beyond saying it was his. The only way for him to rationalize his claim, in my view, is to either use guns (force) or the law (force) to justify his view. I also still maintain that one cannot justify claiming ownership of capital they did nothing to create without it being a violation of others’ ability to use the same product (such as land, water, air, etc.). As we disagree, however, I realize that this is of course my opinion alone.

Yes, a ‘geo’ system isn’t perfect, and no, I don’t necessarily advocate it. I do tend to sympathize with its thoughts on the original question of land ownership based on pure claim, however.

That being said, I would never advocate a full-scale conversion to a ‘geo’ system, even if I did ever claim to fully support a system proposed. The question (or problem, depending on how you look at it I suppose) and answers of original claim to geological ‘property’ pose similarities to other great debates of our day. Just as social security is an immoral, unjust ponzi scheme, I’d still never advocate getting rid of it overnight. Millions of people have acted on the good faith that it would be there for them, and of those people many are past the age to possess a developed alternative. To me, there is a striking parallel to the issuance of land ‘ownership.’ I would never deny the millions of people who ‘own’ land under our current system their rights to ‘their’ property, but I think any number of hybrid systems could eventually turn some of these problems around. One such method (again, as I said to another person) is the incrementalist approach of the single land-value tax. This ‘tax’ could be used under our current system of government to not only correct the many injustices of progressive taxation and the entitlement programs it supports, but it could also be a first step towards an increasingly minarchist society which may one day be more susceptible to libertarian alternatives and/or anarchy (obviously whether or not to go all the way to a stateless society and when [stage-wise] is a whole different debate).

As Thomas has mentioned, there are some similar examples already existing in places like Hong Kong, where prosperity is no stranger. I know others find that setting the ‘unused value of the land’ to a market price would still require the existence of a central authority, but I’m not so certain a free market alternative couldn’t someday exist given the right system. That being said, even the ‘authority-based’ regime could work within an incrementalist government that would nudge rather than leap others to liberty. Of course, there are a hundred other variables that could make that work or corrupt it entirely (the system of governance is a large part of that – obviously the pillaging nature of an unchecked democracy wouldn’t work well with such a system).

I have an open mind towards any approach that is markedly more libertarian than what we have today, and would readily endorse anything I think is feasible – I try not to limit my beliefs to one system of government (or non-government =p), but I also try not to close the door on any idea that I think contains at least something tenable (hence, my defense of this ideology against my previous debate partner).

That being said, I think we (we, being the many libertarians who have participated in this debate) can at least all agree that liberty is fundamentally better than socialism or the mixed-use systems in effect today.

It’s been fun.

Yes, that’s one weakness of some variants of the “single tax.”

I understand that Hong Kong uses a different formula — a uniform tax on the amount of land claimed, period.

Say the tax is one dollar an acre.

It’s a dollar an acre if the acre is a scree-covered plot at the bottom of a remote, avalanche-prone mountain, and it’s a dollar an acre if the acre is level, solid ground next to an interstate highway exit.

It’s a dollar an acre if you farm lettuce on that acre — and it’s a dollar an acre if you build your family home or a 100-story skyscraper on that acre.

There are positives and negatives to doing it that way, but one of the positives is that it doesn’t require subjective bureaucratic assessments of land value. An acre is an acre is an acre.

I’m sure I’m not the most eloquent speaker on this subject, since these are just my own ramblings, but here goes.

1.) Let’s say you and I both show up at the continent at the same time and we both claim all of it. Who has the right to it? In contrast, what if I only claim 20%, which leads you to claim 80%? What are your thoughts on this?

For both of us to claim all of it, someone will eventually have to either initiate force on one another, or we will have to negotiate a settlement. Of course, the odds of two people claiming all of a continent at the exact same time are so unlikely that it boggles the mind. If not the same time, the prior claim wins out.

As for you claiming 20% and me claiming the other 80%, I don’t see a problem. My claim doesn’t impede on your claim in the least, and yours doesn’t impede on mine.

2.) What if you show up to the continent and claim a stake, and then I do, and then others do, and it all seems pretty reasonable. Eventually, thousands are now settled rather productively in an area constituting about 5% of the land. Now, person X shows up and claims the remaining 95%. He does this to profit in his ’sale’ of it to new arrivals, and either creates a band of defense or his own ’state’ to protect his 95% claim (funded through his ’sales’). Is his claim ‘just’ (eww, another word I hate, like ‘fair’)? Consider the possibility that his ‘claim’ also feeds the notion of his ’state,’ as it is easier for people to cooperate with him than fight the protectors of ‘his land.’ This is a system of aggression that only leads to further aggression.

If those thousands are occupying only 5% of the land mass, and have chosen to do so, why would they need to move into the 95% where person X shows up and forms his own “state”? I argue that what you describe is “just” until/unless the use of force is initiated to force people to buy the land he has for sale or if he tries to force his own governance on those he’s sold the land to.

If, as I think you’re describing, he considers that since he “sold” the land to people that he has some control over their activities, I’d argue that he does not. Once the land is sold, he has given up his rights on the land IMO and thus has no say in what happens on it so long as those actions occuring on that land didn’t harm him or his.

You’re correct in that I disagree with the equation to socialism. Not paying into their schemes has little to do with liberty – their schemes are based upon the idea that you should share your productivity with me if I’m less productive, and that’s hogwash.

I think the reason the ‘purist left’ (if you could call it that) comes to their silly ideas is because they claim they didn’t have equal opportunity to begin with. In many ways this is flawed, but when it comes to the original claim of property, which in many ways influences productivity, they may not be far off. This isn’t to say it justifies their schemes, as I wholly condemn trying to retroactively adjust such problems through the state.

Now, a few more scenarios to run through with the continent metaphor (I know these metaphors get old and I apologize).
1.) Let’s say you and I both show up at the continent at the same time and we both claim all of it. Who has the right to it? In contrast, what if I only claim 20%, which leads you to claim 80%? What are your thoughts on this?
2.) What if you show up to the continent and claim a stake, and then I do, and then others do, and it all seems pretty reasonable. Eventually, thousands are now settled rather productively in an area constituting about 5% of the land. Now, person X shows up and claims the remaining 95%. He does this to profit in his ‘sale’ of it to new arrivals, and either creates a band of defense or his own ‘state’ to protect his 95% claim (funded through his ‘sales’). Is his claim ‘just’ (eww, another word I hate, like ‘fair’)? Consider the possibility that his ‘claim’ also feeds the notion of his ‘state,’ as it is easier for people to cooperate with him than fight the protectors of ‘his land.’ This is a system of aggression that only leads to further aggression.

[I won't be able to respond to this until tomorrow morning, for the record]

Moreover, private ownership of land is essential to establish and protect liberty.

Finally, the free market cannot efficiently develop land without:

1) the right to own it, tax free,

2) the right to keep it off the market during long periods of time in order to accumulate the necessary large tracts needed for efficient and ecological development,

3) the right to dedicate the property to low, zero or even negative income uses which may have a higher utility or higher value to the people who directly or indirectly use or benefit from the property, which would be impossible with forced sale and/or high taxes imposed by the geonazis and

4) without having to pay a tax based on some arbitrary valuation or face forced sale for some “higher valued” use that represents more money but less utility when the owners inevitably create new and better ways to use and develop land that are cleaner, cheaper, greener, more efficient, more suited for sustainable living, make better communities but just happen to appear lower valued in the marketplace. Nacent industries often face low profits or losses in their infancy and those in need of land, especially new forms of development, would be strangled at birth under the geonazi scheme.

The geonazi land tax must necessarily be based on an arbitrary valuation by state centralized bureaucracies and enforced by a gestpo like IRS.

The damage caused by property taxes of any kind to the economies of the world are much greater than the combined effects of all other forms of taxation to date. The geonazi tax would be even worse.

Honestly, in that hypothetical situation, then it would depend on one overriding factor: is the continent occupied. If so, then he can’t claim the whole continent for himself.

However, I believe I understand what you’re asking, and I believe the assumption is that there’s no occupying presence on this hypothetical continent. In such a case, I’d say sure, he’s free to claim it. I’d maintain that he won’t be able to keep it all by his lonesome, and he’d be silly to try, but personally I’d support his right to maintain ownership.

However, as for claiming land violating the liberty of others, the same could be said about not wishing to pay into wealth distribution schemes, that by holding onto my earnings, I’m denying the liberty of others. While I suspect you disagree with that statement (as do I), I have heard similar arguments made for socialism in the past. I have not denied anyone’s liberty by claiming something I found. I deny their liberty when I take it by force however, which is a whole different matter on which we have little disagreement.

I think that’s where we disagree (obviously). The reason I said I like the ideas of ‘geo’ thought (but don’t consider myself a follower) is because there is an argument to be made that in claiming land this way, you are violating the liberty of others.

What if someone found a new continent (follow this for argument’s sake) and claimed the whole land his upon discovery? How would you feel about that?

I think that there is a big calculation problem in determining such a rate, similar to what Mises pointed out in regards to central planning of prices.

On the other hand, a truly free market has many self-correcting functions that give people signals to where they would want to live.

I’ve been thinking about your question, and I’d say that the initial owner/claimant initiated no force in claiming the land, but must be prepared to use force to maintain ownership of that land. I get the feeling that you disagree, but that’s cool

The idea of geo-rents is the total cost of baseline peacekeeping functions could be the lowest and most efficient. Pollution penalties is another way to go. I also like the One Rate idea, a tiny transaction charge.

Even though I’m sympathetic to geo-ism, it requires a radical shift in how we view property rights. Geo-istic transitions are in the L tent, IMO.

You’re not allowed to leave? How does this interact with the notion of individual sovereignty and free choice? Surely one is allowed to change their mind on something. And what’s to stop tyranny from within the pod – especially if you can’t leave?

I’m intrigued by the idea, and perhaps just interpreting this incorrectly, but I don’t like the idea that you wouldn’t be allowed to leave.

‘Geo’ topic:

I think a lot of the ideas being debated on this topic have a lot to do with individual sovereignty to an almost panarachist degree (yes, panarchism – not a typo), which is all well and fine, because there are countless ways to approach such a liberty-oriented topic.

The ‘geo’ question in my mind was more of a property rights question that anything – that’s why I found it intriguing. What constitutes the original claim? I honestly don’t even care if other aspects of the idea are wrong, because those are all addressable by any number of systems. The perceived value of those arguments, however, shouldn’t dismiss the fundamental question Georgism (and, really, Proudhoun, who had even worse ‘ends’ ideas than George) asks. I could be wrong, but I think the principle idea of ‘geo-libertarians’ is this central question moreso than exactly what system it should produce thereafter. We could spend all day arguing about the tents of every system proposed, but we’re not really answering the central question:

What constitutes the original right to property?

I know some of you (who I will not name) would rather turn the question around and say ‘who are you to say I/the original claimant don’t own it?’ However, that wasn’t the question. That is why I used the ‘air’ analogy. Who is to say *I* ‘own’ it either? Is that not indirect force against others? I don’t care about the fallibility of whatever purported system I was attempting to defend – I only care about that question. We can argue all day the pros and cons of systems against each other (and I do believe sincerely that every system has a con and can’t be perfect), but the basis of these systems (something like property) seems to be a more important topic (in my opinion).

Does it make it right? In my opinion, no. But it doesn’t necessarily have to entail force either.

Brian Holtz and Robert Capozzi both are open to the idea of nonarchists, anarchists, or whatever terms is used to live within their own communities without owing any “rent” or obedience to those outside such communities.

Woof (and any anarchist, by definition, although I don’t recall Woof explicitly claiming to be an anarchist) is willing to allow geolibertarians to self-organize their own communities as they see fit.

So remind me again, what is the argument between them about? Which community type most people will want to join?

If so, I don’t particularly care. Let’s get to the point where people are allowed to make such a decision, and let folks figure it out for themselves.

I don’t have a crystal ball, nor the ability to determine which option will be most popular from chicken entrails or stellar constellations. There are no geothermal methane pockets in my oracle cave.

I don’t know, and don’t really care. Freedom is the answer; what was the question?

You would see whole Fortune 500 companies moving into pods with all execs, managers, workers, their families and support services and their families. Suppliers and customers would join them …

That goes against the rules of nonarchy pods, as I understand them.

http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003225.php

from the site:

“The pod is impenetrable – nothing comes in or out. They become autonomous little Lichtensteins, except they cannot leave, as the 283 have stated they refuse to abide by the rule of law here amongst the governed.

OK, OK, we allow them to trade through a small hole in the pod, I’m feeling generous. And if someone wants to go in the pod, they may, so long as the understand that there is no exit.” – Robert Capozzi

So, anyone and whole companies can go in. Anyone can go in. And trade is allowed through a “little hole” which being undefined, will expand to whatever size is needed.

A little Lichtenstein would appeal to millions right away, and the pods would be come “little” independent areas larger than most nations in the world today within a short period of time. Soon the pods would envelop the tiny remaining areas under geo-nazi control.

And no, I will not stop calling them geo-nazis, because despite their rhetoric, they, like the Marxists, can only set up their evil regimes by force. Large numbers of people will never choose to become geonazis through voluntary means.

Woof!

You would see whole Fortune 500 companies moving into pods with all execs, managers, workers, their families and support services and their families. Suppliers and customers would join them …

That goes against the rules of nonarchy pods, as I understand them.

http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003225.php

I applaud your passion, but when you start and continue to compare geo-ists to nazis time and time again, you’re just hurting your own cause. Do yourself a favor and stop it. I see plenty of geo-ist positions that I have a problem with, but even I won’t call them “geonazis” because the term is just not close to accurate.

You’re not doing anyone any favors with this.

“Woof,

You write:

“You can be sure that everyone would adopt the nonarchy system as they would be free of the opression and abuse of the geonazis.”

Just like everyone’s moving to Somalia, or investing in seasteading or other “get out” options right now?”

No.

Think about it.

They way people have done it for generations:
the use of Swiss bank accounts, off-shore tax havens, secret bank accounts, dual passports, dual citizenships …

The idea of nonarchy pods is even better as they represent allowed and legal escape. You would see whole Fortune 500 companies moving into pods with all execs, managers, workers, their families and support services and their families. Suppliers and customers would join them …

Of course, this is why the geonazis would never allow nonarchy pods. They would have to force people to stay in their high property tax geo-gulag.

Property tax revolts have occured many times over the years without the crushing burden of the geonazi rent/tax.

The geo-nazi system will never appeal to voters and it will never be adopted through democratic means. It would have to be imposed by force. And this would result in total revolt against the geo-nazi state.

Woof!

You don’t even have to leave the condo for, say, Somalia, under a Nonarchy Pod regime, just stay in your condo if you find the rules unacceptable.

Based on his/her line of argumentation, Woof sounds like a recent convert to Rothbardianism. Possibly youthful, full of piss and vinegar, obsessed with an atomistic frame of mind. Recovering from a bit of that myself.

Rhetorically, the appeal to our atomistic “rights” has very little appeal in the wider world, IMO. Most want a lot of liberty, but they want a lot of harmony, too. Harmony promotes trade, and trade promotes broad-based prosperity.

This line of thinking inspired my views on theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist, with Taoist/Hayekian/Geo-ist attitudes. And the Nonarchy Pod notion.

Striking the root of consent is a valuable exercise, but then what?