Glossary
in narrative, not alphabetical, order:
- The Commons -- each individual, equally.
Example: “Land titles should be leaseheld, at market rental value, from the commons.” - Privilege -- private law.
We are not using this word lightly, as many do. There is no such thing as “white privilege” or “male privilege,” for example, because there are no laws on the books granting explicit economic advantages to white people or males. We are concerned with actual privilege, the kind written into law and enforced by the state. Privileges steal from the commons; increase real prices and costs of living; and generally make life miserable. Examples include intellectual property (think of pharmaceuticals in the US), zoning laws, building codes and – the mother of all – land titles. Because monopolies result from privilege, the words “privilege” and “monopoly” are virtually interchangeable. - Rent -- the economic returns to privilege; unearned economic value.
Some geoists use “rent” to refer exclusively to land rent, the economic returns to land titles, one specific type of privilege. Because of the importance and simplicity of land and its rent, this is totally acceptable and a good way to simplify and build one's understanding of rent. - The Law of Rent -- Formalized by David Ricardo circa 1817, this law observes the bargaining power of land and its owners. Understand this law and its implications, and you will understand pretty much everything about the world and how it works … or, rather, why it doesn't.
- Land Value "Taxation" -- A.k.a., “the single tax.” One method of publicly collecting land rent, which is simply what land users willingly pay to exclude the commons from desirable locations. LVT is not necessary if landowners leasehold their titles at market rental value from a (ideally dividend-issuing) public entity; rather, LVT is one tool a jurisdiction can use after it has made the mistake of enforcing freehold titles to try to transform them back into leasehold ones.
- Land Monopoly -- A.k.a. Feudalism. An economic system based on freehold land ownership. The mother of all monopolies and also of poverty, war, systemic debt … you name it. It is a system in which the many pay the few for the right to exist.
FAQ
- Is it true that land value taxation doesn't hurt production?
Yes. Anyone who disagrees will typically get this graph as a response.
But you don't need a graph to understand why. When LVT reclaims land rent from landowners, it can't hurt production because landowners, as such, don't produce. They gatekeep. (Land users produce; the extent to which a site's user[s] and owner[s] are the same is a coincidence.) The only thing LVT punishes is gatekeeping, and that's a good thing.
That's why many of us dislike the term Land Value “Taxation.” If we had a truly free market in land – that is, if land titles were leaseheld at market rental value from the commons – nobody would call it a tax. The only reason LV”T” seems to the casual observer an act of force is because of our already entrenched, enforced freehold system. In other words, I've never seen anyone argue against systemic geoism or LVT; I've only seen people argue against the transition to such a system because either (1) They are invested in the current feudal system, or (2) Far more often, they think they are invested in the current feudal system. - How do we determine a just percentage for land value tax?
100% of the rental value of all locations within a jurisdiction should be collected by its public. - How exactly would it be distributed to solve the problems associated with inequality of land ownership and injustice of monopolies? Would it be a UBI?
Yes. We prefer to call this a “Residents' Dividend” or “Citizens' Dividend” to distinguish our version of the “UBI” from the less educated ones. - What about government funding -- that is, public goods and services? Is there room for that in Geo-Libertarianism?
Yes. One can make an efficiency argument in favor of public goods and services. Many goods and services are fairer, more desirable and/or more efficient when funded publicly. Especially when more efficient, an argument can be made to fund such goods and services from the Dividend because the increased efficiency will increase future land rent and therefore future Dividends.
Outside of this, favoring more public goods and services might move you more from the “Geo-Libertarian” side of the scale to the “Geo-Statist” side. But if you know the intricacies of land economics – that the collection of land rent from title holders, not the subsequent spending, is the most important part – you know not to waste time arguing with other geoists. As long as the rent is spent in the service of the public, Geo-Libertarians should be relatively happy. (Although we should always remind others that the Dividend, an individual right, should not be subject to democratic majority tyranny.) - At what level does land value taxation become theft? Surely 1,000% would be considered theft?
100% public land rent collection is the correct amount. Any more than that will force the site out of production; it is impossible to collect more. Any less than that means that title owners are depriving the commons of their just compensation for land exclusion.
Again, the most robust solution is a market one, with land titles bid on and held at market rental value from a commonly held trust. No need for assessments. No need for the political vulnerability of LVT. - Would this lower overall prices by getting rid of land speculation?
That and better. It would also eliminate the under-use of good (urban) locations, and the over-use of bad ones (sprawl). It would reduce up-front land prices to $0 because bidders do not bid up-front prices on things they are renting at market rental value. - If you collect 100% land tax, that's a huge amount of money collected for everyone. If you give out such a high UBI or Citizens' Dividend, won't people work significantly less?
If enough people work little enough, rent (and therefore the Dividend) fall. So the simple answer is that if people stop working, soon enough they will have to return to work to maintain their old standard of living: the Dividend is self-correcting.
But the reality is better. Geolibertarianism (Public Land Rent Collection + Dividend) creates a system in which everyone can continuously live wherever they want, without labor, so long as they're willing to share the location. (And if they can't live where they want because somebody is excluding them, they're being compensated by the Dividend and the person excluding them is having to work for it.)
What is likely is that (1) People will work significantly less, AND (2) Standards of living will stay constant or rise. This is possible because of agglomeration, a.k.a. efficient land use, and all of the efficiencies that follow. No more sprawl. No more land monopolists artificially keeping people apart. No more commutes. No more labor spent just to be allowed to exist. No more deadweight loss of taxation. Lower blood pressure. More sex. - What is the best way for Geoists or Geo-Libertarians to gain political ground?
The most success I've had in spreading geoist ideas is with two core groups of people: (1) Extremely intelligent, rational people, and (2) Poor people. These groups are not mutually exclusive, but FOCUS ON THE LATTER.
My easiest sell ever was when I attended a Basic Income event in Los Angeles. Surprise, surprise: There were economically scared and desperate people there looking for answers. When I explained that anyone benefiting from a normal Basic Income would simply see their rents rise, THEY UNDERSTOOD THIS IMMEDIATELY. When I told them there's an entire economic philosophy dedicated to getting them such a basic income without that effect as a matter of natural rights, I didn't have to go farther than that because they were hooked enough to go home and do the intellectual legwork themselves.
I'm as guilty of staying in my Internet bubble as the next geoist, but this is a mistake. While it's true that 90% of home “owners” (mortgagors, actually) would benefit from geoism, we must abandon them as a target audience. For some reason, as soon as people own a few thousand dollars of land value, their brains turn to mush and they fathom themselves gentry. Probably about half of the United States are renters who have ZERO stake in the current system. Those are our people. It's simply more efficient to focus on the people who can most easily be won.
One last piece of advice: Even if you don't like the Residents' Dividend for some weird reason, do not abandon it as a political tool. It makes geoism so much easier to sell. Here's an example:
Q: If you tax land value, won't rents rise?
A: No. But if they did, who cares? You'd get those rents right back in your Dividend. When rents rise now, you get nothing.
Case. Fucking. Closed. Land has the first and last word in every economy. We as geoists understand this, and that is our advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment