A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today!

Published on July 28, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

(author's note: the article below was copied and pasted from my own forum post on a Libertarian message board.)

Believe it or not, the federal government over the last four years has given us as Libertarians an incredible gift. Because of their continued violations of individual liberties, they've given us common ground with many Americans who are disgusted with a "nanny state", and they've given us wonderful opportunities to initiate discussions with those who may be teetering on the fence between a choice for the LP, "independent" status, or either of the "big two" parties. In any objective evaluation of platform positions on individual liberties, the LP obviously emerges the big winner.

The question, then, is what we DO with the opportunity we have been given.

As an amateur historian, I believe we are at a political crossroads. My personal opinion is that Rand will be viewed as influencing the 21st century to the same extent that Marx influenced the 20th (although in a positive direction, unlike the negative direction of Marxism). If one watches the growth of libertarian ideals and principles, it's easy to see a parallel to encourage us along those lines. Our ideals have already begun to influence prominent columnists such as Walter Williams, and we have made inroads among the Republican Party (The Republican Liberty Caucus is an example of this).

But if we are to move forward, we must act, recruit, and encourage our fellow party members to act and recruit. I personally believe that our commitment should extend as far as ensuring that our party dues are paid up, and evaluating whether we can afford to contribute more to the party than we are already contributing. We should also set personal recruitment goals to complement the party's recruitment goals; we are, after all, the ones who can be instrumental in the success or failure of such goals.

I have personally set forth goals for myself and the county organization, and encourage others to do the same. If each LP member recruited one new member per year (with the recruited members doing likewise), we would have somewhere around 350,000 party members by November 2008. Imagine the impact if we DOUBLED that.

If every one of us set aside $30 a month towards the 2008 Presidential race(less than many of us pay for cable TV), then we would have over $1000 apiece to contribute to the Libertarian candidate. If every person who voted for Michael Badnarik in the 2004 race were to do that, that would give our presidential candidate a "war chest" of nearly half a billion dollars; easily enough to place them among the "serious players" in the race. Going further, we could up our commitment to $50 a month, and apply the additional $20 to local and state races. It may represent a financial sacrifice on your part, as it does on ours, but in the end, you should ask yourself what price you are willing to pay for freedom.

There's a tendency to forget about third parties between presidential election years. As a party, we should not let that happen. We should be active, visible, and speaking out at every opportunity...and we should take advantage of the low voter turnout of "midterm" elections (such as 2006) to put leaders who CAN and WILL make a difference into elected office. I would also encourage anyone who can to attend state conferences and conventions (such as the conference scheduled for September 16-18th of this year), but, as one who may be unable to attend due to a number of potential conflicts, I realize there are many among you in the same position. That doesn't change the fact that it is still in our best interest if we are able.

Yes, this also involves an intense TIME commitment on all of our parts, but again, we must ask: What price are we willing to pay for freedom?

Comments (Page 2)

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

"No, sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. You can't divert this by crying 'straw man'."

So you insist that I proposed redistributing land?

"The line "The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it." is shamefully false, as anyone who has made improvements to land and resold it for a profit, or had to PAY HIGHER TAXES ON IT AS A RESULT could tell you."

I reject the insane notion that a land owner can make improvements to the nature of space time. Land cannot be improved. You can merely add buildings, mines etc. But the land itself is not changed.

And regardless of how loud you scream HIGHER TAXES, you will notice that I have specifically stated that I want to tax land NOT produced goods (like a house).

And PLEASE stop misquoting me. It's ridiculous and doesn't help.

Your continued insistence that I advocate government management of land or speak of taking land away from people for commercial purposes in spite of my repeatedly telling you that I never said these things makes a mockery of what could have been an interesting discussion.

If you think that I have "no clue" what the results of my policy would be, I can refer you to several economists' explanations of why it would work well. But I guess understanding what they wrote would involve a lot of remembering what they wrote, even five minutes after you read it. And that seems to be, judging from your constant misquoting me, your weak point (among others).

Honestly, I have had lots of discussions with people opposed to a land value tax, and many did not understand the difference between a natural resources and a produced good, but you are the first to CONSTANTLY change the subject from land taxation to land redistribution or even taking land away for commercial reasons, intertwined with made-up quotes and personal attacks.

I suggest the following:

We either end this discussion now.

Or you agree to the following: not to misquote me or pretend that I said or support or advocate something which I did not say, made no claim to support, and specifically told you I do not advocate; you apologise (again) for misquoting me; and you agree to make a distinction between natural resources and produced goods.

The first is, I think, merely the most basic rule for any kind of honest discussion.

The second is to be expected, I believe, to ease the transition to an intelligent debate.

And the third is crucial to even understanding what I'm talking about when I speak of taxing natural resources and not produced goods. I honestly cannot believe that you could possibly understand whether I have a clue or not, if you cannot even understand the difference between the two things I want treated so differently by the tax system.

So-called improvements (houses, mines, canals, cables etc.) are MAN-MADE PRODUCED GOODS, not LAND, which is a NATURAL RESOURCE.

Natural resources != produced goods.

Taxing natural resources and not taxing produced goods, as I spoke of above, means the taxing of the one but not the other.

Is that a bit clearer now?

bakerstreet

on Jul 29, 2005

End it, then. I'm not misquoting you, any more than saying "The grass will get wet" to someone who is proposing that it rain. You just refuse to accept that there are results to "natural resources benefitting everyone".

I don't need to guess those results, because i can open a newspaper and see them. I can see how "the public good" turns into public management, and further on into public ownership.

As for

"I reject the insane notion that a land owner can make improvements to the nature of space time. Land cannot be improved."

That's a totally irrational statement. I suggest that you discuss that with the folks that appraise your property, and the people who levy taxes based upon that estimation, and the the next people who want to buy it for the price you did, regardless of the tens of thousands of dollars of improvements you make on it.

If you sank time and money into property, turning it from undeveloped land into something beautiful and useful, I doubt you'd feel that "Land cannot be improved." or that the value of land doesn't have anything to do with what has been done to it.

You can't pick up roads or wells or landscaping or any of these kind of improvements and take them with you, nor do they dissolve into the air when you leave. So, if you want to see them as different from land, fine, but that isn't the way the rest of your society sees them.

You're basing your reality on something different than the rest of human civilization, so I really can't see any way to discuss it with you.

Leauki

on Jul 29, 2005

Bakerstreet,

you were misquoting me. I did not say the words you attributed to me. I did not even mention the subject. I merely proposed taxing natural resources rather than production, and you started your crusade against all sorts of positions you claimed I agreed with.

I would be very curious to learn in what news paper you read news about which land taxation scheme with the results you claim such a scheme would have. I believe you are guessing the results.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between a produced good and natural resources.

What I am worried about is that you actually believe, no you KNOW, that you can judge my scheme, a scheme depending on taxing two things differently, without actually UNDERSTANDING the difference between these things.

"What kind of taxation is least harmful?....My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation."

(Luckily other people understand the difference. Guess who said the above and didn't have a clue.)

bakerstreet

on Jul 29, 2005

LMAO... ah, I thought I recognized the style, but I didn't realize which one you were. Had I, I wouldn't have even bothered.

Again, you just ignore what I say, and repost the same thing again.

You ignore that land can be developed, that it's value CAN be effected. You can take a bulldozer onto a piece of property spend the afternoon and drive away having increased its value by thousands of dollars, and leave NOTHING there that wasn't there before.

Therefore, your idea that "Land cannot be improved" is patently false.

You ignore the fact that your tax plan basically makes us all rent the property we "own", and in the guise of "benefitting others", the land can be seized and redistributed as it is being now.

Therefore, your idea that you are pro-ownership and anti-redistribution, even though you propose a system that enevitably leads to such, is patently false.

Like you said, lets just end the conversation. We're approaching it from two separate realities.

drmiler

on Jul 29, 2005

I reject the insane notion that a land owner can make improvements to the nature of space time. Land cannot be improved. You can merely add buildings, mines etc. But the land itself is not changed.

You can reject this all you want and to be truthful you are right but only "partly". Two pieces of property exactly the same. one with a house one without. Guess which is going to cost more? The house is considered to be an "improvement"! No the land itself is not changed although in the case of a mine it damn sure would be! How do you create a mine? You "remove" earth from the "land". But by all rules, regulations and laws putting a house on the land is considered an improvement. Want to argue the point? Fine. Go read the homestead act first and then we'll talk. Link

What was the Homestead Act?

The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one the most important pieces of Legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this Act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. 270 millions acres, or 10% of the area of the United States was claimed and settled under this act.

A homesteader had only to be the head of a household and at least 21 years of age to claim a 160 acre parcel of land. Settlers from all walks of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers without land of their own from the East, single women and former slaves came to meet the challenge of "proving up" and keeping this "free land". Each homesteader had to live on the land, build a home, make improvements and farm for 5 years before they were eligible to "prove up". A total filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers.

kingbee

on Jul 30, 2005

the homestead act is a quintessential example of the evils of government redistributing property.

bakerstreet

on Jul 30, 2005

Kingbee is right, that was just wrong. Let's all leave.

Kingbee, you make reservations for us to go back...

kingbee

on Jul 30, 2005

whatcha mean 'us' kemo sabe?

*ordering 295,734,134 tickets back to the old country*

whoa...hey obitz can give mosta yall an incredible deal if you don't mind relocating to pakistan.

Leauki

on Jul 30, 2005

"You can reject this all you want and to be truthful you are right but only "partly". Two pieces of property exactly the same. one with a house one without. Guess which is going to cost more? The house is considered to be an "improvement"!"

Yes indeed. But isn't a house by definition a produced good and not a natural resource?

So how could it be an improvement of land within the context of taxing natural resources but not produced goods?

I was talking specifically (and I think I made that clear, despite Bakerstreet's invented quotes) about the difference in price resulting from location (natural resource) as opposed to the difference in price resulting from the house (produced good).

I realise the distinction between produced good and natural resource can be difficult for some, although I have no idea why (for me it is really easy). But wouldn't it be an important part of understanding an idea based on such a distinction to at least understand the distinction?

Bakerstreet has two problems here. One is the fact that he cannot grasp the idea that I was talking about land taxation, not any of the concepts he brought up (even though I repeatedly told him that). Resolving that issue would take more intellectual honesty on his part.

But the second problem is the inability to distinguish between land and a house located on it. But the distinction is vital (and an easy one to make). It is plain impossible to understand land taxation without understanding what land (as opposed to a building) is. And it is certainly not possible to meaningfully reject the system without understanding its basic concepts.

Leauki

on Jul 30, 2005

drmiler,

referring specifically to the act you quote: it refers to improvements according to American law. It does NOT make the claim that a house is a natural resource and thus doesn't affect the distinction between the two.

Any taxation based on such a distinction would be entirely unaffected by it.

I insist again on the fact that an improvement to land, which is, in fact, produced by man, is by definition not and can never be the land itself, because the land itself is a natural resource.

drmiler

on Jul 30, 2005

#14 by Andrew J. Brehm
Friday, July 29, 2005

"Land ownership creates security creates the value"

And that statement is plain wrong.

The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it. It is based ONLY on what OTHER people do near it

Imagine two identical houses. Both owners have invested the same amount of money to create exactly the same buildings with exactly the same features.

Now for some reason somebody else happens to pay for a street (income tax payers, probably). And the street just happens to be located so that the one house benefits but not the other.

And the house thus becomes more valuable, not because of what it is, but because of where it is. It is not a property of the house, but a property of the location, of the land, that makes it more valuable.

It is not the ownership of the land that created the value.

It is the street.

Sorry Andrew, but THIS is what I was talking about! No where in your reply were you talking about taxes. Just the value of a piece of property. And no matter what you say, if you add buildings, running water or get electricity to it they are considered improvements and make the property worth more! Please note the highlighted section.

bakerstreet

on Jul 30, 2005

"Bakerstreet has two problems here. One is the fact that he cannot grasp the idea that I was talking about land taxation, not any of the concepts he brought up (even though I repeatedly told him that). Resolving that issue would take more intellectual honesty on his part."

Leauki, aka Andrew J. Brehm, has several problems here. One is the fact that he has no idea of cause and effect, and doesn't realize that giving the government the right to tax natural resources enevitably leads to the concepts I brought up. Without the ability to enforce taxation of land, taxes are meaningless. Once you give them the right to seize and sell the land, you rent it, you don't own it.

Another is he doesn't read my posts, he just skips over them. As I said, I can take a bulldozer onto a piece of undeveloped land, and drive away at the end of the day with the land having increased in value by thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars, LEAVING NOTHING THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE.

I think it is pretty obvious we're dealing with someone that has never managed any real estate, or had to pay property taxes. The idea that "Land cannot be improved" is so asinine I don't know why we are even discussing it.

If you want to define "land", feel free, but I would suggest you adapt that when dealing with the rest of society. I don't think the people that assess your property for taxation are going to be as patient as we are. You can call water, electric, roads, etc "produced goods", but in reality they become part of the value of your land.

And as I said, I can take a bulldozer onto undeveloped land and raise the assessed price of it by thousands without even getting into all that.

Leauki

on Jul 30, 2005

"Sorry Andrew, but THIS is what I was talking about! No where in your reply were you talking about taxes. Just the value of a piece of property. And no matter what you say, if you add buildings, running water or get electricity to it they are considered improvements and make the property worth more! Please note the highlighted section."

I don't know what you were talking about, it wasn't the point. I was trying to tell you what _I_ was talking about and how Bakerstreet misunderstood it.

But it really begins to seem to me that what I wrote simply doesn't arrive in the same way I wrote it. You are saying that I wasn't talking about taxes at all (nowhere). I can clearly see that it was the subject of my postings and the word, in contrast to some of the words Bakerstreet quoted, does appear quite often.

May I inquire as to what exactly you where reading if you think that I wasn't talking about taxes?

drmiler

on Jul 30, 2005

May I inquire as to what exactly you where reading if you think that I wasn't talking about taxes?

Quit skipping over stuff. I directly quoted your reply that I was refering to. It was reply 14. And there is "nothing" in there in regards to taxes. And for that matter baker misunderstood nothing. See his last reply and read the last 4 paragraphs.

Leauki

on Jul 30, 2005

"Leauki, aka Andrew J. Brehm, has several problems here. One is the fact that he has no idea of cause and effect, and doesn't realize that giving the government the right to tax natural resources enevitably leads to the concepts I brought up. "

The fact that I disagree with you about the effect of taxing natural resources doesn't mean that I don't realise them. I merely disagree with you about what the effects would be.

And given that you STILL don't understand the difference between natural resources and produced goods, I don't believe that you have any idea what the consequences of taxing the one and not the other would be.

I am in fact a land owner and pay property taxes. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand the difference between a natural resource (like land) and man-made improvements (like a building or street).

If you can't or won't understand the difference, that is perfectly fine. But it does mean that you are UNABLE to judge a tax system based on the difference.

Just accept that.

If you want to criticise my theory, you can do so once you understand the basics of it.

I suggest you start with Adam Smith, who will explain to you why ground rents are an economic rent (payment to a factor of production or input in excess of that which is needed to keep it employed in its current use). Then, as I assume you wouldn't want to read "Progress and Poverty", which explains the whole thing at once, you can begin to understand why, for example, Milton Friedman was in favour of land value taxation (and why the founder of the LP is).

But as I said, all of it requires an understanding of the difference between natural resources and produced goods, and also considerable skills in reading a text without remembering different words.

As for your claim that you "can open a newspaper and see [the results of such a policy]", I would like to call it. Please quote a news paper that tells of negative results of land value taxation. I believe Estonia practices a land value taxation system (in case you need help finding a case).

I for one don't believe that you can find any such negative results as you claim exist. I put it to you that you completely made up the claim that land value taxation has negative effects and that such effects are so widespread that you can find evidence of them simply by opening a news paper. And I put it to you that such results would contradict what leading economists have said about the effects.

And I would bet you a post card that you will refuse to quote a news paper report about such effects or will change the subject to something I did not speak about again.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!