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 3)

Leauki

on Jul 30, 2005

"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."

You must have missed several of my replies where I was going on about taxation. How odd. In the very text you quoted (#14 apparently) I speak of how income tax pays for streets and such.

And Bakerstreet did misunderstand a lot. He still doesn't seem to understand the difference between land and improvements and how these improvements (man-made such) are NOT a part of the land (the natural resource), and would thus not be taxed (by a system that taxes natural resources instead of produced goods).

Re-reading what Bakerstreet wrote doesn't change the fact that he misquoted me (and apologised for it once) and never understood that I was talking about taxing natural resources of which I consider man-made improvements not to be a part of.

Perhaps if the two of you could simply accept that there is a difference between land and improvements and that land value taxation taxes the one but not the other, you would be able to build a case against land value taxation. But without understanding what a particular tax taxes, any argument against it is plain nonsense.

I guess we will have to wait for the news paper report Bakerstreet claims to have found.

Leauki

on Jul 30, 2005

If you will note the first statement about land taxation I have made:

"I'd only want a few changes to get closer to my ideal place. For example if use of land and other natural resources as well as pollution (which is, in a way, also a use of a natural resource) was taxed and income and property (that is personal property, aka stuff) were not, the guiding principle would be exactly what I mentioned: natural resources would benefit everyone (users would pay a tax that benefits everybody else) and one's own labour would benefit oneself (since no other man has any claim to it, I think)."

Bakerstreet responded to that thus:

"If the government can "redistribute" land and natural resources for the public good, the natural resources "benefit everybody", and we're taxed for using the land, do we really own it?

If you take the benefit from land ownership, and allow the government to "manage" land ownership, then is there really any point IN land ownership?"

Note how I didn't speak of "redistribute" and "manage", even though he puts the words in quotes as if referring to something I or somebody else had said. I informed him of what I considered a misunderstanding on his part:

"I did say "tax" land ownership, I did not speak of "redistribute", even though you put the word in quotes. Redistributing land is a concept you brought up, not I. Please remember that when you address my point, should you decide to do so."

A second misunderstanding came about when I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to explain that taxing natural resources means taxing natural resources, not taxing man-made things.

That's the part he never understood. Instead he continued to speak of government "managing" land, even though I have never said anything about supporting such a concept.

Since then he continued to put words in quotes even though I kept telling him that I neither said the words nor made any claim to support the position they described.

That's when I thought that I cannot explain my position to him.

Leauki

on Jul 30, 2005

The results of land value taxation:

www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_59/ai_70738923

While I could not simply open a news paper to see the results, I could find it on the Web. It seems my memory of Estonia using such taxation was correct. What I do not find is the negative effects Bakerstreet claims to have found doing similar research (or the effects he is sure he will find should he do such research).

I therefor put it to Bakerstreet that the effects of land value taxation are not negative, certainly not quite as negative as he thought they would be, that it is not as easy as he claimed to find evidence of such negative effects, and that his opinion on land value taxation is based on ignorance of the effects, unwillingness to research the effects, and the belief that land value taxation leads to government land management (a point he has neither supported with evidence nor explained).

I also suggest that government land management, in the form of, for example, imminent domain, is probably the result of policies unrelated to taxation of the properties involved and certainly not the result of specifically a land value taxation system.

If Bakerstreet wants to support his position, he would have to point out why Estonia's results are either bad for Estonia or incorrectly reported in the article linked to, and find statistics that support the idea that government land management happens more often in Estonia because of their tax system than in the US because of theirs.

Otherwise I suggest that Bakerstreet change his mind and say that land value taxation does not inevitably lead to government land management, that the effects of land value taxation are not uniformly negative, and that making the claim that the effects are positive does not necessarily document cluelessness (I know that is not a real world) or a regrettable disability to understand reality.

bakerstreet

on Jul 30, 2005

I don't pay taxes to you. The people who assess my property, and the people who come to buy it, DO count improvements that you irrationally consider to be "improvements to the nature of space time." If I don't pay those taxes, my property IS redistributed to someone who will. That right eventually led to the right to simply snatch it and redistribute it for the greater good.

You see this a lot from his ilk, though. They invent some system, and then when you try and show them the results of it in the real world, they accuse you of diverting the subject away from their system. What he calls "research", the rest of us call reality, since we actually live in it. I get the bills. Research is for people who pretend to own land to better serve their argument.

It's like someone theorizing that we should have rain 24/7, and when you tell them there would be floods, they accuse you of making "straw man" arguments because in their system there are no floods. That's been the way of socialists for a long time, really, much to the regret of several billion people around the world. Jokes are funny, but I'm tired of arguing with this one.

I suggest you explain your theory of land ownership the next time you pay property tax, tell that the only value is, I suppose, the minerals. Refuse to pay for all those man-made improvements. Then tell them later as they are auctioning it off that your system doesn't include redistibution...

Leauki

on Jul 31, 2005

So I take it you didn't read the article about Estonia and I see that you still didn't get the difference between land and improvements (and why property tax is not the same as a land value tax).

I did not claim that buildings are "improvements to the nature of space time". I referred to the land itself, which you claimed could be "improved" while I maintain that such improvements constitute man-made objects and not a part of the natural resource land.

Your straw man was not your pointing out what would happen if we taxed land values, your straw man was your repeated attempt to change the subject.

I have provided evidence for my point of view, that land value tax does not have the negative effects you claim it would have.

I am waiting for you to either refute my evidence or provide some of the evidence you claim you could find simply by looking in the daily news paper.

I also suggest that your last paragraph is, again, a straw man. A change in the taxation system from property tax to land value tax is not something one would successfully enforce oneself by violating current tax law. I assume that those in the Libertarian Party who support a flat tax do not use that strategy instead of paying progressive income tax either. I assume you might, since you obviously believe that this is a procedure that would occur to people. It has not to me. You were the first to suggest it, I believe.

Did you do ANY research at all since I last brought it up or is your opinion still based on the refusal to find out what land value tax does and what the effects are.

I'll give you a hint: if you still believe that land value taxation includes the taxation of a building's value, you have NOT understood it. But I somehow doubt you will ever grasp it.

Let me just say that land value tax is economic text book. It has first been suggested by Adam Smith, the principle of it has been advocated by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, the economic impact has been explained by Henry George and much later Milton Friedman. It is for that reason, I suggest, that the founder of the Libertarian Party, David Nolan, supported the land value tax (and presumably still does).

And in no case did land value tax ever have the negative effects you claim it would have. Wherever it has been used (currently Estonia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, as well as in several Australian cities) the effects were not what you said they would be but instead quite the opposite.

How you can hold an opinion based on nothing but your belief that disagreeing with you about this means one has no clue and without an explanation for why in reality the effects you foresee never seem to happen, is beyond me.

But you know what the good thing is? The good thing is even if you are now even more certain of the stupidity of my tax scheme and the fact that I have absolutely no clue and that you are so much smarter than I, Estonia will probably do well with the scheme in the future too, just as they have in the last ten years.

Using your rain analogy, I would have to say that the correct analogy is arguably that you are certain that rain would have only negative effects, that it is very logical that rain could not possibly have a positive effect, that anybody who suggests otherwise has simply no clue, and that evidence that rain in Estonia does not have the effects you claim it would have could not be explained by you. It wouldn't even be addressed by you. At all.

kingbee

on Jul 31, 2005

i guess this land tax thing explains why arthur j brehm shot george wallace in 72. what it dont explain is why they let him have a computer in jail.

kingbee

on Jul 31, 2005

ooops sorry. that was arthur bremer. jeez im a moron sometimes.

Leauki

on Jul 31, 2005

Kingbee,

what is the connection here?

Or were you suggesting another example of the negative effects of land value taxation using the Bakerstreet system of generating evidence?

In that case I must agree that you succeeded. I concede that murder is often considered to be as direct an effect of land value taxation as the things Bakerstreet spoke about.

In fact I would personally make the claim that the relationship between land value taxation and murder is almost exactly the same as the relationship between land value taxation and the Bakerstreet results, and that you would be similarly likely to find evidence for the one effect as for the other in news papers or the Web.

Leauki

on Jul 31, 2005

Kingbee,

apart from the joking, I am rather interested in one thing.

Did you read the article about land value taxation in Estonia before you made the joke about the madness of supporters of land value taxation?

Or was your ridicule based solely on ignorance?

Or were you perhaps aware of some of the evidence Bakerstreet believes exists and preferred ridiculing me over supporting your position with that evidence?

To be honest, I'd rather learn of the downsides of land value taxation than being insulted for supporting it.

But it seems like ridicule and insults are more often used as arguments against land value taxation than evidence of its alleged disadvantages.

drmiler

on Jul 31, 2005

I did not claim that buildings are "improvements to the nature of space time". I referred to the land itself, which you claimed could be "improved" while I maintain that such improvements constitute man-made objects and not a part of the natural resource land.

You are correct, buildings "are" man made and as such not a "natural resource. How ever I believe the point baker is trying to get across is that any taxation of the land by the us government will most certainly increase if any buildings are present on the land. And there will not be a separate line item on the tax roll for a building or for natural resources for that matter either. As far as the US government is concerned anything done to or on the property "increases" the intrinsic value and as far as they're concerned is an improvement. And btw....here's an excerpt from your quoted article:

is important to note the distinction between a land tax and a land-value tax, since historically there have been land taxes, such as the disastrous ryot tax in 19th century British India, which was a set amount levied without respect to the land's economic rent. In Estonia, although referred to simply as a land tax, the tax is defined by law as a land-value tax, since the statute bases it on market value. At the beginning, however, it did not really function as a genuine land-value tax. Although it was supposed to be based on market value, a true land market tax had not yet developed.

Which kinda shoots your whole argument in the foot.

Especially since "market value" takes into account all "man made" improvements.

bakerstreet

on Jul 31, 2005

*boggle* Take your own advice and end this.

a) I have explained to you that you can improve upon the value of land and not leave a single thing behind that wasn't there before. land can be simply leveled or reshaped and its value is considerably increased.

I have explained that even if you and your "system" don't consider infrastructure improvements, basically everone else in the world does, and they do increase the taxable value of your land.

c) Estonia is a nation smaller than your average US state, with a population smaller than a major city, with negative population growth and an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. Despite their size, they have a national debt of over 8 billion dollars, and recieve $108 million in foriegn aid.

So, I'm not sure that this success story you are foisting is much help to your "system" that vaguely resembles it. I think if, say, Los Angeles has a larger, more successful economy and less debt, it seems odd you have to go halfway around the world and find a moderately UNsuccessful nation to prove your point...

Leauki

on Jul 31, 2005

"It [the tax] is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements)."

"the tax is defined by law as a land-value tax, since the statute bases it on market value."

"Which kinda shoots your whole argument in the foot."

No, it doesn't. It merely specifically explains the difference between a land value tax and a "land tax" or property tax.

OF COURSE land value tax is based on the market value of land. That's what "land value" means. The idea of the land value tax is to tax the value of the land, not the improvements. The value to tax is based on the market value of the land. It's not the same as the market value of the land though.

That is the difference I have been trying to explain for some time now, and I see that it is still not understood.

If you have two lots, one with a house worth, say 250,000 coins, and one worth 500,000 coins, the first being on land worth 500,000 coins, the second being on land worth 250,000 coins, a property tax would tax them equally, a land value tax would not.

You will notice that the article specifically says this (and I have added the quote above as well to make the contrast more clear):

"It [the tax] is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements)."

The article talks about a tax that SPECIFICALLY and ONLY targets land values EXCLUSIVE OF IMPROVEMENTS, and Estonia is doing well with it. Bakerstreet might not recall this, but some 15 years ago Estonia was ruled by Russian communists. It didn't start of too well when it was released into the wild. To claim that it was the land value tax that caused Estonia's relative poverty would require evidence that Estonia did better under communism or in the years between communism and introduction of the land value tax, which was introduced, if I recall correctly, in 1996. Such evidence was not brought forward, I think; not even by Bakerstreet.

My point is that despite Bakerstreet's claims the land value tax did neither destroy Estonia's economy nor did it result in any of the other scenarios Bakerstreet proudly announced to be the logical effects of the tax. And the reason I didn't use Los Angeles to prove my point is simply that I wasn't aware that Los Angeles had a land value tax (in fact, I don't believe Los Angeles has a land value tax). So I obviously chose a country that does.

My point is also that you apparently didn't understand what it means to take into account market value of the land. It does NOT mean that improvements are taxed, because the article specifically says that they are not taxed. It DOES mean that the market value of land is used to determine the value of the land sans improvements.

I would also like to add that I did not choose a random country from the other side of the world. I live in Europe. In grew up in West-Berlin. For me Estonia is not a remote little country. It is, of course, one of the new EU members. I thought an example from my area would do.

But then I am still eager to hear about the evidence for the negative effects of land value taxation that Bakerstreet said would be so easy to find. Perhaps such examples do require the ability to differentiate between land value tax and property tax though...

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 31, 2005

To answer your early charges, Baker...I don't see where the LP philosophy must necessarily put us at odds with prolife Christians. You see, while the LP does support a woman's right to choose, we do NOT support a woman's right to use OUR money to finance her abortion...a large part of the battle going on nowadays regards abortion funding issues.

As for the drug issue, while it's fun to caricaturize libertarians as coked up perverts, the simple truth is that we are not advocating for drug usage, just its decriminalization and regulation. Want to get it out of the hands of minors? Guess what? The current system isn't working to achieve that end. Regulate the trade, and while you won't keep it out of the hands of minors entirely, you create a system whereby you can better track the drug's origin and hold the responsible persons accountable for inappropriate action. Even so, it's pretty much a commonly held myth to believe that the drug legalization/decriminalization issue is the most pressing issue for most Libertarian candidates. Many other issues take the stage.

As Republicans continually abandon fiscal responsibility and smaller government, and increasingly take antagonistic stances where individual liberties are concerned, many voters will find themselves "homeless" with the Democratic Party as an unacceptable alternative. The Libertarian Party platform, while far from perfect, has more room for reform than the platforms of EITHER of the "big two" because we are not bought and sold by big business in this country.

bakerstreet

on Jul 31, 2005

Gid, Gid, Gid...

I never meant to imply that Libertarians were "coked up perverts", only that the Libertarian cause embraces many divergent moral stances, and there are some that people simply won't swallow when writing a check. An NRA Southern Baptist isn't going to donate money that will end up fostering a drug legalization, pro-choice platform. A Clintonian Liberal isn't going to donate money to a party that is anti-gun control, anti-social welfare tax.

I don't pretend that the other parties aren't self-serving with some of the stances they take, and I think the Republican party grants little more than lip service to issues like abortion. Still, though, I simply can't see moral Conservatives embracing a party that openly opposes them on moral issues.

Leuiki: "doing well with it" is pretty relative in this case, wouldn't you say? Granted, they haven't had a lot of time to prove these practices, but honestly I would have to view them skeptically until I saw something that proved the system was superior. Taxes are key in terms of their national budeget, and frankly they don't seem to be cutting it any better than we are, do they?

Leauki

on Jul 31, 2005

Bakerstreet,

I did not claim that they are doing better than western nations. But the results the have are a lot better than the results you claimed were the obvious logical results of such a tax scheme. They might just do better than some western nations in a few years.

But I think comparing Estonia to western nations is not quite as useful as comparing them to other ex-soviet republics. And among those Estonia is doing extremely well. Their GDP/P is much higher than everybody else's (in that league) so it can certainly be said that LVT did not have quite the destructive effect you claim to be able to find.

Estonia Latvia Lithuania

1995 $5,480 4,810 3,240
2005 $16,461 11,500 12,500

Granted, Lithuania grew a bit faster than Estonia in these ten years, but then Lithuania is much closer to the rest of the EU, while Estonia has only Finland and Sweden (and Latvia) as immediate neighbours to work with. (My numbers are from the CIA World Fact Books of 1995 and Wikipedia for current numbers.)

Estonia also introduced a flat tax of 26% on income in 1994. Using a flat tax instead of a (typical) progressive income tax is a step towards taxing natural resources but not production (because it taxes production less than the progressive income tax does).

But I have yet to hear any of the horror stories you claimed would be the logical result of the tax scheme, the result I was just to clueless to foresee.

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!