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 4)

drmiler

on Jul 31, 2005

The article talks about a tax that SPECIFICALLY and ONLY targets land values EXCLUSIVE OF IMPROVEMENTS, and Estonia is doing well with it.

Sorry, but no it's not! You did not read my quote that came from your link. I'll try again:

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.

From your own link Estonia is operating on a land "value" tax NOT a "land tax"!

Leauki

on Jul 31, 2005

Drmiler,

of course Estonia is operating on a land value tax. The difference between what the article calls a "land value tax" and a "land tax" is that a land value tax taxes LAND ONLY and NOT IMPROVEMENTS, while a land tax would tax both.

This is still the very same difference between natural resource and produced good that I have been trying to explain for some time now.

The article makes that very clear:

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

Did I not make it totally and absolutely clear that I believe that it is a) possible to distinguish between the value of land (i.e. the natural resource) and the value of improvements (i.e. buildings, streets, mines etc.) and

that a tax scheme based on the distinction would be of advantage?

And the article says that Estonia does exactly that. So what exactly is your point now?

And I did read the text you quoted. That's why I specifically addressed it in my reply:

"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."

Did you not read that part of my reply? Or did you not make the connection between my remarks about the market value of land and the text you quoted which spoke of the same issue?

I'll try and explain it slowly.

1. The article speaks of a tax that targets land but not improvements of the land: "It [the tax] is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements)."

2. The article says that the value of the land is determined using the market value of the land, as per your quote.

3. I spoke of a tax scheme in which natural resources (including land) would be taxed, and produced goods (like improvements) would not be taxed.

4. Again, the Estonian system taxes land (according to its value), but not improvements (i.e. produced goods located on it). That is why the article speaks of a "tax based on market value of the land only exclusive of improvements".

5. Bakerstreet claimed that such a tax scheme as I described would have horrible results, that I must have no clue at all if I am not able to see that, that it would only work if we all lived in tents, and that there is no distinction between man-made improvements and the natural resource "land".

6. He also claimed that evidence for his claim can easily be found in a news paper.

7. He did not provide such evidence.

8. But Estonia, a country which uses a tax system where land (the natural resource) is taxed and improvements (the produced objects located on it) are not, does not seem to suffer from these obvious results, which Bakerstreet refers to. The article does in fact claim that the tax has had a positive impact on the economy, because it prevents land from lying idle.

Where is the mistake?

drmiler

on Jul 31, 2005

that a tax scheme based on the distinction would be of advantage?

And the article says that Estonia does exactly that. So what exactly is your point now?

No it does NOT! Are you being deliberately obtuse?

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.

Excuse me, but basing a tax on "market value" is NOT a land tax! Do I need to spell it out for you?

8. But Estonia, a country which uses a tax system where land (the natural resource) is taxed and improvements (the produced objects located on it) are not, does not seem to suffer from these obvious results, which Bakerstreet refers to. The article does in fact claim that the tax has had a positive impact on the economy, because it prevents land from lying idle.

Where is the mistake?

The mistake is that you are operating under a erroneous assumption. See high-lighted section above and then refer to my high-lighted section.HERE:

a true land market tax had not yet developed

Leauki

on Jul 31, 2005

drmiler,

the article specifically says that the value of land without improvements is taxed.

Assuming that this is so is NOT an erroneous assumption.

The text you quote says that _AT THE BEGINNING_ a "true land market tax had not yet developed".

The article says that Estonia has a land value tax and defines "land value tax" as a tax on land values excluding improvements, which is exactly the kind of tax I spoke about.

So what is your point?

The first main characteristic of the tax is "It is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements).", according to the article.

But I am being "deliberately obtuse" if I assume that this means that land (the natural resource) is taxed, but the improvements (produced objects on it) are not???

If your point is the assumption that Estonia does not actually tax land values (while not taxing improvements), then I suggest you re-read the article.

Do you understand that the article describes a system in which a natural resource (land) is taxed but a produced good (improvement) is not?

bakerstreet

on Jul 31, 2005

You don't see the corruption in a farmer with 20 acres paying the same 'land tax' as the Oligarch who has 20 acres jammed with infrastructure dragging in the wealth? I find the equity of such an arrangement a little odd, though I am sure the cronies of local politicians LOVE the idea.

As for the results, I explained it several times, you've just chosen to ignore it. When you don't pay your taxes, the land is taken. The right to take your land leads to the right to redistribute it for the greater good. I don't have to prove it, since anyone who has read many blogs or watched the news in the past month has seen it happen, and has seen it justified at the Supreme Court level.

Land taxation makes us tenants, not owners. If we don't pay our taxes (rent) the government (our landlord) takes it and leases it to someone else. The landlord role has granted them the attitude that even when we do pay our taxes, said land can be taken and redistributed if it is in the public interet. If you aren't aware of any new developments in that area, I suggest you pay a bit more attention to the news.

If this is going to continue, you guys need to take it elsewhere. Gid isn't writing about experimental Estonian taxation, or the validity of the idea that "Land cannot be improved". I played into it too much, myself, and the futility of it has proven itself over and over.

drmiler

on Aug 01, 2005

If this is going to continue, you guys need to take it elsewhere. Gid isn't writing about experimental Estonian taxation, or the validity of the idea that "Land cannot be improved". I played into it too much, myself, and the futility of it has proven itself over and over.

I quit baker. You show him over and over the material that does not back his point and he refuses to believe what's in front of him. It just ain't worth it to me.

Leauki

on Aug 01, 2005

"You don't see the corruption in a farmer with 20 acres paying the same 'land tax' as the Oligarch who has 20 acres jammed with infrastructure dragging in the wealth?"

You actually believe that 20 acres of farm land are worth the same as 20 acres of industrial estate in a city?

Then it's no wonder you don't understand the tax system.

Do you realise that demand for land in a city is greater than demand for the same amount of land in a remote area?

Do the two of you understand that a tax based on the market value of land is unlikely to be the same for 20 acres of farm land and 20 acres of city land?

Drmiler, do you realise that if Bakerstreet believes that the tax for these two estates would be the same, he did not understand the tax system and his "showing" me "over and over" that the article "does not back" my point is likely to be complete nonsense?

Bakerstreet, why is it bad if a land title holder loses his land when he can't pay the taxes? Isn't it better for the economy if somebody who can makes use of the land? Why should somebody too unproductive to pay for the use of the land have the right to use while somebody productive enough does not have that right? Why the privilege? Where is the disaster? Where are the easy-to-find reports of such disasters?

Many people rent the land they use, and all of them use the land when they can't pay the rent. Those people who own land usually pay a mortgage of some kind (and use the land if they can't pay it). Why exclude from this mechanism those people who just happened to inherit land without a mortgage?

What is the economic benefit of granting these people the privilege to let land lie idle?

I don't think you can answer these questions. In fact, I don't think you can even understand them.

"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." (Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, paragraphs 11 to 15)

Leauki

on Aug 01, 2005

drmiler,

perhaps you can explain your reading of the article.

I have two questions:

1. What does "It is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements)." mean?

You seem to be certain that it does not possibly mean taxing the natural resource "land" but not the produced objects on it "improvements". Does anybody else understand that sentence that way?

2. In the two sentences in the paragraph you quote: "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.", what do the words "at the beginning" and "had" mean?

You seem to be certain that a description of the beginning of land value taxation refers to the entire scheme and that thus, because the article says that a "true land market tax had not yet developed [at the beginning]" means that the tax system in Estonia is not a system of taxing land but not improvements. Does anybody else read the word "had" as a finite verb form describing anything but a completed past?

Bakerstreet, on the other hand, seems to understand that the article does indeed describe a tax system as I proposed, he merely failed to understand that the value of farm land and city land is unlikely to be exactly the same and believes that the results in Estonia are the ones he envisioned, even though the article claims the opposite.

Perhaps it is about time for you two to realise that you do not, in fact, agree with each other.

One believes that Estonia has a tax system like I proposed with the disastrous results he claims would be obvious (probably because of a different understanding of the sentence "Its impact on the general economy is benign compared to the taxation of both land and improvements.").

The other believes that the Estonia tax system described in the article is not the one I was talking about (because of a different reading of the sentence "It is based on market value of the land only (i.e., exclusive of improvements).", I assume).

So perhaps the two of you could throw away your feelings of intellectual superiority for just a minute and come to terms here?

It's very simple:

I said that taxing natural resources and not taxing produced goods would be a good idea.

Estonia's land value tax does exactly that (this is what "exclusive of improvements" means, for those who still have problems understand that).

And the results are not too bad. Estonia is doing better than neighbouring countries in the same situation and certainly doesn't experience the problems Bakerstreet claims would be the obvious results of such a tax scheme (evidence of which he STILL has not provided).

"Both ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry....Ground-rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." -- The Wealth of Nations, Bk 5, Ch. 2, Pt 1

(A "ground rent" is the rent for land exclusive of improvements.)

Leauki

on Aug 01, 2005

"The landlord role has granted them the attitude that even when we do pay our taxes, said land can be taken and redistributed if it is in the public interet. If you aren't aware of any new developments in that area, I suggest you pay a bit more attention to the news."

I wasn't aware that the US had a land value tax system and that the supreme court's decision was the direct result of it. Please elaborate. (I know it isn't true so it should be quite interesting reading your explanation for it.)

bakerstreet

on Aug 01, 2005

"You actually believe that 20 acres of farm land are worth the same as 20 acres of industrial estate in a city?

Then it's no wonder you don't understand the tax system."

I never said anythign about a city. I mean side-by-side.

As for the rest, I'm not doing it again. I have stated and restated it and you keep saying "evidence of which he STILL has not provided", over and over and over, so I have to assume you are irrational. Estonia is a struggling nation with a lot of international debt recieving millions in aid. I don't think for a moment you can make any statements about the worth of their tax system, given their situation and the amount of time it has been in place. As for the results, you should be able to see that government management of land leads to excess and corruption, since it is playing out as such here in America.

And... as I said... no point in continueing to abuse Gideon's blog.

Leauki

on Aug 01, 2005

"I never said anythign about a city. I mean side-by-side."

Side by side they would be worth the same and taxed the same.

Why would you tax the one more just because he makes better use of the land and produced more value?

Why tax someone more just because he is more productive?

As for the evidence you don't provide; you seem to be under the impression that your repeated claims constitute evidence. But evidence is what backs up a claim, not repeating it. I am sure you have very good reasons for not providing any links to any news reports that confirm what you claim is so easy to find.

bakerstreet

on Aug 01, 2005

"As for the evidence you don't provide; you seem to be under the impression that your repeated claims constitute evidence. But evidence is what backs up a claim, not repeating it. I am sure you have very good reasons for not providing any links to any news reports that confirm what you claim is so easy to find."

No, I refuse to play into your asinine feigned ignorance, given that there have been numerous blogs here on the subject in the last few months, and it was all over the news. Gideon himself wrote a blog on it, if I recall. You either pretend it didn't happen, too ignorant to be dealing with.

From my perspective it highlights how little you know about the subject. Honestly, I would prefer you to keep making your points based upon ignorance of current events. Someone that purports great knowledge of Estonian tax system and then pleads ignorance when someone mentions Supreme Court decisions that are headline news, well, that isn't a gift one is given often in a debate.

Better to savor it. It is a petty tactic here at JU that after much discussion on an issue, someone enevitably brings back up the issue, and then lambasts whoever doesn't want to start the whole mess over again.

It's a "windbags always win" scenario, banking on the fact if you make enough articles about something, eventually the opposition will get sick of answering and your assertion will go unchallenged. I'm tired of it, personally. If you don't keep up with Supreme Court rulings that have the entire nation outraged and legislators wrangling to respond, what the hell are you doing here anyway?

drmiler

on Aug 01, 2005

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.

And what part of "this" do you not understand? By law it's a land value tax based on "market value" which would INCLUDE ANY man-made improvements!

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!