Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters? (Read 217 times)
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4157
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Oct 18th, 2018 at 5:09pm
Print Post  
Under geolibertarianism, government is funded by renting land to people who wish to use it.  The theory is that the right to own land is not a natural right as is the right to own things that we create.  Without government, people would not be allowed to simply mark off areas of the Earth and declare it to be theirs, thus removing the right of all other persons to use it.

Funding government that way would remove the element of theft and at the same time allowing the government to grow as much or as little as the people want it to.

Key is to not rent out all the land but to leave plenty of area for people to move freely.  But if someone wants to control an area to build a home, farm, factory or shoe shine stand, they have to pay the rent.

Thoughts?

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7876
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #1 - Oct 18th, 2018 at 10:56pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 18th, 2018 at 5:09pm:
The theory is that the right to own land is not a natural right as is the right to own things that we create.


I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this, because most libertarians reject this idea, but land is not the same type of property as a shoe, or a cat, or a leather handbag.

This is because my owning of a cat does not stop anyone else owning a cat. There is no number of cats, which, if I owned that number, would preclude cat ownership in others.

I managed to find a good quality oriental shorthair at the pound. Sadly, she is spayed. Still, more cats can be created, as can more shoes, and more leather handbags. More cows can be created to chop up into handbags. More grass can be grown, to grow small cows into large cows, thereby creating more leather.

However, there is only so much land. Some are already becoming a permanent tenant class. It's called "generation rent" colloquially.

I'll present a little bit of logic for you that starts with if land is the same as every other type of property.

If land works the same as every other type of property, one person, or a few, could theoretically own it all. If they did, they would have every right to every sort of tyranny libertarians rail against if the government does it.

Don't like my rules? I'll expel you from my property. In other words, go jump in the ocean and see how long you can float.

So, in the case that land is the same, the only difference between legitimate tyranny and illegitimate tyranny - the same exact acts - is legitimate ownership of the land?

In that case, why wouldn't a government that wanted to be tyrannical simply seize the land? Land has been seized over and over; none has never been seized. Eventually people lay back and accept the new owners as legitimate.

Every warlord who had the forethought to, before he gifted his conquests around the table, retain enough property rights to enforce his laws, would be made legitimate. If people don't like it, they can leave. It's his property.

John Locke said that when claiming the unowned, one must leave enough and as good for others.

I would posit that if it is possible for me to be born into a world where I am a propertyless effective permanent slave, because all the land is taken, not enough has been left for others, rendering the original claims illegitimate.

Libertarians will feel that this permanent psuedo-slavery is right if my ancestors squandered what was theirs.

I feel that it is at least possible that allowing land to be squandered, and subsequent descendants born into a life of perpetual rent, might not be the best way to structure property rights if you want a philosophy anyone can live with.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #2 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:05am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 18th, 2018 at 5:09pm:
The theory is that the right to own land is not a natural right as is the right to own things that we create.
Private ownership of land is essential to individual liberty and a free economy.

Have you never noticed that one of the first things socialists do is confiscate all land and put it under the control of the government?

Here's a timely article-

https://reason.com/archives/2018/10/18/civil-liberties-and-socialism-dont-mix?ut...

BTW, relabeling "socialism" as "geolibertarianism" is lame.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4157
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #3 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:22am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:05am:
Private ownership of land is essential to individual liberty and a free economy.




That’s laughable coming from you, Jeff.

Nothing is absolute, remember?
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #4 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:28am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:22am:
That’s laughable coming from you, Jeff.

Nothing is absolute, remember?

I didn't say it was "absolutely" essential, and I'm not the first person to say that private property ownership is essential to individual liberty.

Just look around a bit in the world and the history of the world... When the King owns all the land, the peasants give the King most of what they are able to produce as "rent" for the land the King allows them to occupy, and if the King decides not to rent you any land, you're screwed.

That's what you want to bring back, only instead of feudalism you'll label it "geolibertarianism". Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4157
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #5 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:34am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:28am:
I didn't say it was "absolutely" essential, and I'm not the first person to say that private property ownership is essential to individual liberty.

Just look around a bit in the world and the history of the world... When the King owns all the land, the peasants give the King most of what they are able to produce as "rent" for the land the King allows them to occupy, and if the King decides not to rent you any land, you're screwed.

That's what you want to bring back, only instead of feudalism you'll label it "geolibertarianism". Cheesy


Yet you advocate unlimited taxation of private land as long as "everyone pretty much agrees" that the community needs the money for more important purposes than those silly landowners would use it for.


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #6 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:35am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 18th, 2018 at 5:09pm:
Funding government that way would remove the element of theft and at the same time allowing the government to grow as much or as little as the people want it to.
Could you explain how the growth of government can be limited if the government owns all the land?

How will the tenants limit the landlords ability to charge whatever rent the landlord wants to charge?

How will the tenants have any control over how the landlord spends the collected rents?

What will prevent the landlord from being able being able to terminate your lease at will?

Edit: You have fallen prey to the absurd idea that a government monopoly is a good monopoly. I can never understand why people imagine that will be true.

(I know, you don't think governments should have a monopoly on the use of force, excepting that used in self defense, but that's a different topic... Let's stick to the one you started, thanks.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 35456
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #7 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:40am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:34am:
Yet you advocate unlimited taxation of private land as long as "everyone pretty much agrees" that the community needs the money for more important purposes than those silly landowners would use it for.


When property taxes are required to be apportioned, they are limited, not unlimited as you say. I realize you are not capable of understanding how apportionment acts to limit taxation, so I won't bother trying to explain it to you again.

I'm also, as I keep saying, only in favor of using collected property taxes for a very few purposes, although I don't know how a local community could be stopped from spending property taxes On a UBI if that's what they wanted to do and thought it would work...

How would you stop a local community from deciding, through the democratic processes of a republican form of government, that they wanted to do that and from doing it?

Would you send in the State Police to arrest the Town Council? Or make a Federal case of it?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4157
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #8 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:42am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:35am:
Could you explain how the growth of government can be limited if the government owns all the land?


Sure.  By restricting government revenues to only what they can convince people to pay to rent the land.

Quote:
How will the tenants limit the landlords ability to charge whatever rent the landlord wants to charge?


By not renting it if the government charges too  much.

Quote:
How will the tenants have any control over how the landlord spends the collected rents?


Same way citizens have control over the way government spends taxes.

Quote:
What will prevent the landlord from being able being able to terminate your lease at will?


What prevents government from taking people's land at will now?

Your arguments are asinine considering you don't believe that people do not have the right to own land if the community decides to tax it at any amount it deems necessary to pay for what it wants.

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4157
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Reply #9 - Oct 19th, 2018 at 8:45am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 18th, 2018 at 10:56pm:
I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this, because most libertarians reject this idea, but land is not the same type of property as a shoe, or a cat, or a leather handbag.

This is because my owning of a cat does not stop anyone else owning a cat. There is no number of cats, which, if I owned that number, would preclude cat ownership in others.

I managed to find a good quality oriental shorthair at the pound. Sadly, she is spayed. Still, more cats can be created, as can more shoes, and more leather handbags. More cows can be created to chop up into handbags. More grass can be grown, to grow small cows into large cows, thereby creating more leather.

However, there is only so much land. Some are already becoming a permanent tenant class. It's called "generation rent" colloquially.

I'll present a little bit of logic for you that starts with if land is the same as every other type of property.

If land works the same as every other type of property, one person, or a few, could theoretically own it all. If they did, they would have every right to every sort of tyranny libertarians rail against if the government does it.

Don't like my rules? I'll expel you from my property. In other words, go jump in the ocean and see how long you can float.

So, in the case that land is the same, the only difference between legitimate tyranny and illegitimate tyranny - the same exact acts - is legitimate ownership of the land?

In that case, why wouldn't a government that wanted to be tyrannical simply seize the land? Land has been seized over and over; none has never been seized. Eventually people lay back and accept the new owners as legitimate.

Every warlord who had the forethought to, before he gifted his conquests around the table, retain enough property rights to enforce his laws, would be made legitimate. If people don't like it, they can leave. It's his property.

John Locke said that when claiming the unowned, one must leave enough and as good for others.

I would posit that if it is possible for me to be born into a world where I am a propertyless effective permanent slave, because all the land is taken, not enough has been left for others, rendering the original claims illegitimate.

Libertarians will feel that this permanent psuedo-slavery is right if my ancestors squandered what was theirs.

I feel that it is at least possible that allowing land to be squandered, and subsequent descendants born into a life of perpetual rent, might not be the best way to structure property rights if you want a philosophy anyone can live with.


Good analysis.

Land is different because it is impossible to own land without government.  Land ownership is an artificial construct that arises out of government.

No one has any natural right to claim a certain area of the earth as their own because they did not create it and they cannot hold it without the use of force to keep others from walking on it. 

No one has ever owned any land without a grant from government.
  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Geolibertarianism - Opinions from Intelligent Posters?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy