From here

The article, and my rebuttal, are a very long read.

As anyone familiar with classical political economy knows, true property rights are rooted in self-ownership. You own yourself, and by extension you own what you make through labor or voluntary transactions thereof. Land, however, is not a fruit of labor.

True. However without ‘labour’ land produces nothing. Even the fruit trees that may already exist, require the fruit to be picked.

One might reasonably suppose that land, being unlike other things that are called “property,” would have special economic characteristics. Classical economists recognized this to be the case, and spoke at length about the implications of it. Neoclassicals and their Austrian copycats insisted on lumping everything together under the solitary label of “property,” which served to obscure these implications. They simply bicker about how best to achieve equilibrium and Pareto efficiency, given value-free analysis of the system that exists. Some might call that dispassionate analysis; others might call that bean-counting for elites.

Land became ‘property’ when you as an individual mixed your labour with the land. Thus the combined product of land and labour provided the ‘value’. As land is more plentiful than labour, land that you had, and continued to mix your labour with, became ‘property’.

Which brings us to ‘self-ownership’. Self-ownership can be shown and demonstrated via ‘argumentation’. For two individual units to argue, they must demonstrate the ability to [i] reason [ii] self-ownership of mind & body. These two prerequisites rule out our potential ‘zombie’ problem. With self-ownership, we have a ‘law’ that essentially states that I have ‘property rights’ in my own body as long as I can fulfill the two prior requirements.

The first step in formulating an ethic from which a ‘natural law’ system can be derived is to start in a theoretical world where only standing room is required. The rule that would eliminate conflict would state that the standing space that a body occupied was ‘legally’ belonging to ‘A’ rather than ‘B’ if ‘A’ had appropriated this space first and that he had not ‘aggressed’ against ‘B’ or [anyone else] to do so. If this condition was fulfilled, then ‘A’ would own his standing space, he would possess ‘property rights’ in the standing space that he occupied.

From here, using the Lockeian ‘homesteading’ principal, ownership over scarce resources can be allocated in the same manner. That is, if I claim ‘unused’ resources first, then those resources become my ‘property’ and can be allocated via contract, gift or consumed. Carried to the logical conclusion you end with a fully delineated ‘natural law’ system that forbids murder, robbery, trespass, etc, while fully protecting property rights and promoting social co-operation which is the basis for the division of labour.

Unlike the priesthood of the status quo, I am interested in making moral judgments about the system we live under. I am not talking about a revenue model. I’m talking about a revolution: a revolution of liberty, of prosperity, of human relationships, of ecological relationships.

Fair enough.

We can eliminate taxes and debt, poverty and special privilege. Contrary to the dour pronouncements from the curators of the dismal science, we can have it all.

The up till now mythical ‘utopia’.

The Basic Properties of Land
In terms of political economy, “land” refers to access rights over everything that was here before us humans.

True.

When you buy land, what you are really buying is a bundle of rights, be they air rights, mineral rights, drilling rights, surface rights, spectrum rights, right of way, you name it. Such rights are necessary for all production, and even life itself.

True.

Supposing the entire habitable globe to be so enclosed, it follows that if the landowners have a valid right to its surface, all who are not landowners, have no right at all to its surface. Hence, such can exist on the earth by sufferance only. They are all trespassers.
- Herbert Spencer, Social Statics

A very interesting argument based on the ‘reductio ad absurdum’. All individuals require at least the standing space that our bodies occupy to exist. If I do occupy this space, on what basis, or by what right, can I occupy this space? The only way that I can claim the volume of land is through the allocation of ‘property rights’ to the land. I can then either own the land, or rent the land. Land can only produce wealth when mixed with labour. I will only mix my labour with land if I own the wealth produced. If I do not, then no wealth will be produced. Thus to produce wealth, which is necessary to the survival of the human race, land must be assigned property rights.

That is a simple illustration of the absurdity of the current system, when taken to its logical conclusion. Indeed, we aren’t far from that.

Incorrect. The argument is flawed.

When land is made into a commodity, the progress of society, be it in terms of productivity, philanthropy, or the rule of law, tends to be encapsulated in land values.
…every improvement in the circumstances of the society tends either directly or indirectly to raise the real rent of land, to increase the real wealth of the landlord, his power of purchasing the labour, or the produce of the labour of other people.
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Adam Smith is simply incorrect. The value imputed to land flows backwards from the valuation made by consumers through the purchase [exchange value] of consumer products. Thus the value of land depends on its productivity. High marginal productivity will earn a higher return than lower marginally productive land.

So the community as a whole is what generates all this value, and yet the windfall gains accrue only to the holders of these access rights.

But what is a ‘community’? A community is nothing but a collection of individuals who share in common a number of variables: location, interests, production, exchange, etc. The land only accrues value to the value of its production as valued through the consumption of its product. If the value of the lands product equals $50 then the land cannot command $100 in rent.

In fact, under feudalism land titles were the root of noble privilege, and although we have left behind the aesthetic trappings of feudalism, we have yet to be rid of the core component.

True. Even in Feudalism however, the Lord could only charge a ‘rent’ that the serfs could produce from the land. If the land produced 100 bushels of wheat, that is the absolute maximum rent that could be charged. The return to labour, being zero in this example, would see the deaths of the serfs through starvation, or rebellion. Thus ‘rent’ is always imputed backwards from the value of the production exchanged for consumption.

That means in practice the payments which can be demanded for these access rights are not like other sorts of payments.

Nonsense.

Moreover, wages and interest, when there is no rent, are regulated strictly by free competition; but rent is a monopoly-charge, and hence is always “all the traffic will bear.”
- Albert Jay Nock, Henry George: Unorthodox American

Incorrect. Rent as already demonstrated can only command a valuation imputed from the exchange of consumers in consumption, backwards to the land.

Essentially, when private individuals get to levy a charge on others for the mere privilege of existing on the planet, this creates an endemic state of poverty for large masses of people. Just as land titles are the essence of noble privilege, so is landlessness the essence of serfdom.

The ‘charge’ that they can levy is strictly controlled through the values produced in the combining of the factors of production: land, labour and capital and the values created through the final exchange with consumers. The ownership of land in a capitalist society confers no ‘noble privilege’. The assertion is false.

It is through this logic that David Ricardo debunked Thomas Malthus’s “Iron Law of Wages.” He developed his own “Law of Rent” to show that when the produce obtainable on the best available rent-free land (the margin of production) is high, wages will also be high since everyone’s next best alternative to wage labor is improved.

Obviously true. The ‘rent-free’ land added to labour produces a product that is either [i] exchanged or [ii] consumed whichever produces the higher value. Assuming as he does that the ‘marginal productivity’ of the land is high, the value created is higher than the ‘wages’ being earned for labour elsewhere. The value captured by labour on the land is enhanced through the ‘rent-free’ value created by the land. Essentially, so what?

When Malthus and Ricardo were debating, the Old World was all built up and many people were living in Dickensian squalor.

As the ‘wages’ being paid exceeded the wages for labour on agricultural land.

Yet, the New World of America had lots of free land, and it witnessed growth rates comparable to those of China today.

Growth rates in emerging economies always exceed that of mature economies as they have access to all the technology of the mature economies. What the emerging economies lack is capital. As immigration continues, new capital also flows in, thus huge growth was possible.

Unemployment wasn’t even part of our vocabulary. True, many homesteaders did not have an easy life, but everyone who was willing and able to work could simply go work. Why is that no longer possible?

Government.

Government has intervened in the free market increasingly. The more government intervenes via legislation, regulation, taxation, the more problems that it creates, and the more it magnifies problems that may already exist. With regards to unemployment: [i] minimum wages [ii] Trade Union legislation [iii] Monetary policy [inflation] [iv] Taxation [v] Welfare State.

The Remedy
The commodification of land itself is not the issue. The issue is who gets the benefits of the access rights. Anything less than an equal share is a violation of the Law of Equal Liberty, for any exclusive claim over natural opportunities necessarily reduces the opportunities available for everyone else. There is only one way to ensure equality of opportunity: for the community to recapture the value of land.

What exactly is the ‘Law of Equal Liberty’? Is it as stated above ‘Egalitarianism’? This is not ‘liberty’ which is equated with an ‘equal share’ which is egalitarianism. Equal liberty means that each individual has the right to ‘property rights’. Property rights do not confer the right to an aliquot share of land. They mandate that the individual has the right to own ‘property’, not a free handout. Of course not all individuals are not equal in their natural endowments, it is this inequality that drives in part the division of labour.

It is for these reasons that virtually all the notable classical liberal political economists supported the idea of the community recapturing the land values, using the discourse of taxation.

Well they are incorrect.

A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Our old friend Adam Smith again. Monopolies are, and can only ever be, government granted privilege. From Lord Coke:

A monopoly is an institution or allowance by the King, by his grant, commission, or otherwise…to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, for the sole buying, selling, making, working, or using of anything, whereby any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, are sought to be restrained of any freedom or liberty that they had before, or hindered in their lawful trade.

Monopoly as an analytic a priori proposition: monopoly is an entity [institution] that exists in the absence of any market competition.

Defining ‘monopoly’ as an institution that can as a producer of goods and services [within its market], raise revenues through the restriction of supply: this is and must be due to an inelastic demand curve.

To gain a monopoly position, all competition must be eliminated. Free market mechanisms cannot succeed, nor be utilised to eliminate competition, as free market mechanisms rely upon ‘out competing’ the competition through ‘lower price, higher quality’ or a combination of the two. With ‘free entry’ to the ‘market’ as ‘profit margins rise’ due to an expansion of market share, or product dominance, competitors are attracted to the high returns available, particularly if the demand curve has areas of inelasticity.

Legal mechanisms can be utilised, as they rely upon an outside agency to provide the coercive power required to exclude all and any competition. Thus the only true monopolies are monopolies that exist under conditions of coercion. These monopolies will only possess monopoly power or advantage in an area where they have the support of the coercive power.

The ‘other’ way that monopoly area of influence, or market share can be gained is through the direct use of coercion, or physical force [or the threat of] against any and all competition. Assuming success, the institution then controls the market or territory that they can defend from other potential or actual monopolists.

We now have an area that supports say 100 monopolists, each with a territory that has an inelastic demand curve for our institutions goods and services, which happen to be quite similar in our 100 firms. As ‘competition’ is prohibited, legal power resides with each individual monopolist, the only method to remaining to drive expansion of territorial control and hence an expansion in revenues is through ‘war’.

Of course this is exactly the situation of the ‘State’ which historically consisted of ‘Kings’ and now are ‘governments’. There are some very important differences between the two forms of the ‘State’ however, as far as ‘government’ expansion is concerned, there are only two ways that they can expand their market share, direct war, or the threat of war, resulting in Imperialism.

Through history the theory of monopoly can be seen to drive the ever shrinking number of ‘States’ into ever larger territorial areas that are exploited by monopoly government. There have been stunning reversals, the Soviet Empire imploded of course, but the historical dialectic has been towards consolidation through war and aggression. The inelastic demand curve is inelastic as of course it is 100% coerced. The revenues generated are called ‘tax’.

Monopoly through coercion has a logical conclusion: one world government. Steps have of course been underway for a long time towards this ‘ideal’ using the fiat currency as the primary weapon. Bretton Woods saw the hegemony of the US. drive the implementation of the US dollar as the ‘world reserve’ currency, much as prior to WWI Britain held the unofficial world reserve currency.

Under a monopoly, the supply of goods and services is reduced, while the cost of said goods and services rises. This fact is starkly apparent across all the Socialist Western governments that seek to expropriate as much of the capitalist systems generated wealth. Their profligacy and incompetence however are gradually killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

From the true monopoly of government we can move to the fallacy of the ‘monopoly price’.

The model relies on an assumption that is untrue, thus any deduced conclusions are false. This is the assumption that in the market there is a discernible, identifiable competitive price. From this assumption flows the identification of the monopoly price.

Thus the critical question is that at P1, does there exist a competitive price or a monopoly price? The authors are working on the assumption that it is a monopoly price. The truth of the matter is that there is no way of knowing. Contrary to the assumptions of the theory, there is no competitive price which is clearly established somewhere, and to which we can compare P1.

In this diagram increased demand is postulated. From the diagram, an increase in demand at AR2, is shown to increase profits due to a higher price and output at P2, Q2. The truth of this depends upon a perfect inelasticity of the demand curve.

Even if I were to to waive all the difficulties of discovering and identifying a demand curve [and this can only be done by the producer in a tentative manner] the price, if accurately established, will be set by the seller, so that the demand curve above P1 [our original monopoly price] will be elastic, thus assuming perfect inelasticity is an error, and false.

Now let me suppose that the producer decides that only producing Q1 rather than Q2 and thus lowering his marginal costs, that he will make more money as he can still sell at P2, does this signify a monopoly price? Could it not be argued reasonably that the price attained at P2 is rather the movement from a subcompetitive price to a competitive market price? In the real world, the demand curve is not simply handed to the producer, but must be estimated and discovered. Our producer really has no idea whether these prices are subcompetitive, competitive or monopoly. As we have already disposed of the authors original definition, viz. sole producer, I can assert this to be true.

A tax on rent would affect rent only; it would fall wholly on landlords, and could not be shifted to any class of consumers. The landlord could not raise his rent, because he would leave unaltered the difference between the produce obtained from the least productive land in cultivation, and that obtained from land of every quality.
- David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

When you increase taxes, or have any taxes at all, government raises the time preference of all those whom it taxes. This reduces production, in that the longer, more roundabout production methods must be abandoned, with shorter, less productive methods employed. Not only is production lowered, but also the employment that results from the longer processes.

Therefore ‘taxes’ of any description are bad. They destroy the wealth of all, some directly bear the brunt, but ultimately all, indirectly suffer the consequences of taxation. Taxes are of course incompatible with the principals of ‘natural law’. Taxes are always created through legislation, which is then enforced via coercion.

When you impose costs on man-made objects, you see a reduction in supply. The supply of land, on the other hand, is fixed.

Yes it is. But so what? To be productive land must be mixed with labour and capital to make it productive. You raise taxes on land, you reduce its productivity, which lowers the creation of wealth, lowering the living standards of everyone.

Income taxes discourage production, sales taxes discourage consumption (which drives production), tariffs discourage trade (which is really a form of production),

True.

but value capture only discourages the unproductive holding of land.

Instead of hampering production, it would boost it. Think of every vacant lot or surface level parking lot in a city, every abandoned building, every single-story fast food franchise amidst skyscrapers. Those are all examples of the waste and underdevelopment of the current system. These things occur simply because it is cheaper to sit on the land and hope others put in the work necessary to make it valuable, compared to the expense of undertaking a risky entrepreneurial venture.

The Georgists wanted to eliminate all taxes, save, the 100% expropriation of ground rents, as a way of stimulating production and exchange. Of course, simply removing taxes, government theft, will at a stroke increase production and exchange. No requirement for a ground tax exists at all.

A tax on ground rent will capitalise the tax, pushing the liability of the tax onto the original owner, later owners escaping any liability of the tax. Taxes cannot be shifted forward. This is an economic axiom.

A critical defect of a ground tax is the inability to price ground rents. The essence of the ground tax is to tax rents, not the attendant capital goods. It is impossible to make the distinction, in practice or theory. Even if the property is sold, the price paid will include capital goods that are now intrinsic to the property.

The Georgists also claimed that marginal or idle land into use. Of course, if the land is idle, and earns no rent, then the tax assessment must be zero. The error that the Georgists made was that idle land, although earning no rent, was in possession of a capital value, and might fetch this value if sold. The capital value is based on speculation and entrepreneurs combined with time. In the future, as capital, or technology become available, so the land passes into use.

Taxes? What Taxes? We Don’t Need No Stinking Taxes!
Landholding ought not be seen as a no-strings-attached sovereignty. A true libertarian position recognizes that landholding comes with obligations: obligations to internalize negative externalities, and obligations to respect the Law of Equal Liberty. Sure both of those things may be difficult to do, and may not be accomplished perfectly, yet we must try to achieve them one way or another.

To internalise negative externalities, you must allow property ownership rights to land. If not, you encounter the economic ‘tragedy of the commons’. The ‘Law of Equal Liberty’ has already been exposed as a fallacy.

My goal is not to say exactly how the land value should be recaptured. Whether this is done by a municipality, a nation-state, or a Charter City is not the topic of this paper. I only aim to spread a general recognition that it is an essential prerequisite for a just and sustainable socioeconomic order.

Then you are simply wasting time. If you cannot provide a legitimate argument for ‘land value capture’ then you must ask yourself…why not?

Value Capture is most commonly advocated as “Land Value Taxation.” However, it is a tax only in the sense that Pigovian “Taxes” are. It is not a tax on production, and thus there is nothing objectionable about it from the perspective of classical liberalism. Indeed, I’d argue that without it, classical liberalism is a cruel joke. Value capture is simply a reconceptualization of who owns the value of the access rights over the Earth.

So your argument boils down to: if I don’t call it a ‘tax’ then its ok? Nonsense on stilts.

Rent is not a tax. It is payment for the use of a location, determined by the higgling and haggling of the market, and it makes no difference to the land user whether he pays rent to the city fathers or to a private owner.
- Frank Chodorov, Out of Step

Correct. Rent is not a tax. But you are advocating that a tax be levied against land. This quote is essentially meaningless in the context that you are advocating.

Under the current system, rent is like an extractive force upon laborers and capitalists, and that can only be fixed by preventing the private appropriation of land rent. I care not whether the person pocketing the rent is an ideal Lockean homesteader or Donald Trump, it is unjust either way, just as it would be unjust for either of them to unaccountably create negative externalities.

Rent is a ‘cost’ of production. Any producer, our entrepreneur, believes, and speculates upon creating production that he can then sell to consumers, or if producing capital goods to the lower producer. Thus ‘rent’ is simply part of his economic calculation.

The land value must be recaptured to the fullest extent possible, not simply as a means for funding essential services. If the government is limited enough and well-managed enough to not require all of the land rent,

So of course, it is a ‘tax’ after all.

it should still recapture all of it and distribute the surplus as a flat Citizen’s Dividend, since that value truly does belong equally to all.

Really? Where is the proof of that statement?

This dividend would not only be essential for justice, but would provide a strong incentive for all parties to keep public services lean and efficient.

Justice? Based upon what argument?

That which makes public services more efficient would be of direct interest to citizens.

True, although not to the ‘tax payer’ as they are going to be taxed to the max, irrespective of government spending, and the rest ‘redistributed’ to all and sundry. As all tax raises the time preference, thus reducing investment, shortening the productive structure, thus reducing total production, thus lowering wealth, who will thus want to own land, as tax remains high, production falls ever lower.

That which makes land values higher, would be of direct interest to bureaucrats,

Of course, it simply means that this ‘value’ would result in higher taxes. Same argument that I made earlier, a critical defect of a ground tax is the inability to price ground rents. The essence of the ground tax is to tax rents, not the attendant capital goods. It is impossible to make the distinction, in practice or theory. Even if the property is sold, the price paid will include capital goods that are now intrinsic to the property. Thus taxing London ground rents, you could not separate the pure land from the capital goods that have now been mixed with the land. Thus, it is impossible to price the tax.

which means their incentive would be to create value for the community, rather than to take from productive activity. The incentives between individuals and their community are aligned.

Nonsense on stilts my friend. Their incentive as always would be to expand necessary services that required the tax to service.

Steady Growth.
The ideal of steady growth is completely feasible. Monetary policy is not the root cause of the business cycle. Borrowing fuels speculation, but it isn’t the ability to borrow which creates the business cycle. That merely amplifies it. You have to ask why they are borrowing. If the borrowing were for normal productive purposes, the borrowing wouldn’t be inflationary.

Totally incorrect. The cause of the ‘business cycle’ is the creation of ‘money & credit’ by government, usually through fractional reserve lending of the banks, QE programs and when interest rates were higher than zero, through manipulation of the short-end of the curve.

No, the root cause of the cycles isn’t borrowing, it’s when we leave for the taking a giant pile of community-generated wealth. We shouldn’t find it unusual that people should want to pocket unearned wealth. Or even that they should want to undertake bouts of debt-fueled speculation. “Safe” unearned income sure beats working. Who wouldn’t want that? It is the system which is corrupt.

Government theft, pure and simple.

Land shouldn’t be seen as this “safe” investment, which grows over time with the progress of civilization. No other asset works like that. It ought not even be seen as an investment; if anything, it should be seen as a liability. That we have obligations when we take on the duty of landholding might come as a shock to some, but it is the only position consistent with liberty, and key to our success.

Incorrect. Capitalism that respects property rights, not this bastardised Corporatism that tries to pass itself of as capitalism, but is simply another version of Socialism, will create wealth, as it did on the gold standard, where government could not control the money supply and market forces allocated capital, land, and labour in its most efficient combination.

Though it isn’t calculated in official statistics like the CPI, rent is what drives much of the increase in living expenses,

Incorrect. Rent is calculated in the CPI and actually carries a 25% weighting.

and why the working classes often never see a piece of their increased productivity during booms. What good is it that the GDP has risen if the general level of wages do not rise as well? That is not the sort of steady growth I’m interested in.

GDP growth is largely due to an increase in the money supply. More ‘money’ creates inflation, which when you sell ‘X’ number of goods/services @ a higher $ value, increases GDP. If a new ‘industry’ takes off during an expansionary boom, the jobs created create an upward movement in wages generally, but it has to be a significant new industry to create the necessary jobs economy wide.

Unemployment during busts is a result of the market correcting for the inflated cost of production resulting from land speculation and other rent-taking.

Unemployment in the bust is from the capital allocated to the mal-investments made. These mal-investments are in the higher, more time intensive, stages of production. The problem is in the time preferences of the aggregate: higher real time preferences, masked by the money and credit expansion, capital goods are allocated to the higher stages. When the expansionary boom ends, the demand for consumer goods, cannot be hidden any longer, thus depriving the higher stages of these capital goods, thus revealing them as mal-investments. The data is displayed as Capacity Utilization.

Remember, land is necessary for all production, and life itself. I don’t care if your business is all Internet-based, you and your employees still require access rights to the Earth, as do all the producers of the capital goods you consume. Conversely, if people have access to land, there can be no unemployment.

Employment, or employment at a given wage? Everyone, irrespective of whether they own land or not can find employment if they are willing to work for no wages. It is employment at a specific ‘wage’ that individuals really seek. This is another rather different problem altogether.

Really Smart Growth
Another cruel joke of the current system is the notion of Smart Growth. We cannot possibly curb sprawl as long as land speculation occurs. Let’s say a really nice community is developing. Businesses are sprouting up. This increases the land values. Before you know it, the land values exceed the ability for many people to pay. Even though the transportation infrastructure isn’t anywhere near capacity, and density living is far more ecologically efficient, people begin to go elsewhere in search of a place to live. It is simply too expensive in town.

Speculation is hardly immoral, unless of course said speculation is underwritten by the government for favored clients, who are protected from taking losses: otherwise, speculation is a necessary component in creating growth, products, employment, etc. If our speculator purchases unused land, that has low value, but gains value as his speculation pans out…so what? Our speculator placed current value capital goods [money] into a speculation that carried no guarantee of success, and bore that risk. That he can now sell and show a profit on the operation is what exactly, immoral?

They buy up land outside of town. Yet, before you know it, the new settlement is getting built up, the community is generating lots of value, and they begin construction on new infrastructure, and again before you know it the land values exceed the ability for people to pay.

Lots of assumptions in your hypothetical case. I have no issues with the abstract nature of your argument: rather the problem I have is in the lack of any theory that underpins your assertions. This is not a cogent argument, it is simply demagoguery.

How could anyone believe that people would make different decisions simply because a few do-gooders built pedestrian friendly development? It is absurd to believe this process of sprawl can be halted through zoning, light rail projects, philanthropy, or any sort of central planning. It can only be halted through systemic change.

Correct. Government cannot regulate. Allocation needs to be via the free market in property rights.

Land is artificially scarce under the current system of land tenure. We’ve already discussed the issue of vacant lots, abandoned buildings, and underdevelopment. Those are just the most visible signs. What about the things we don’t see?

Land has different discounted marginal value product location to location. Land isn’t artificially scarce, simply land that has higher marginal value is more scarce than land with lower marginal value. There is no conspiracy involved.

For instance, think about our industrialized agriculture system. It is probably the most land-intensive production there is. Wasteful production practices are essentially subsidized by this system.

That ‘system’ is again government subsidy. That is government ‘redistribution’. That is Socialism.

Why aren’t we moving towards more high-tech and efficient forms of production? You may have heard about the concept of vertical farming. People often ask why it isn’t common practice, and the answer given is that it is “not economically viable.” A primary reason why it isn’t viable is that holding lots of land is under our system is very cheap, and even profitable.

It’s not common practice because of government subsidy. Redistribution by government protects inefficient industries, keeping them in business at the expense of the taxpayer, and protecting the favored industry. Remove all subsidies, and the inefficient will fail, releasing capital and resources to be more efficiently allocated.

This insanity isn’t just contained domestically either. All the waste of the current system creates this compulsion to expand abroad, to continue fueling the land speculation Ponzi schemes. This creates international resource conflicts, and may even trigger war.

War is triggered by the monopoly State wishing to expand its sphere of influence. Government as a monopoly seeking institution, must always seek to eliminate competition, whereby it expands the territory and population under its coercive control. The theory of monopoly when extrapolated to its logical conclusion, results in a single ‘world government’. The institutions are already partially in place, ‘The World Bank’ etc.

Monopoly as an analytic a priori proposition: monopoly is an entity [institution] that exists in the absence of any market competition.

Defining ‘monopoly’ as an institution that can as a producer of goods and services [within its market], raise revenues through the restriction of supply: this is and must be due to an inelastic demand curve.

To gain a monopoly position, all competition must be eliminated. Free market mechanisms cannot succeed, nor be utilised to eliminate competition, as free market mechanisms rely upon ‘out competing’ the competition through ‘lower price, higher quality’ or a combination of the two. With ‘free entry’ to the ‘market’ as ‘profit margins rise’ due to an expansion of market share, or product dominance, competitors are attracted to the high returns available, particularly if the demand curve has areas of inelasticity.

Legal mechanisms can be utilised, as they rely upon an outside agency to provide the coercive power required to exclude all and any competition. Thus the only true monopolies are monopolies that exist under conditions of coercion. These monopolies will only possess monopoly power or advantage in an area where they have the support of the coercive power.

The ‘other’ way that monopoly area of influence, or market share can be gained is through the direct use of coercion, or physical force [or the threat of] against any and all competition. Assuming success, the institution then controls the market or territory that they can defend from other potential or actual monopolists.

We now have an area that supports say 100 monopolists, each with a territory that has an inelastic demand curve for our institutions goods and services, which happen to be quite similar in our 100 firms. As ‘competition’ is prohibited, legal power resides with each individual monopolist, the only method to remaining to drive expansion of territorial control and hence an expansion in revenues is through ‘war’.

Of course this is exactly the situation of the ‘State’ which historically consisted of ‘Kings’ and now are ‘governments’. There are some very important differences between the two forms of the ‘State’ however, as far as ‘government’ expansion is concerned, there are only two ways that they can expand their market share, direct war, or the threat of war, resulting in Imperialism.

Through history the theory of monopoly can be seen to drive the ever shrinking number of ‘States’ into ever larger territorial areas that are exploited by monopoly government. There have been stunning reversals, the Soviet Empire imploded of course, but the historical dialectic has been towards consolidation through war and aggression. The inelastic demand curve is inelastic as of course it is 100% coerced. The revenues generated are called ‘tax’.

Monopoly through coercion has a logical conclusion: one world government. Steps have of course been underway for a long time towards this ‘ideal’ using the fiat currency as the primary weapon. Bretton Woods saw the hegemony of the US. drive the implementation of the US dollar as the ‘world reserve’ currency, much as prior to WWI Britain held the unofficial world reserve currency.

Under a monopoly, the supply of goods and services is reduced, while the cost of said goods and services rises. This fact is starkly apparent across all the Socialist Western governments that seek to expropriate as much of the capitalist systems generated wealth. Their profligacy and incompetence however are gradually killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

It is no wonder that the Old World, where all the land was parceled out and the Commons long-enclosed, became the aggressors in the Scramble for Africa. Of course, eventually they gobbled up all of Africa, and finally turned inward on themselves in the form of the First World War.

Which rather provides an example of the ‘State’ at work.

What does this mean in practical terms?

You don’t have to be a political economist to see the common sense truth of the matter. Some people just care about practical or personal concerns, and value capture is just as relevant from this perspective. Through it we can replace income taxation with a straightforward, efficient, and non-invasive revenue source.

Incorrect. It is invasive to owners of property. It is a violation of property rights. It is economically detrimental, viz. the ‘means’ cannot achieve the ‘ends’ sought.

It doesn’t require teams of IRS auditors to snoop into every transaction you’ve ever made. You can’t hide your land in a Costa Rican bank account. The current “property tax” system isn’t even that different from a methodological perspective; it would only need to change in two ways. It would need to stop including improvements as part of the taxable value of real estate, and it must raise the rates up to near the full annual rental value of the location.

I see we are back to calling it by its true name…taxation.

The one thing basically all economists agree on is that “incentives matter.” The shift in incentives under value capture would cause dramatic and positive changes in the relationship between citizens and their community.

Artificially coerced, thus not what people really want. How is that a positive?

Well, then, since natural, resource values are purely social in their origin, created by the community, should not rent go to the community rather than to the Individual? Why tax industry and enterprise at all–why not just charge rent
- Albert Jay Nock, Henry George: Unorthodox American

All values are individual. Social values are created by individuals, who find it advantageous to act under the division of labour. As such, they already gain the value from ‘community’ and there is no need to undertake any form of redistribution. The redistribution is really only a transfer from the ‘producers’ to the ‘non-producers’, who largely consist of government officials claiming the skim off of the top.

Our current system has very perverse incentives. Want to go build a restaurant? Pay up. Want to buy up a prime location and hold it out of production? Under laws like Prop 13 we’ve made sure you get to keep nearly the full value of your precious title. Want to build a community center to help the poor? Congratulations, you’ve just raised the rents for all the landless people in the area, and may have just “helped” them right out of a home.

Any theory to underpin all the rhetoric?

As a landless person you have essentially no stake in your community. I walked through a poor neighborhood once and was shocked to find a big pile of garbage sitting out in the open in a vacant lot. I then saw one of the local residents walk by and chuck yet more garbage into it. I was puzzled by why anyone would do such a thing, but it makes perfect sense now. Even caring for the cleanliness of one’s community is of little benefit to the landless. Cleanliness raises rents, and littering lowers them.

If you don’t own something, you don’t value it in the same way as if you did. The time preference is raised very high. The discount value, therefore reduces the value. However when you own something, you want [generally] to extract as much value as possible, and therefore act to protect and preserve those values.

You can see the same thing with the contentious issue of gentrification. Have you ever wondered why gentrification is so despised? Why should people hate that their community is improving? They should be rejoicing! Right?

Well, they would be under any sensible economic arrangement, but now it merely causes displacement and hardship. Wouldn’t it be great if improving the community actually… you know… improved the community. What a thought!

Again any theory to support this assertion? Any empirical evidence of actions taken, the means to achieve these ends?

Inequality
I do not claim that George’s remedy is a panacea that will cure by itself all our ailments. But I do claim that we cannot get rid of our basic troubles without it.”
- John Dewey, Steps to Economic Recovery

An opinion. An opinion without any argument to support it.

Given the fundamental nature of land, and access rights over it, unless the land question is taken into account, one of the primary consequences of any otherwise-positive economic reform, including the repeal of other special privileges, will be an increase in rent to landlords.

Rent is as is the return to any other factor of production, governed not by the landlord, but rather by the consumer, who through their consumption assign the market return, or the marginal productivity values, discounted, to those factors.

What has destroyed every previous civilization has been the tendency to the unequal distribution of wealth and power.
- Henry George, Progress and Poverty

True. That distribution invariably occurs at the hands of government, or the ‘State’ who in the redistribution, arrogates to itself ever increasing wealth through theft.

Inequality is dangerous to liberty, and can enable vicious feedback loops of rent-seeking, which sets the stage for corporatism on one hand and state socialist counter-reactions on the other.

The premise ‘inequality is dangerous to liberty’ does not logically support the conclusions, and that is even allowing that the statement is true in the first place, which of course it isn’t. All individuals are inequal, which is the basis of the division of labour.

Thus the argument then states that this division of labour, creates ‘corporatism’ and ‘state socialist counter-relations’. Corporatism is the creation of advantageous business conditions for the corporation through government intervention. The ‘inequality’ we are talking about then is not inequality of skills, rather artificially created inequality through government coercion.

Vast fortunes should not be worshipped by those who love liberty. They should be looked at skeptically, and seen as a red flag that something is amiss.

‘Vast fortunes’ how amassed? Through serving consumers, or through theft? Obviously one is a positive, the other a negative.

Most great fortunes are not the result of voluntary interactions in the market, but by direct or indirect state intervention on behalf of the powerful. The mother of all those privileges is land speculation.

As this statement is one of historical fact, where is the evidence to support the assertion?

It’s time we heed the actual words of the classical liberals, so that we may create a system that works for everyone. No more compromises between prosperity and equality, freedom and justice. We can have it all.

Not through the institution of a land property tax you can’t.