User Tag List

Results 1 to 10 of 10

  1. #1

    Default Single Taxers, Georgists, Libertarian Socialists

    I'm reading a book at the minute called Socialism and Personal Liberty by someone called Robert Edward Dell, I've not heard of him although the book is much better than a great many contemporary political books I've read.

    In the final chapter the author talks about something he calls libertarian socialism, he suggests its an hypothesis to be tested, that whether a community spends on education or health should be its own decision and that whether or not people produce individually, with anyone who volunteers to work for them, or in association with others in a co-operative or producer group. The emphasis is upon adaptation and personal choice or voluntarism, that is freedom.

    What interests me though is the means to facilitating this, its an idea which I've read about online, also labelled "single taxers" or steming from the ideas of an early economic polemicist called Henry George.

    The idea that is as a natural monopoly land should be exclusively owned by the state, rents would replace taxes and a social dividend dispensed to all citizens or to parents or legal guardians in the case of children.

    From what I can gather there is not any welfarist measure accompanying this social dividend, it is not proposed that the state own, completely or in part (like a majority share) any other business, including public utilities, health services or education/schooling but it is suggested that individuals or communities with their social dividend can decide to spend a portion of it on these things if they want. Spending therefore isnt carried out by the state but by citizens themselves.

    He writes about how the problem with statism, which would be shared by many of the left and right wing substitutes or alternatives, and I think he is pretty fair about this considering boardrooms or entrepreneurs and syndicates or equivalents alike is that it institutes a government by an elect or elite of one sort of another.

    Is anyone else interested in these ideas or have anyone heard anything like them? What do you think of them if you have heard of them?

    I think that they date from a time before the welfare state and also a time of perhaps greater objective individualism or individual or household independence and also lower expectations. So I think that perhaps the money raised from land rents wouldnt cover the expenses of everyone these days and leave a surplus to mutually plan and cover essential services provision in any locality.

  2. #2
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Yes! I'm a strong supporter of geolibertarianism, always have been since I first discovered the idea of LVT and its theorethical and ethical basis.

    So I think that perhaps the money raised from land rents wouldnt cover the expenses of everyone these days and leave a surplus to mutually plan and cover essential services provision in any locality.
    Well, sure, state spending would have to be strongly dowsizied. Although, you also need to consider that:

    - governments can still run deficits as a means to spend slightly more than tax income
    - in western nations, lack of cheap housing is one of the main causes of relativel poverty. Given that LVT would ampen the supply of housing (because keeping houses empty would become very expensive), equilibrium rents will lower.

    Geolibertarianism is essentially an anarchist ideology. Thus any level of government spending is technically compatible with its theorethical structure, provided that a self-organizing community imposes such taxation only on itself and its components.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  3. #3
    Head Pigeon Mad Hatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    -1w sp/sx
    Socionics
    IOU Ni
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    I like to think that a whole lot of problems ensued after one person once claimed 'this land is mine', and another person believed it. Even today when people think of the service industry and manufacture, natural resources are what make wealth possible in the first place.

    I'm just not quite sure whether ownership of land today is still the deciding factor in post-agrarian societies. Ownership of land, whether to produce crops, raise cattle, mine for resources and all that is no longr that important in generating wealth although of course it isn' really unimportant - just no longer the deciding factor. Some of the wealthiest countries in the world are poor in natural resources, while some countries that have them are some of the poorest. Wealth in these wealthy countries is not generated by land, hence the incentive for owning land other than, say, build your house or factory on it is not really high (or lower than for example using it for farming), and revenues generated by ownership of land are comparatively small. Thus, a state that would base its taxation on the ownership of land would basically tax not the economically potent, which would make the most sense, but put the tax burden on those who do not have much of an income to begin with. From a taxation point of view, this would be inefficient.

    The whole idea of a society based on voluntarism on the other hand - I think it sounds nice, but to me it sounds like little more than a romantic idea that is not feasible. If the society is still organized in a capitalistic way, it would mean that services like health care, education etc. would be offered where they generate the most (private) profit, not necessarily where they are most needed.
    IN SERIO FATVITAS.

    -τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ-

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Hatter View Post
    The whole idea of a society based on voluntarism on the other hand - I think it sounds nice, but to me it sounds like little more than a romantic idea that is not feasible. If the society is still organized in a capitalistic way, it would mean that services like health care, education etc. would be offered where they generate the most (private) profit, not necessarily where they are most needed.
    Well I think the voluntaristic ideal is what is at the heart of capitalism and socialism, each properly understood, and society should seek a closer approximation of it.

    The idea isnt about taxing land ownership, its about the state being the sole proprietor in land and that proprietorship being non-transferable, therefore rents are charged in place of taxation, all enterprises have to use land and therefore would have to pay rent and the state's revenue is accumulated that way.

    I do agree that it is probably not sufficient to pay the bills of the states we have nowadays, the book was written some time ago, definitely before the second world war and probably just shortly after the Russian revolution (which it roundly criticises, which didnt happen a lot in socialist circles at that time). Although I dont think it is because our societies are less agrarian, it is not about deriving a tax from agrarian production.

    There is a great deal more detail about guilds or associations and how the author expected them to perform and compete with existing private enterprises, where no monopoly existed he was hopeful and also hopeful that the universally received social dividend would constitute sufficient individual empowerment that personal responsibility for service would mean more and more peopel would seek to set themselves up as suppliers in competition with those which would price them out of a market in something like health.

    I agree that there are other market failures besides natural monopoly.

  5. #5
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Ownership of land, whether to produce crops, raise cattle, mine for resources and all that is no longr that important in generating wealth although of course it isn' really unimportant - just no longer the deciding factor.
    That's not the crux of the problem. Ownership of land is particularly problematic in a city setting, where housing prices quickly become sky-high due to fixed supply.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  6. #6
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Ownership of land, whether to produce crops, raise cattle, mine for resources and all that is no longr that important in generating wealth although of course it isn' really unimportant - just no longer the deciding factor.
    That's not the crux of the problem. Ownership of land is particularly problematic in a city setting, where housing prices quickly become sky-high due to fixed supply.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  7. #7
    Senior Member Eckhart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    ???
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    The idea of land that doesn't belong to anyone other than the public institutions and which can only be rented can be found in a few concepts. I heard about it when I read about the economic concept "Freiwirtschaft" of Silvio Gesell some years ago. It suggests exactly that idea, but goes on and also suggests the concept of a new money system ("free money") and "free trade" (although that is no news anymore, his concept is nearly 100 years old). I am not sure what to think of it, but it can be an interesting read either way.

  8. #8
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eckhart View Post
    The idea of land that doesn't belong to anyone other than the public institutions and which can only be rented can be found in a few concepts. I heard about it when I read about the economic concept "Freiwirtschaft" of Silvio Gesell some years ago. It suggests exactly that idea, but goes on and also suggests the concept of a new money system ("free money") and "free trade" (although that is no news anymore, his concept is nearly 100 years old). I am not sure what to think of it, but it can be an interesting read either way.
    Yes, Freigeld is also an interesting concept, it might solve some typical issues of advanced capitalist economies (recessionary situations accompanied by deflation which further increases the recession). Some further elaborations suppose an economic system where two types of money coexist: Freigeld for everyday consumption, gold-backed currency for medium to long-term investment purposes. A similar situation can already be observed in a number of swiss Bezirke; in Germany you have Chiemgauer http://www.chiemgauer.info/:

    Dazu zählen der Umlaufimpuls. Der Umlaufimpuls bedeutet, dass Verbraucher die Scheine
    alle drei Monate um zwei Prozent mit Klebemarken aufwerten muss, wenn er sie nicht wei-
    tergibt. Das sorgt dafür, dass der Chiemgauer schneller im Kreis umläuft und so die Ge-
    schäftstätigkeit fördert. Auch verhindert dies spekulative Absichten, die mit Geld gerne ver-
    bunden werden. Ein Chiemgauer entspricht dem Wert einem Euro, in dem er auch gedeckt
    ist. Wer Chiemgauer mit der Regiocard bei über 40 Ausgabestellen eintauschen möchte,
    kann dies kostenfrei tun. Voraussetzung: Er muss die ebenfalls kostenfreie Mitgliedschaft
    beim Chiemgauer e. V. unterschreiben.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  9. #9

    Default

    This idea does make for strange bedfellows, I've read about its present popularity with libertarians because it would require a smaller government overall because the raiseable revenues would be smaller but there are some freaky nationalists who are big on the idea of autarky who are really big fans of it too.

  10. #10
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    This idea does make for strange bedfellows, I've read about its present popularity with libertarians because it would require a smaller government overall because the raiseable revenues would be smaller but there are some freaky nationalists who are big on the idea of autarky who are really big fans of it too.
    Why are you trying to associate ideologies to an idea which is relatively value-neutral?
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-05-2016, 01:43 PM
  2. Attention Single MBTI Members!
    By Tigerlily in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 249
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 05:31 AM
  3. I have no Libertarian Socialist!
    By booyalab in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 05:16 PM
  4. Single Payor Health Care
    By INTJMom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 09:16 PM
  5. Engaging Economica on Libertarian Ideology
    By reason in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 08:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO