Libertarian Principles Ignore
Private Monopoly of Nature
Edward J. Dodson
[A letter printed in the Philadelphia weekly newspaper, The
Welcomat, 23 July, 1986, with the editor's comments following]
Your April 30th editorial "The trouble with libertarians,"
has been in my "things to do" folder awaiting the proper
moment for a response. Today seemed like the appropriate time.
You were criticized by a number of supposed libertarians for
advocating broad-based tax support for mass transit. You responded
that while "a voluntary society ... is a worthy goal," we
must "evolve in that direction without impairing our day-to-day
survival."
On the issue of mass transit, those who have a vested interest in
Philadelphia's economy might consider a plan that charges user fees
(say, three times what is currently charged) only to those who are
leaving the city. This plan might become a deciding factor for those
trying to decide whether to work in Philadelphia but live in
suburban communities.
As for the raising of revenues from taxation, the availability of
such public services plays a significant role in pushing up land
values; therefore,, that increase is an appropriate source for the
needed revenue.
A question you raised asked why it is that all societies in history
have passed through feudalism. Feudalism is part of the natural
scheme of things where the hunter-protector class manages to also
appropriate the lands of an agrarian society.
Of all the societies in history, Murray Rothbard was able to find
only one - the Celtic Irish - who managed to thwart the rise of a
monopolistic oppressive state. This lasted only as long as these
people remained isolated from mainstream Eurasian culture. The
English then brought feudal ism and its elitist structure to
libertarian Ireland.
Statism is, unfortunately, the direction in which the elitists have
taken us. Mainstream conservatives want the liberty of being able to
establish monopolistic capitalism' without restriction while
dictating controls over individual actions in the realm of morality.
Mainstream liberals call for freedom of choice , but are unable to
accept a competitive economic model where there is failure.
Both groups operate under assumptions of group hierarchy - of
leaders making the decisions and followers doing what they are told
to do.
The libertarian sees these philosophical conflicts and prefers the
dangers of private monopoly to state monopoly; the libertarian
extols the virtues of private schools, hospitals, roadways, police
protection and courts - a society built on private contracts. What
you have pointed out is that libertarian philosophy does not provide
the framework for an incremental, evolutionary dismantling of the
existing structure that will also provide each citizen the
birthright of equality of opportunity.
Those who seriously .want, to achieve the goal of a society based
on voluntary contracts should look to what the Georgists have been
saying for the last century. The problem with the world economy and
the primary justification for heavy-handed government intervention
in our daily lives has ostensibly been to soften, the effects of tax
and property laws that have historically protected the wealth and
power of the few.
We need tax and property laws that will stimulate a universal rise
in the consumption power of citizens everywhere throughout the
world. We need equality of opportunity and an erosion of
monopolistic protectionism.
The Georgist proposal is to gradually reduce and then eliminate all
taxation imposed on the production of physical wealth (i.e., end
wage taxes, sales taxes, personal property, taxes, inheritance taxes
and that portion of the real estate tax falling on improvements). At
the same time, make up the lost revenue by applying a higher rate of
taxation to the assessed value of land and natural resources.
I will anticipate your question by answering what this would
accomplish.
Land and natural resources have a "zero production cost."
Except for the fact that the state has permitted private control
over land and natural resources, each of us could access them
equally. Our government gave away large portions of this country to
the railroads and to speculators. What little land homesteaders
obtained eventually found its way into the 'hands of the powerful,
whose influence in the state and federal governments ended forever
Jefferson's vision of a nation of yeoman farmers.
Today, the source of this nation's material wealth is controlled by
a very small number of people; over 90% of all the privately-held
land in the United States is controlled by less than 5% of our
population. This and worse concentrations of landownership exist
throughout the entire world.
As a result, we live under a very unstable global economy, a fact
those in power use to entrench; and expand their controls over
economic (and political) activity. Whether we talk about the
state-socialism of the Soviet Union, or state-capitalism as exists
in much of Latin America, or simply the heavy state-intervention of
the United States and Western Europe, the long run outcome is the
destruction of what individual liberties we have left.
At least we Georgists have identified a way out from under the grip
of statism. While I have little hope that those who have fooled
themselves into thinking socialism is anything but a road to
slavery, I am puzzled by the narrow-mindedness of many libertarians,
who ought to pull their heads out of the sand and get in there with
us Georgists in our fight for meaningful change.
Editor's comment
In my view, your generally lucid discussion degenerates into
rhetoric precisely when you reach your central point. Who are "the
powerful" of whom you speak, and precisely how did all that
land "find its way into their hands"? You assume that land
ownership is all blessings and no hassles, but a landlord in North
Philadelphia might tell you otherwise. Ditto for the owner of a farm
on the; Israeli-Syrian border. And if 90% of the land is. controlled
by less than 5% of the people, so what? Many people have no desire
to own land, including many rich and powerful people - Wall Street
investment bankers, for example.