The following are the preface and introduction to Dr. Harold Kyriazi's Libertarian Party at Sea on Land, published in 2000 by the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.
Why this essay? I'm a libertarian. I believe that the ideas embodied by the libertarian movement in general, and the Libertarian Party in particular, represent humanity's only hope for a future worth living. But I also think the Libertarian Party and the majority of today's libertarians (along with almost everyone else) are wrong about a seemingly insignificant, but fundamental aspect of political philosophy -- our system of ownership of land and other natural resources -- and have strayed far from our classical liberal roots. I believe that a recognition of this aberration, and a return to our roots, will open up a common ground, of economic freedom and justice, on which freedom lovers of all persuasions -- left, right, and libertarian -- may join together in a unbeatable coalition. The future is ours for the taking, if only we'll all do a bit more studying! This essay is written to that end.
I was introduced to the concept of land value tax (LVT) gradually, through the patient efforts of Dan Sullivan, while we both worked with many other freedom lovers to develop the Libertarian Party of Pittsburgh during the period from 1992 to the present. Several of the arguments presented here are ones he made to me. And, if you're a libertarian who wants a concise presentation of these ideas, I highly recommend Dan's essay entitled "Are You a Real Libertarian or a Royal Libertarian" (It's available electronically on his web site, or in print form from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation -- for both, see "Web Sites of Interest," p. 113.)
One indication of how much my thinking has changed over the past few years is that I used to be outraged that I didn't really own my own land: failure to pay my property taxes could result in a "Sheriff's Sale" of my home. "I'm just renting from the government!", I fumed. But now, I don't think I or anyone else should be allowed to own land free and clear of all obligation to the rest of humanity. Before, I thought a "head tax" was probably the most appropriate way to fund government; everyone should pay the same amount because, I thought, we all get the exact same benefits from the valid functions of government. Now, I think it's absolutely essential that each holder of land pay a net site value rent (i.e., LVT), which is the location value of his land minus the value he adds to that of the rest of the community. If he contributes more than he gets, then the community owes him something in return (a "land value rebate").
A major benefit of this transformation I've undergone is that, for the first time, I could have an effective dialogue with liberals about economic matters. Previously, I thought they had absolutely no leg to stand on. I thought 100% of our economic problems came from their so-called "Progressive" Movement. But now, I could see that a) there was such a thing as monopoly not caused by Big Brother Government (it was caused even by our small, 19th century government), and b) there was a problem with our form of capitalism, as its allowance of some to monopolize natural resources amounted to a rather vicious denial of everyone else's inherent right of free and equal access to Nature's Bounty. (In fact, it was our small 19th century government's allowance of such monopoly which led to the extreme degree of social and economic injustice that fueled the Progressive Movement.)
As proof of the general significance of such a personal, intellectual transformation, I offer the example of what has happened here in Pittsburgh over the past seven years. Starting with one advocate of LVT, Dan Sullivan, we've had a steady progression of libertarian converts, each of whom has been inspired to run for public office with LVT as a major campaign issue (the converts who haven't run yet are only college age -- give them time!). And, they constitute the majority of Pittsburgh-area libertarians who have run for public office. They include Mike Goldman (Wilkinsburg mayoral race in 1993 and Pennsylvania State House in 1994), this author (Pittsburgh City Council in 1995 and State Senate in 1998), Ron Rosenburger (1998, State Senate), and in 1999, Robert Chesnavich (Allegheny County-Council) and Andy Corkan (County Council At-Large). What caused these individuals to step forward and run? I think it was the added knowledge that they actually have something to offer everyone -- a full measure of liberty and justice for all, both in one's personal life and one's economic life.
Wouldn't you just love to be able to establish a rapport with liberals -- even outright socialists -- about economics? To be able to agree with them that, yes, there's something wrong at the base of our capitalist system (though there's nothing wrong with capitalism per se)? To agree with them that the system grinds down and oppresses the working poor? To be able to understand why socialists view capitalist centers of wealth creation as inherently despicable -- as centers of injustice where "the rich guy steals from the workers and gets away with it"? They're wrong, of course, but not as utterly wrong as I used to think. I used to view socialists, almost literally, as mentally defective: "How can anyone with a brain have such a misperception of reality?" But now I no longer have such a dim view of many of my fellow human beings. It's quite a relief, and also explains why many others often have such a dim view of us libertarians and our mental abilities: it's a case of misperception and ignorance all around, where all sides stand in need of enlightenment.
Achieving this happy state of mind is not easy, but extremely worthwhile, and you can do it by adhering more strictly to libertarian principles, not by abandoning them. Read on! Liberals do have a leg to stand on -- they just don't know what it is. You can be the one to tell them!
Who is this essay written for? While I'm writing this mostly for self-professed libertarians, I'm also keeping in mind that some readers may be merely curious about libertarianism. By showing the sorts of arguments libertarians make to one another, and focusing on libertarian principles, it is my hope that others may be persuaded that they, too, are libertarians at heart.
Note: In this essay, classical liberals will sometimes be referred to as libertarians. Also, the word land will occasionally be used in its economic sense, of referring to all natural resources. The phrase land value tax will usually be abbreviated as LVT. It is synonymous with "community collection of ground-rent." (To learn exactly what I mean by this, and especially to appreciate its voluntary nature, see p. 97, "How would LVT work?") Importantly, the word monopoly will be applied to our current system of land ownership, even though there is no "one" (mono) owner. Why this is an appropriate use of the word should become clear in the sections on Mark Twain and Winston Churchill. Finally, the word geo-libertarian is often used, and refers to both the "left libertarian" concern for how "the goods" are divvied up (in this case, the earth, i.e., "geo"), and the immense love and admiration most of us who've read Henry George feel for him and his ideas on land. So, rather than "left libertarians" or "Georgist libertarians," we call ourselves "geo-libertarians."
The current, mainstream libertarian view regarding land ownership is fatally flawed. The view, embodied in the writings of Murray Rothbard as well as the Libertarian Party's National Platform, is that the first users of land, followed by their assigns or heirs, own the land completely and eternally (though I can't say I've heard any of my fellow libertarians offering to return their land to the descendants of Native Americans). More to the point of this essay, most libertarians respond to the idea of a tax on land value the same way they respond to the idea of a tax on anything -- by, as a friend of mine says, chanting the mantra "taxation is theft." But what if the tax were actually a way of taking stolen money and returning it to its rightful owners? In that case, it would not be theft, but its prevention. And if that is the case, then the absence of such a tax permits a form of theft that is both ongoing and potentially enormous, occurring with the mailing of every rent check, and with every land transaction. And that is precisely the case I hope to make in this essay.
But before we can reasonably talk about the theft of something, we must determine who its rightful owners are. And to do that, we must talk about the basis of property rights. That will be the subject of the next chapter. For now, let me simply state that the overwhelming majority of libertarian philosophers throughout history have maintained that land -- which no one created, and which is a sine qua non of human existence -- is a unique type of property, and can be "owned" (free and clear) only when as much and as good free land is available to all -- the "Lockean Proviso." But the day has long since passed when land of any quality was free for the taking, and most libertarians today are largely unaware of this caveat historically attached to outright land ownership.
To give a sense of the classical liberal view of land, consider an analogy with the liquefaction of atmospheric oxygen. Currently this is done on a minuscule scale, with liquid oxygen being used in medicine and industry. But what if, for example, a group of people began liquefying and storing it en masse in order to create an atmospheric shortage (admittedly a far-fetched example), so that everyone else would have to pay them for bottled oxygen, just to be able to breathe?
Throughout history, classical liberals have viewed land the same way you and I view atmospheric oxygen; it's Nature's (or God's) gift to all humanity, and people who'd attempt to grab it all not to use for themselves but in order to charge others for access to it, would be guilty of the grandest theft.
Just as all people are entitled to the oxygen they're using so long as their use does not infringe on the equal rights of everyone else, so are all people entitled to the land they're actually using, so long as that claim doesn't infringe on anyone else's equal right to the use of land.
This essay represents the culmination of my efforts to explore the roots of the question of how we should "manage" natural resources. Rather than being just a series of linear arguments, it is also partly an anthology, in which I've presented, analyzed and compared the views of libertarian greats throughout history. Thus, much of it is repetitious. But from my experience, the topic is so rich that going over the same ground, but coming from slightly different angles, is instructive, because the ground may seem unfamiliar, and it's only through much thought and many visits that one begins to see it clearly and fully. An example of the topic's richness: it has drastically reshaped my thinking on subjects seemingly unrelated to our system of land ownership, such as minimum wage legislation, and the relative viability of organic vs. factory farming. (Both of these relationships will be mentioned in this book, though one would have to read carefully to find them).
To purchase Libertarian Party at Sea on Land, click here.
Return to What Is Geolibertarianism?
Return to Great Web Links