Neolibertarians are simply libertarians who hold that land is no different than capital, and that concentrated ownership of land does not, therefore, conflict with free market principles, so long as it is not established by way of military conquest. 

Classical economists such as the Physiocrats (who coined the term "laissez faire"), Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill all regarded land as a 3rd factor of production, clearly distinct from capital.  Karl Marx was the first to blur this distinction, and then, towards the end of the 19th century, neoclassical economists adopted that blurred distinction as their own -- hence the prefix "neo" in neolibertarian. 

Even though, by definition, the economic rent of land is not a result of individual effort, neolibertarians regard land rent to be the exclusive property of those who hold State-issued titles to land. At first glance this may seem like a reasonable position, since titles to things like houses, cars, and other products of labor are what determine who has a right to the value of those things, and rightly so. Thus, one might ask, why should land-titles be viewed any different? 

For neolibertarians, the answer is simple: land-titles shouldn't be viewed any different. As far as they're concerned, land is no different than any other commodity, and should be treated accordingly. In that sense they have followed Karl Marx's lead in rejecting not only the economic distinction made by the aforementioned classical economists between land and capital, but the moral distinction made by classical liberals such as John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson between law-made property and man-made property.

Geolibertarians, on the other hand, embrace both distinctions, and thus believe that land-titles should be viewed differently from titles to labor-products. Why? Because the title to a labor-product originates with the laborer, since the product itself originates with the laborer -- hence the term, "man-made property."  

Not so with titles to land. Since land doesn't originate with the laborer, titles to land do not originate with the laborer. And if they don't originate with the laborer, then by default, they originate with the State that issued them -- hence the term, "law-made property."  

Thus, geolibertarians reason, land-titles are State-granted privileges and, as such, should be paid for by those who hold them in accordance with their rental value. Not because using land is a privilege; the use of land is an individual right held equally by all. Rather, because land-titles are generally used as a means of assuming exclusive possession of land without adhering to John Locke's proviso, i.e., without leaving "enough, and as good left in common for others." And since all individuals have an equal right to the use of the earth, when some are allowed to claim exclusive access to more than their equal share, "others" should be compensated accordingly.  

If this compensation were mandated by government, would that mean that government is assuming ownership of land? Neolibertarians insist it would mean just that. Geolibertarians counter that government would merely be ensuring that the private possession of land is upheld in accordance with Locke's proviso. 

To illustrate the principle involved, Henry George used the analogy of a human father who, upon dying, "leaves equally to his children things not susceptible of specific division or common use."  Say, for instance, a father leaves equally to his five children a one-of-a-kind painting. The question arises: if one of the five children desires exclusive access to that painting, in what way can the equal right of the other four be rightfully upheld? Dividing the painting itself into five equal pieces is not a valid option, for at that point it would cease to be a painting. Clearly, then, the only valid means of serving justice in this case is for the government to mandate that the value of the painting be divided equally. 

Thus, if one of the five children attempts to deny his siblings access to the painting without compensating them accordingly, the government steps in on behalf of those who are thereby dispossessed, and issues a court order requiring equal division of the painting's rental value. In doing so, is the government assuming ownership of the painting? Of course not. It is merely ensuring that those who have an equal right to the use of that painting are not denied access to it without being compensated for their loss. 

The same principle applies to land. By mandating the equal division of land rent, the government would be assuming ownership of land no more than it would be assuming ownership of said painting.  Indeed, it is by granting titles of unconditional ownership to a fraction of the population that government assumes ownership of land, for in doing so, it grants that fraction the power to levy tolls on other people's earnings without rendering any service in return -- the sort of unearned advantage that only an owner can grant. And an individual cannot turn what began as an unearned advantage into an earned advantage by purchasing it with earned money any more than he can turn a stolen good into a "justly acquired" good by purchasing it with "justly acquired" money.

Here are some hyperlinks to neolibertarian web sites:

Bryan Caplan's Homepage
Mark Skousen's Homepage
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Friedrich Hayek Scholar's Page
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Return to Todd's Home Page

Ludwig von Mises
"In a capitalistic society, every individual knows that the fruit of his labor is his own to enjoy, that his income increases or decreases according as the output of his labor is greater or smaller."

Ayn Rand
"The right to life is the source of all rights -- and the right to property is their only implementation."

Murray Rothbard
"The political means [of obtaining wealth] is clearly parasitic, for it requires previous production for the exploiters to confiscate, and it subtracts from instead of adding to the total production in society."

Mark Skousen
"The only just distribution of income is the one that pays individuals a legitimate amount equal to the fruits of their labors."