Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"

sinister wrote:
"Davinchi" <mulldrat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:469e0d70$0$31222$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter B. P. wrote:
Davinchi <mulldrat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

sinister wrote:
"Peter B. P." <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1i1ex6h.1oz06i0r53cdiN%peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sinister <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Peter B. P." <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1i1esgv.154rtt7omnptnN%peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
sinister <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/propertyRights.html

The LDP believes the ownership of property is a fundamental right that
precedes the power of government.
Widespread private ownership of property is also a signficantly
preferable
alternative to either collective ownership or ownership by a privileged
elite.

The LDP supports the right of 'eminent domain' of property owners over
their
property. It believes neither the State nor other members of society
should
be able to limit or interfere with the right to enjoy property so long
as
such enjoyment does not involve coercion of others.

Specific LPD policies:

The LDP supports the right of landlords and tenants to freely negotiate
the
terms of tenancies, free from state rules and restrictions.
snip

Sinister, i agree with you on this point, but to generalize from one
point to claim that one group of people are "freedom-hating" is spurios
and unecessary poliemical.
I'm implicitly making a _statistical_ generalization, which I claim
stands.

That doesn't detract from my admiration (if not complete agreement with)
geolibertarians and Georgists and yourself (I assume you essentially fall
into those camps).
Thank you*. However, back to the point: Does the LDP of Australia
mention anything about land value taxation?
Not on that page, but I think a reasonable inference given what they wrote
in the linked text would imply they're against LVT. Certainly, they appear
to have no understanding that there's no natural right to use landed
property in any way the "owner" sees fit, given that the owner cannot
naturally, rightfully exclude others from the property.

*) Since I am in favor of a morderate to large LVT, I think that I fall
into the G-ist camp.

--
regards , Peter B. P.
http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk

"We don't dial 911 - we dial .357".
I just have to chime in.
It's not that Libertarians are freedom hating per se. It just seems that way when encountering modern society where there are rules to promote and maintain a civil society.
Hence, they don't abide by any regulation in support of the commons or agree to any idea of public goods. In modern times, Libertarians are not free market promoters, but free rider opportunist.
Onl in regards to land. In regards to goods, labor and capital, they are
indeed free market advocates.

You say only, so I disagree. On goods, your right. On capital, it's questionable. On labor, I know of a few Libertarians that have are deceitful and use asymmetric information to take advantage of labor.

<snip>

But you miss the fundamental point of Georgist analysis: the reason labor is constrained is because of lack of access to natural resources.

Take, for example, the common decrying of sweatshops in the third world. While it's true that sometimes workers are press ganged into such factories, or that they voluntarily sign up but are later essentially enslaved, there is certainly a large fraction that are not so enslaved.


For the example, the means of production do not have access to the material for production, ok fine let's explore the second point.
In what sense, therefore, are the workers "taken advantage of"? They're free at any time to go earn a different living.
Labor markets have empirically been shown to be thin. Various barriers to entry exist, specialization and the division of labor have some effect, as do geographical distribution of jobs and employees relative to housing.

The crucial obstacle to economic justice in such countries is that **(1) they're denied equal access to natural resources (primarily agricultural land), or (2) are not ruled by governments that would on their behalf receive payments from those who "own" the land (for their use of it) and use it to the benefit of the landless (by funding infrastructure, direct compensation, educational opportunities, etc).**

Yes, this is the issue to a large degree. And, A> land that is fallow, either govt. land or investment land, is often legally bound up in tax schemes that make this situation persistent, and B> Land that is rented frequently contribute to economic dark matter and additional allocative inefficiencies.
The conflation of "capitalist" and "landowner" in the minds of so many critics of nominally capitalist economies means that real solutions to these problems will either go unapprehended, or will not receive the emphasis they deserve.

Complements, largely due to the tax structure and adversity to risk by the "capitalist".

I'm well aware, of course, that the class of people who own capital is often indistinguishable from those that own land, but for economic purposes (as well as the purpose of serving justice), such a distinction _must_ be made. In a word: landowners as landowners are pure parasites, whereas owners of capital (not including the capitalized value of land) are contributing to socially useful production (minus a discussion, out of scope here, of things like environmental impacts, weapons manufacturers, etc). This is a fundamental, valid distinction that George saw but Marx didn't (or at least didn't want to see).
dark matter again, point well made. Both Marx and Keyenes failed miserably in accounting for sticky preferences, although not in the same variables, and negative externalities. Actually Marx did a better job of this in some respects. The easy way around this - simply formally take them out of consideration.



-----
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. -- John Stuart Mill

......
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"
    ... The LDP believes the ownership of property is a fundamental right ... Onl in regards to land. ... On labor, I know of a few Libertarians that have are ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgism Part 2
    ... government ownership, and on a very large scale. ... of labor can reduce the supply of products of labor, ... ownership of land cannot reduce the supply of land. ... Private landowner privilege is the real invasion of the free market, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Dont Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
    ... >The fact that the community then takes the money and spends ... despot that takes the land rent and spends it on foreign wars. ... Ownership per se is a matter of ... economic status as a worker's claim to the fruits of his own labor? ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Murray Rothbard on Georgism Part 2
    ... Government ownership of land would end one ... used by current labor and capital goods, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... >> walks (4.5 hours of labor). ... > berries home today, and still go out on the next days walk anyway. ... If these are not labor and not land then they must be capital. ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading