4 ms·

We could have a healthier, more rational discussion here on HN if we all could be more critical of popular libertarian dogma[1], and not take it as self-evident

We could have a healthier, more rational discussion here on HN if we all could be more critical of popular libertarian dogma[1], and not take it as self-evident that private ownership of land is both a right and good economics[2][3]. - [1] By “popular libertarian dogma” I refer to popular dogma that isn’t necessarily supported by and may even contradict true libertarian principles. [2] For a critique of private land ownership, read about Georgism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism) and Geolibertarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism). Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian? (http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html) makes the case against land as private property very plain. [3] If you believe in the free market and it's ability to find the "right" price for everything, even the abstract (e.g. the time value of money), then how can you support a government enforced system that allows a finite amount of money to purchase an infinite amount of something, which is what ownership of land in perpetuity amounts to? How can $10,000 or even $10,000,000 be the price of full rights over a plot of land for an infinite amount of time?

seiji 12y ago
Best comment in this entire thread. Infinite ownership of land and "I got here first, screw you" mentality doesn't work when everybody wants to live in the same place.
ende 12y ago
Good post. It's important to recognize that libertarianism is itself a diverse collection of philosophies, many of which resemble georgist, anarchist and even some strains of socialist thinking at their foundation. These variants all tend to differ on notions of property as first principal. I think the 'traditional dogmatic libertarianism' you mention can best be described as paleoconservativism or something similar. It is one end of an extreme with complete disregard of property as the other extreme. Georgist treatment of land as property is interesting because it doesn't actually deny land as private property, it just treats it as a negative externality to the commons and demands a Pigovian land value tax as recompense. This same philosophy can be extended to any tragedy of the commons, be it environmental, land use, radio bandwidth, etc. One may make property of these things, but at infinite cost for the privilege of such monopoly; a privilege that is guaranteed not by one's own right, but by the social contract of the state.
mgalka 12y ago
I have always considered myself a libertarian, but recent issues like these have me really questioning how "smart" the free market really is. I think it goes beyond land ownership too. In theory, I should not be judging other people's values and what they choose to spend their own money on. But when the free market tells us to dedicate our resources to building things like $500,000-per-month apartments, I am not sure I am willing to blindly agree. https://revaluate.com/blog/highest-rents-in-nyc/ https://revaluate.com/blog/highest-rents-in-nyc/
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Heh we could but then we wouldn't be talking about what we're talking about :-). As my philosophically focused friends tend to point out you can talk about anything at all, and still not have a discussion of substance. I understand the debate about property ownership, but you can either choose to discuss using the system we have in place, or you can talk about the system itself. But trying to talk about both at the same time robs both points of view from the first principles they are starting from. Any argument in one system can be refuted by changing the principles in the other. The land ownership system, currently in place in the US, may or may not be morally reprehensible and unfair, but that is not the issue to which the NY Times speaks.

seiji 12y ago

Best comment in this entire thread. Infinite ownership of land and "I got here first, screw you" mentality doesn't work when everybody wants to live in the same place.

ende 12y ago

Good post. It's important to recognize that libertarianism is itself a diverse collection of philosophies, many of which resemble georgist, anarchist and even some strains of socialist thinking at their foundation. These variants all tend to differ on notions of property as first principal. I think the 'traditional dogmatic libertarianism' you mention can best be described as paleoconservativism or something similar. It is one end of an extreme with complete disregard of property as the other extreme. Georgist treatment of land as property is interesting because it doesn't actually deny land as private property, it just treats it as a negative externality to the commons and demands a Pigovian land value tax as recompense. This same philosophy can be extended to any tragedy of the commons, be it environmental, land use, radio bandwidth, etc. One may make property of these things, but at infinite cost for the privilege of such monopoly; a privilege that is guaranteed not by one's own right, but by the social contract of the state.

mgalka 12y ago

I have always considered myself a libertarian, but recent issues like these have me really questioning how "smart" the free market really is. I think it goes beyond land ownership too. In theory, I should not be judging other people's values and what they choose to spend their own money on. But when the free market tells us to dedicate our resources to building things like $500,000-per-month apartments, I am not sure I am willing to blindly agree. https://revaluate.com/blog/highest-rents-in-nyc/ https://revaluate.com/blog/highest-rents-in-nyc/

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Heh we could but then we wouldn't be talking about what we're talking about :-). As my philosophically focused friends tend to point out you can talk about anything at all, and still not have a discussion of substance. I understand the debate about property ownership, but you can either choose to discuss using the system we have in place, or you can talk about the system itself. But trying to talk about both at the same time robs both points of view from the first principles they are starting from. Any argument in one system can be refuted by changing the principles in the other. The land ownership system, currently in place in the US, may or may not be morally reprehensible and unfair, but that is not the issue to which the NY Times speaks.