Locke's Proviso

I’ve long been wanting to try and address an issue which appears to be a fairly significant point of conflict between various people who would otherwise all call themselves libertarians. A post by our good Devil and the comments that follow it provide a good opportunity. Some there and elsewhere in libertarian groups would even suggest that those of us who subscribe to the opinion that land values are somehow not legitimate private property cannot really be libertarians at all. On the contrary, some would say even that we are crypto-communists for wanting to rob people of the yields from their landed property.

Yet it seems to have been a matter of controversy throughout the history of anarchist and libertarian thought, and both sides even invoke John Locke as the supreme expositor of property rights in support of our arguments.

But let’s start from where we generally speaking agree. We all, I think, would agree that monopoly is inimical to the free markets we would want to see. I suspect we would all subscribe to the idea that we are entitled to self-ownership, and that to a very great extent, self-ownership means the right to own the fruits of our own labour. And I think most of us would subscribe to what Herbert Spencer described as “the fullest liberty to do as [we] will compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other [person].”

I feel most of us also acknowledge that there are some problems in the historical distribution and acquisition of land and recognize that much vested interest has been created through violence or state intervention - either forcibly taking land off others as in many of the enclosures or through grant of title over others’ claims by the state favouring individuals or great families.

But that’s about where agreement ends insofar as land is concerned. It seems that most libertarians view land as a free market in which people are free to participate or not to the extent they wish - to own, to rent, whatever suits them at their time of life or financial circumstances. To use the fruits of their labour to buy up more than they can use for their own needs as an investment and charge others to use it if it has such a value. And that anything that impedes that is theft just as taking away your chattels or other property would be. In fact, I think they also feel that since, as they see it, we are inexorably moving away from dependence on land (most of us no longer have to till the soil for sustenance) the importance of land itself is diminishing and it becomes an ever more free market.

So, before getting into discussion of possible remedies, I want to set out why I think there needs to be remedies to the “land question” as many of us would call it. I believe that property in land breaches the three main tenets of libertarianism I mentioned above: it is monopolistic and therefore not a free market; it exacts a toll on the fruits of others’ labour; and as a result it denies people Spencer’s “fullest liberty…”.

First, some definitions, because I think people get quite confused about just what we mean by “land”. “Land” in the economic sense is not just the earth, the ground we walk on, the soil we till. It is the third factor of production; everything in the material universe not originally created by the application of labour and capital; resources in their “natural state”.

But more than just that, when we are talking about “the ground we walk on” we are really talking about its “location” as much as its extent. A million acres in the Dry Valleys region of Antarctica may, for all we know, have no material value whatever. The few acres of Chelsea Barracks was worth £970 million last year. Similarly, we may yet have no use, and therefore put no value on, one part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but have many competing businesses dependent on technologies that use another particular, finite, location on the spectrum. So we usually mean “land in a particular location”.

Land as monopoly. When Winston Churchill made his “speeches by the yard” on the land question in gathering popular support for Lloyd-George’s land taxing 1909 “People’s Budget” there were of course very much fewer people who owned their own homes than do nowadays. But he was also expressing the views of some anarchists, such as Benjamin Tucker, Leo Tolstoy and Proudhon, as well as Liberals such as Spencer and later Henry George, that the land monopoly was one of the greatest barriers to free markets.

Many today feel that land, especially in the form of property in housing, is much less of a monopoly if at all. After all, in a world where nearly 70% of households live in the home they own, how can it be the monopoly problem of grasping landlordism that it was at the turn of the 20^th century? But the problem of land monopoly has not gone away. In fact, because it is less obvious I would suggest it is more insidious. Every location is in effect a monopoly of its own. A monopoly of the various circumstances, services, links and other infrastructure that make it unique. If you have the only house for sale in a particular school catchment area, the only house within a reasonable distance of a transport link that will allow people to get to the nearest good employment opportunities, or any number of other factors, you have a monopoly.

By and large we can only have one occupier occupying any particular plot - okay, we can build upwards and fit more people on the same plot, but that itself is exploiting the monopoly power of that plot.

Some will say that a monopoly is not necessarily the worst thing that could befall us, after all, if someone owns all the shares in a company that too is a monopoly - you just invest in another one. If someone is the only doctor in the community they have a monopoly, but someone could start another surgery. But we all have to live somewhere. So far as I am aware, pace Patri Friedman’s “seasteading” project, we have yet to find a way of living that does not involve some contact with land - even boats have to moor somewhere once in a while.

So land is a monopoly quite unlike being the only person able to own and admire that genuine unique Picasso. Yes, others may want it, but it does not alter their ability to live by not having it.

Incidentally, it is this monopolistic quality of locations that means it is so easy to bid them up into a bubble, such as we’ve seen recently. All that needs to happen, in our debt-based money system is that the banks have got to be prepared to lend to someone more than the next bidder for the one desirable location in the area. Yes, this can encourage others to cash in and create more opportunities in an area but we remain in a quasi-monopolistic system. Those of us, which includes most libertarians I suspect and certainly all Austrians, who regard the fiat and debt-based money system as the root of all problems should be extremely worried about this monopolistic ability to talk up the price of any individual location - it is, or has been these past few years, the prime factor in enabling the creation of mountains of debt-based money.

Land exacting an unjust toll on others’ labour. If you happen not to be able to borrow enough to get you a home in the optimum location for your work, or your kids’ school, or near enough for relatives to look after the kids when you go out to work or a whole host of other reasons, you may find a place further away, but more of your labour is going to be spent circumventing those more optimal locations.

Or if you have a business, a shop say, and cannot manage to pay the rent for the optimal “pitch” where most people will pass your shop display and be tempted in, you’re still likely to have to employ the same minimal number of employees to get the work done as someone in the higher rent location, but your takings will be lower. If you look at the structure of retail rents in the UK for example you will find that landlords try and capture this difference explicitly - they try and charge a premium based on ever more complex formula for guessing what a business can make in that location.

This illustrates David Ricardo’s so called “Law of Rent” in which he discovered that rent will rise at any particular location to capture the difference between productivity at the lowest priced location relative to the one in question. The huge land values usually found nearest the most lucrative business districts of communities and cities arise directly because people who cannot afford to occupy them have to work harder to avoid those locations.

In its simplest form this is best seen just by having to spend a fortune on your season ticket, an hour on the train to work and so on. Churchill again used to tell a story about the tolls of London Bridge and the landlords of Southwark. Most people in Southwark worked in the City of London as relatively low paid workers. It was the cheapest area they could get within reasonable travel distance of work, their means of sustenance. The parish elders responsible for enacting the poor law support in the parish of Southwark noticed that though most of the community were gainfully employed over the river, they still had to hand out a lot of dole to give them an acceptable quality of life.

London Bridge at the time had a toll, and so the parish petitioned to have the toll removed so that the workers would at least have to spend less getting to and from work. They succeeded in their aim. For a while the dole required fell, but then they noticed it rose again nearly to the former levels. What had happened? The landlords of Southwark had also noted that the workers would have a few extra pennies in their pockets and put up their rents to capture it.

With developments in transport methods and so on of course it is easier nowadays to get further to work and so on, so the gradient if you like at which landlords closer to the centre of things can cash in on others’ inability to rent their locations is lower, but it exists all the same. At some point, on the outer fringes of any settlement, there will always be those locations which are only just “marginally productive’ in which the residents can only just get to work or their other needs and maintain a reasonable standard of living. Ricardo’s Law of Rent says that inside those locations rent will rise to capture the bulk of the difference between the costs of those living further out and those living closer to the centres of economic activity.

Land impinging on others’ “like freedom”. Both of these previous factors combined clearly affect those excluded from the better locations freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labour. This is where Locke comes in. Robert Nozick coined the phrase most often quoted here - the idea of the “Lockean Proviso”.

Locke had said, in his Second Treatise, that it was legitimate to appropriate as much land as one wanted, so long as one left enough, of similar quality, amenity and so on, for everyone else. He also said that we own the earth “in common” with everyone else (note - common, does not mean “collective”). If we are to have self-ownership everyone born (who has to make do with this our only planet on which to eke out a life) must have a common birthright to claim a place to do so. You cannot own the fruits of your labour if someone is always taking some of them off you just to have a place to sleep at night.

That may have been easy in the New World, where there seemed as if there were vast, perhaps unlimited, tracts of currently unoccupied land just there for the taking. But in a more sophisticated economy, one not based solely on one’s agrarian abilities (and let’s face it we all benefit from that agglomeration of humanity into bigger, more specialised, settlements), more and more people will want to settle in the same area both to contribute to and benefit from the economic activity that human civilization affords. At that point, when Locke’s Proviso is breached, and there cannot be “enough and as good left over for everyone else”, land starts to have the two qualities already mentioned - of a monopolistic, zero-sum, market and of exacting a toll on others labour. At that point it begins to have a rental value. The rental value reflects the extent to which Locke’s Proviso has in fact been breached - the higher the rent the more people could make “as good” use of a particular location and the fewer “as good” locations are available.

So that “rent” is not something the current owner “earns”, except by the purest luck of being there before anyone else, so much as something that all the other potential owners of that monopolistic location create; what they have to pay to avoid the previously occupied location.

I’ve already gone on too long in this piece to be able to go into the possible remedies to this situation. All I wanted to show in this though is the problems land in particular as a type of property creates. Problems which all are inimical to the principles of markets and freedoms that libertarians are supposed to stand for.

If the monopoly factor were not of itself enough to make a libertarian think twice about treating land, location, as a species of property worthy of different treatment from other chattels and goods, the fact that it gets its value not by any of the labour the first appropriator expends on it but because of the costs others expend having to avoid it, and the consequent limits on the freedoms of others to do as they please and enjoy the full fruits of their own labour ought to convince them.

As I said in a comment on the Devil’s blog earlier, some libertarians feel that you can’t be a good libertarian if you believe the land market needs some type of reform, I have to say that I find it difficult to see how one could be a good libertarian without acknowledging that land needs some kind of reform because the effects private ownership of rental value of locations are so opposed to the basic free market and self-ownership tenets of our philosophy.

No doubt I will return some time to try to convince you about the best remedies to these problems.

Yes, I'm still meant to be on internet silence, but Linux and various bits of software have me stumped for a while until I get some help from the mailing lists, so I thought I'd cast my mind over the implications of the court case this week that resulted in a jury deciding that it was okay to commit a crime in order to prevent what the perpetrators believed would be a greater harm in the future. The case in point was that they had committed (and admitted) criminal damage by climbing a chimney at a Kent power station with the intent of scrawling graffiti on it in protest at its pollution record and plans to expand the facility, which, their oh so clever advocate declared would cause more and more widespread damage to people and property through the global warming it would contribute to.

Now, some of the more unthinking environmentalists might see this as a great victory. A court recognized that global warming was such an imminent threat to life and property that it was justifiable to commit brazen thuggery leading to criminal damage on anything that allegedly contributed to that global warming. Yay!?

Nay! I have two problems with this.

First is the acceptance, apparently by both judge and jury (and so, you may think, all "reasonable people"), not just that anthropogenic climate change is a fact but also such a grave threat that it justifies individuals taking the law into their own hands. To my mind this is still a matter in the political arena. Not only are there still, and perhaps growing, voices of dissent on the very premise of the debate; that mankind is responsible for such a change that it is a threat to the planet's very future. But also about what to do about it and when. A power station after all merely supplies a demand. Is the power generator guilty or the consumer making those demands? It is more dangerous to disrupt existing dwindling supplies before we have worked out how to replace them with cleaner affordable technologies? If the threat from global warming is real, so presumably is the threat of harm through disrupted power supplies.

Second is how this operates as a precedent in other, possibly more serious cases - although I heard someone saying that this decision will not be treated as forming a precedent, I'm not clear how that can be prevented. It is okay to murder an abortionist in order to stop the immediate harm to others he or she will cause? That threat, after all, is far more immediate and traceable to an individual than the effects of a single coal power station amongst all the coal fired power stations and other "climate vandals". We're starting to get not only into the realms of Philip K Dick's pre-crime but vigilante prevention of what individuals claim may be a pre-crime. This is hardly the basis for the rule of law.

Oh, you can say that no court is going to acquit a murderer because they thought they were preventing a bigger crime, but actually we already do. The "reasonable force" defense can be used to justify a death in the process of preventing an immediate threat to others' life. This decision seems to extend the boundaries of "immediate threat" let alone accurate identification of the person causing that immediate threat.  One could, and many do, fight abortion on the basis that the most immediate threat t future generations of humanity is eradicating them before they are born.  If we're going to adopt a principle (and I do) that we have a responsibility of stewardship not to harm future generations' survival on the planet then it would be legitimate for others to argue more forcefully that we have a responsibility to see those future generations actually survive as far as birth!

Anyway, two odd sounding sources provide what I believe are better alternative "precedents" to work from. First, there is a Catholic maxim that it is not legitimate to cause one moral bad, or an act that could foreseeably lead to morally bad consequences in order to prevent another, even near certain, specific bad. It is used mostly about abortion again. It is used to argue that it is not even permissible to abort a new life in order to prevent the death of the mother - often in the circumstances of an ectopic pregnancy for example.

Of course the world's aggressors, including the US and UK, routinely ignore this. They argue that foreseeable "collateral damage" is permissable to remove a dictator, for example. It is not. Terrorising and killing the people of Bagdad in "Shock and Awe", even as "collateral", was morally repugnant, notwithstanding our general agreement that the regime they were trying to punish or remove was also morally repugnant. The results of ignoring of this basic principle are there for us all to see - there can be little doubt now that more people in Iraq have suffered for longer under the oversight of the western occupying forces than it is likely would have happened at the hands of the previous repugnant regime. At least there could have been alternatives that held less potential for further suffering.

But on the environment, the libertarians' respect for the rule of law provides a better alternative to various bearded crusties climbing a chimney and committing vigilante criminal damage. Locke's proviso can be used, for example, to tackle pollution. If you, a power generator or anyone else - a pig farm even, pollute the atmosphere we both have to share, we have the right to legal remedy. Just as much as if you came along and started digging a hole in my prize rose border. Indeed this ought to work better than any political "solution". Protectionism is a political strategy, and even Green politicians will forcibly protect their favourite, in this case, power generation mechanism against legitimate complaint of harm. If planning permission were truly privatised, those affected most would almost certainly do better out of it than they will once the government has removed most of their rights in order to force their political idea of strategic energy infrastructure through.

Yes, we all need power, but left to ourselves we would probably not choose to have a nuclear reactor at the bottom of our garden. But, as they say, everyone has their price. If, collectively, my neighbourhood decided that the compensation on offer was enough when weighed against the costs of electricity or the convenience of not having a long transmission route or any potential danger they'd accept that nuclear reactor. If nobody accepts any price for nuclear, they have to weigh that decision against the potential alternatives. If nobody wants a giant power station, then we perhaps have to accept that we will have to help our neighbours fund micro-generation.

Over on the Ludwig von Mises Economics blog last week, Ben O'Neill, an Australian libertarian and academic, wrote a piece against the welfare state in Is the Starving Man Free? and the full article is here:

'Modern "liberals" who advocate the view that government should provide us with the necessities or alleged necessities of life rarely appreciate that this assistance rests on a system of mass robbery and enslavement that is highly inimical to their professed belief in liberty. In fact, the advocates of such policies present them in quite the opposite light, as enhancing our liberty.'

Now, much as I hesitate to go up against an article at the great Mises Institute, this issue goes to the heart of differences between some liberals and some libertarians, though not this liberal libertarian. Indeed it is one of the core messages of the "Liberal Alternative" book we are compiling under the auspices of ALTER, and, to give it a plug, what I will be talking about in the ALTER fringe next Saturday evening in Liverpool, alongside James Graham, Tony Vickers and Vince Cable.

I also believe it gives some libertarians a "bad rap"; seeming to leave the "safety net" to the possible vicissitudes of private charity gives them a "beggar thy neighbour" reputation. Yet Liberals, and before the Ayn Rand/Ludwig von Mises school of libertarianism the mutualists and individualist anarchists like Lysander Spooner, had a neat response. For the record, I tend to agree that if we take from people what they earn with their own labour and resourcefulness it is coercion and even theft, but there is a source of value that properly belongs to us all, and not, as in the current predominant model, to the occupier - rent.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

But notwithstanding this increase (of population), so vast is the territory of North America, that it will require many ages to settle it fully; and, till it is fully settled, labor will never be cheap here, where no man continues long a laborer for others, but gets a plantation of his own; no man continues long a journeyman to a trade, but goes among these new settlers, and sets up for himself.

[From: Observations Concerning for Increase of Mankind (1751), Sec. 8, Works, Vol. II, p. 225]

If we had free land, nobody would starve, unless that is they could not physically lift a spade to grow their own sustenance. The poor could up-sticks, spread out to the next available plot of unoccupied land and cultivate it. It would be a basic existence to be sure, but one that would not depend on another to provide, by state coercion or by reliance on private charity. And in time, one which could provide the most basic means of providing not just sustenance but opportunities to create wealth.

Now the fact is, we are not in that happy situation Franklin described. We do not have "free land". It is all enclosed. And indeed it would not suit modern, sophisticated, "civilized" (in the sense of "urbanized") humanity well if we did have lots of unused land lying around being unproductive. But the corollary of that is that there is no way the landless poor can sustain themselves without recourse to selling their labour to another. And in that state of desperation where one is about to "starve" one is surely more than most liable to coercion by that other. "Will work for food" maybe a simple slogan, but it hides a desperation likely to be seized upon by the unscrupulous.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said:

Then he says: "If I am born into the earth, where is my part? Have the goodness, gentlemen of this world, to show me my wood lot, where I may fell my wood, my field where to plant my corn, my pleasant ground where to build my cabin." ..."Touch any wood or field or house-lot on your peril," cry all the gentlemen of this world; "but you may come and work in ours for us, and we will give you a peice of bread."

[From: The Conservative, A Lecture delivered at the Masonic Temple, Boston, December 9, 1841]

Now what of the other side of O'Neill and the Mises style libertarians' claim that for the state to take anything from everyone to support the "starving man", to give him his basic needs, is "mass robbery and enslavement"? Well, as I said, I tend to agree that taking anything of what someone has made with his own labour or resourcefulness is theft. It is justified by the "liberals" that O'Neill castigates (that's most of us!) on the several grounds that it prevents a greater evil - the starving man, that it pays for the inputs that enable us to make money from our labour - our education and that of others to work for us, and the somewhat vague assertion that those who have much should give more to support those who have less. But it is still an offense against self-ownership; that which John Locke describes as being able to retain the fruits of our own labour.

But there is value in land that the owner does not create for him or herself. It is two hundred years since David Ricardo showed that rent increases to absorb the extra productivity that can be gained from a good piece of land compared with an inferior piece with no effort from the land owner, as owner. There is a perfectly reasonable strand of libertarianism, known as geolibertarianism, that asserts that since this rent is not earned by the landowner, but created by the expenditure of others, in labour and capital, that gives a particular location more social and commercial attractiveness, it is legitimate to collect this value from owners to compensate those who suffer from lack of land. And in a modern, urbanized economy, this would mean cash with which to satisfy their most basic needs, a "Citizen's Income" allowing them then to sell their labour, their bellies full and their body rested, without having to accept a potentially exploitative bargain.

Unlike taking part of what a person earns from his labour, impinging on his or her self-ownership, this can be justified because it is value that the owner does not earn for themselves, that it does not affect their ability to earn from their labour in future, and as a user fee in return for the state's or community's protection of their right to occupy such a location, a user fee in proportion to the potential natural productivity of that location, whether they make use of that potential productivity or not. Location is a monopoly, protected by the state; libertarians are against monopoly and state protection. It forms a neat, virtuous circle, from which those left without access to free land can be supported without the "mass robbery and enslavement" O'Neill rightly denounces.

Last week David Cameron unveiled the Tories' latest wheeze - the idea that those able to work but not doing so and claiming benefits should be forced into some form of "community work" to justify their benefits after a period. Two years on Job Seeker's Allowance is enough to prove someone either unemployable or simply lazy goes the line. In some quarters it was hailed, not doubt with the help of the party spin machine, as an end to the "something for nothing culture" that pervades the benefits system.

Now, set aside for the moment the debate about whether this is some form of slave labour, or a way of quietly abolishing the minimum wage (although this latter begs the question as to whether it is right that only the unemployed should be allowed to opt for jobs below the minimum wage or whether only community groups should be allowed to pay below the minimum wage). We do in fact already have a deep rooted "something for nothing culture" in this country and seventy per cent of us, those who live in houses they actually own, believe that they have an absolute right to this "something for nothing" and over the past decade or so of rising land values, pushing house prices through the roof, they have benefitted massively.

Indeed, most of us can probably point to people who, over the past few years, have seen their wealth in the form of property, the value of their home, increase by more than their annual income from working. Equally in the same measure, we can probably point to people who, because they weren't lucky enough to have got in on this rat race of home ownership, have seen their chances of ever doing so fade as the multiple of income they now have to pay increases beyond any prudent lender would allow them to borrow.

Of course there are many who would point out that this wealth only really exists on paper; that for as long as we need a place to live the current value of the spot we own is of little meaning, as everywhere else is rising or falling in similar proportions and if we want to move we'll still need to cash in what we have and perhaps pay even more for our next home. And that this paper value is only of any use to us when we reach our final resting place or, if we are sensible about it, when we decide we no longer need the property we bought when we wanted to get the kids into a good local school or be close to the fast rail line into work or whatever and "downsize" or "escape to the country", hopefully giving us a pot of cash in the process to make our final years more comfortable.

Some may even suggest that it has been an unquestionable benefit to the economy as people have cashed in through equity release schemes and re-mortgaging to supply them with cash which has kept the consumer demand in the economy going when other countries' economies may have suffered recession and stagnation. As we face a possible slide in property values of course some of these people may find out to their cost that funding their lifestyles from the value of their home was a bad idea and that the only people, longer term, to benefit, are the bankers who they will be paying for their profligacy for years to come.

But I do not want to focus on whether housing is a good or bad investment: clearly in many cases it is a good one as the market is currently structured, albeit an unorthodox sort of investment - you don't usually get to consume something that continues to rise in value. I want to show you that it is an inequitable investment, that it is "something for nothing" and that the least well off pay for home owners' prosperity in a very real way even if that prosperity is mostly "on paper" for most of the time.

LAND: A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy, and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognised. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.
Devil's Dictionary, 1911, Ambrose Bierce

If we go back to first principles, to what philosophy seems to call the "state of nature", some of the most fundamental assumptions are still as valid today as they ever were. We only have one planet. So every living soul born on that planet has to share it with everyone else - there is, as yet, no escape from that. The corollary of that is that everyone born on this planet has a right to a share of the planet - an absolute right, a "birthright". Some things we are completely dependent on the planet to provide for life...we need a place to live; humans cannot wander all the time, we need to sleep and to sleep we need to stop wandering. Similarly we need air, water, sustenance and again, we know ultimately of no way of producing these artificially without involving the natural resources of the planet.

Now, in that state of nature, if there's nothing else, like society, to hold us dependent on one place for any of these requirements of life, we would all be able to spread out, and appropriate as much land as we need to sustain our own lives, as individuals or families without negatively affecting anyone else. This "free land" gives us freedom, independence and life. Even today, in "overcrowded" England, as many would have us believe, there's enough land area for us all, every man, woman and child of us, to have just over a half an acre each - globally there's about 5.5 acres each of land mass. Naturally, not all these acres are fertile and even if they were, subsistence farming does not create wealth. Human growth and ingenuity requires that we specialize and socialize, which will usually mean also urbanize. Until we invent Scotty's instant transporter we have to make do by fitting many more people into urban land simply so they can be close enough to the facilities they need, and we need them to have - such as workplaces, to make working there viable.

But why should any of this mean that we give up our birthright, our common and individual birthright, to share equitably in the wealth of the planet itself? After all, you, the home owner, need me, the tenant, to work at whatever it is I do to provide you and everyone else with goods and services the economy demands. I, to fulfill my potential and contribute to the fullest to society, am better off working at what I do than ever I would be tending half an acre of small-holding (especially if you have seen my attempts to grow a window box of herbs!). But where is that birthright? Well, it is in the value of the location on which your home, office, factory or whatever stands, and it is created by and belongs to all of us!

You see, even John Locke, arch-defender of private property, recognized that there were limits to the right to appropriate land - the stuff of nature that exists in a finite amount yet which we all need to survive. Robert Nozick coined the phrase the "Lockean Proviso" for the principle that however much you take and occupy for yourself equity demands that you leave "enough, and as good, in common...to others". A hundred and thirty years after Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government, David Ricardo formulated his Law of Rent, and a few years later Johann Heinrich von Thunen demonstrated the practicalities of this using data from his family estates.

It would be too much here to explain all of these ideas in any detail, but what they all amount to is that as you get closer to the social, employment, commercial facilities that more people need access to the land value surrounding those facilities absorbs some of the wages of all who need to access those facilities and is reflected in higher land values. So you see, this is not a fight just between the thirty per cent who don't own their home and the seventy that do. Many of that seventy per cent are also affected by this accretion of wages to land values. Think of it this way - you may have to settle (and you may enjoy it!) for buying a property several miles away from your work place or the nearest high quality commercial centre because all the property closer is too expensive. All those land owners that you pass on the way to work are gaining from your and the many other people in the same situation unfulfilled need.

Even more galling is that if we all happen to have the same incomes - you having managed to grab your slice of land at some earlier stage when it was less popular and therefore cheaper - we are taxed at the same level on those incomes. In turn both of our sets of taxes are used to invest in even more facilities that contribute to those land values. The person owning property closer to the "action" is gaining from all of our taxes disproportionately from those living further away. Similarly, the person owning property closer to the action has no incentive at all to release that location for others who may need it more at different stages in their lives, because they are continuing to gain from it and from those for whom it may now be a more appropriate place to settle. They are, quite literally, getting something for nothing, on their part at least. Something from the needs and activities of all of us that could make as good or better use of that location.

Harrison concludes, as I do, that the entire tax system should therefore be based on the values created by all of us but currently "enclosed" by land owners. A hundred and more years ago the American self-educated economist, Henry George, encapsulated this into his idea of a "single tax" - that all the rental value of unimproved land in any jurisdiction should be collected by the state, whose fiscal program should be strictly limited to the amount that can be collected this way. He preferred, as again do I, that the state would do very little but turn that money around and dole it out to everyone, equally, in the form of a Citizen's Income; if you like, a dividend from what we all invest by creating that land value in the first place - our common birthright. At the same time, our average tax bill per individual would be halved, our economy would grow by around a third and we'd have a much more equitable society.

Anyone who has read more than one post of my blog will realize that I am a passionate supporter of Land Value Tax. In other forums, when the subject comes up, people sometimes feel, and say, that I pursue the issue too zealously. Even those that support some LVT are sometimes embarrassed at the "hard core Georgists" like myself shrilly calling for more. I know plenty who regard the claims from some of us as to the myriad benefits Land Value Tax could bring as just plain rubbish - "nothing could be that good and not have been tried".

None more so than when housing policy is to the fore, as it ought to have been, floods permitting, these past couple of weeks. No sooner was the Housing Green Paper published to great fanfare than it seemed for all the coverage that half our existing housing stock was plunged knee deep in water and all the discussion about housing was about building in flood plains or not rather than the rather more pressing issue of ensuring everyone has a decent place to call their own in the first place.

So, read on if you want to try to understand just why it is that "hard core Georgists" like myself so fundamentally believe that not only is Land Value Tax the only permanent solution to the broken market that is housing, but also why it forms such a core part of any human being's fundamental right to an opportunity to achieve personal freedom and the root of many equity and economic justice issues. I hope you'll understand at least that we are not talking about just a different way of raising tax but a radical shift in how we think about tax itself and more importantly an alternative view of our relationship to the planet's resources and each other.

Land: our common birthright

The headline of Polly Toynbee's article on the green paper from Tuesday 24th July, "Everyone is entitled to a stake in the nation's soil and bricks", showed promise that at least one of the chaterati was going to describe this basic principle. Though she failed convincingly to explain the entitlement the headline proclaimed or how one might achieve such an entitlement the sentiment embodied in that headline gets close to the core rationale for Land Value Taxers.

Every human being ever born is ultimately utterly dependent on the bounty of our common planet's natural resources to survive. Consequently every human being ever born has to have a common entitlement to a share of that bounty if they are ever to achieve self-ownership. If you are always dependent on another for a place to rest your bones, that other has a coercive relationship over you, you are dependent on them for how much of the fruits of your labours you are able to keep.

It's an easy thing to say and in an agrarian, low population, subsistence economy a relatively easy thing to envisage - everyone simply spreads out until they've got enough land each of a quality sufficient to keep themselves alive by their own labours on that land, growing food for subsistence and no more. Indeed, John Locke, proto-liberal to some of us, said that since it was mankind's calling to be steward and master of his planet, you have the right to take as much as you can keep and make good use of with one important proviso - that you always leave as much left over, and of as good quality, to be divvied up amongst everyone else.

But such an economy isn't conducive to human development as a whole. In order the better to put nature's bounty to use for everybody's benefit we specialize, in specializing we come together in markets, communities, cities, and our relationship with land changes, though our dependence on it does not diminish. Johann Heinrich von Thunen described and then David Ricardo explained how human interactions and communities create rental value in land - those locations closer to where more people want to circulate, live, conduct commercial or social activities rise in value simply by virtue of where they are.

In fact, the rental value of a location in land is the financial expression of by how much that location breaches Locke's Proviso mentioned above - that you can take and own as much as you like, so long as you leave enough for everyone else, of as good quality, for everyone else who needs to be in that location to share. Collecting that value and pre-distributing it to all the people that together create that value - via a Land Value Tax (others have described it as the "Community Collection of Rent" perhaps more descriptively) and a Citizen's Dividend - is giving each person the financial value of their birthright to a piece of land.

Now, there are lots of objections to such a scheme, frequently voiced by those who do already own, or by those who don't think this could produce significant amounts of revenue. I shall try and anticipate and respond to some of those objections in following articles. But I hope at least that you get the picture as to why some of us believe LVT is more important than just another taxation method. The sharing of the land value we all collaborate in creating is a fundamental right to an equitable share of our common inheritance in a complex world where it just isn't practical for us to spread out and have an equal share of actual land each.

Technorati Tags: property tax, geo-libertarianism, land value tax, liberty, Locke's Proviso, John Locke