A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today!

from JoeUser Forums

(author's note: the article below was copied and pasted from my own forum post on a Libertarian message board.)

 

Believe it or not, the federal government over the last four years has given us as Libertarians an incredible gift. Because of their continued violations of individual liberties, they've given us common ground with many Americans who are disgusted with a "nanny state", and they've given us wonderful opportunities to initiate discussions with those who may be teetering on the fence between a choice for the LP, "independent" status, or either of the "big two" parties. In any objective evaluation of platform positions on individual liberties, the LP obviously emerges the big winner.

The question, then, is what we DO with the opportunity we have been given.

As an amateur historian, I believe we are at a political crossroads. My personal opinion is that Rand will be viewed as influencing the 21st century to the same extent that Marx influenced the 20th (although in a positive direction, unlike the negative direction of Marxism). If one watches the growth of libertarian ideals and principles, it's easy to see a parallel to encourage us along those lines. Our ideals have already begun to influence prominent columnists such as Walter Williams, and we have made inroads among the Republican Party (The Republican Liberty Caucus is an example of this).

But if we are to move forward, we must act, recruit, and encourage our fellow party members to act and recruit. I personally believe that our commitment should extend as far as ensuring that our party dues are paid up, and evaluating whether we can afford to contribute more to the party than we are already contributing. We should also set personal recruitment goals to complement the party's recruitment goals; we are, after all, the ones who can be instrumental in the success or failure of such goals.

I have personally set forth goals for myself and the county organization, and encourage others to do the same. If each LP member recruited one new member per year (with the recruited members doing likewise), we would have somewhere around 350,000 party members by November 2008. Imagine the impact if we DOUBLED that.

If every one of us set aside $30 a month towards the 2008 Presidential race(less than many of us pay for cable TV), then we would have over $1000 apiece to contribute to the Libertarian candidate. If every person who voted for Michael Badnarik in the 2004 race were to do that, that would give our presidential candidate a "war chest" of nearly half a billion dollars; easily enough to place them among the "serious players" in the race. Going further, we could up our commitment to $50 a month, and apply the additional $20 to local and state races. It may represent a financial sacrifice on your part, as it does on ours, but in the end, you should ask yourself what price you are willing to pay for freedom.

There's a tendency to forget about third parties between presidential election years. As a party, we should not let that happen. We should be active, visible, and speaking out at every opportunity...and we should take advantage of the low voter turnout of "midterm" elections (such as 2006) to put leaders who CAN and WILL make a difference into elected office. I would also encourage anyone who can to attend state conferences and conventions (such as the conference scheduled for September 16-18th of this year), but, as one who may be unable to attend due to a number of potential conflicts, I realize there are many among you in the same position. That doesn't change the fact that it is still in our best interest if we are able.

Yes, this also involves an intense TIME commitment on all of our parts, but again, we must ask: What price are we willing to pay for freedom?

politics
12,902 views 58 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
good situational analysis and an excellent call to arms (or wallets).

two things occured to me while reading this. if you haven't yet read andrew stern's (the president of the service employees intl union) explanation of why the seiu and teamsters split from the afl-cio, you might wanna do that. hopefully this link will work, but if it don't, try googling 'Unions reinvented' and his last name. Link

i could be wrong but i think there may be more areas of common ground than differences between the neo-unionists and the libertarians.

the second thing is after reading the title, i couldnt shake the tune of that 'tommorrow belongs to me' song from 'the producers'.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
How do you think the Libertarian party will gain the kind of support you are talking about as long as they keep advocating drug legalization? Do you think that the stolid adherance to that ideal is worth the votes you lose because of it?

I know it falls in the 'liberty' theme, but it is a political reality that parties that advocate drug legalization don't win. Don't you think? Abortion is another problem. Many of the old-school Republicans you might otherwise woo are going to balk at voting for a party that opposes them on such a touchy issue.

To me, building a new party requires building a coherant movement, a consensus of the disenfranchised. Do you really think that the platform of the Libertarian party will ever really represent enough people to be competitive? As much as I'd like to think it is about dollars and exposure, most people I talk to know of the Libertarian party, and don't migrate because of such issues.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it's hard to get my head around a Libertarian convention. NRA, anti-big government Republicans mingling with legalize pot, anti-war folks mingling with anti-tax, fiscally conservative, morally Liberal Democrats.

It just seems like an umbrella that would shelter a butt load of fistfights...
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you completely overestimate both Ayn Rand and the value of her "Objectivist" philosophy (which is NOT Libertarianism as she was fond of explaining).

Most people don't even know her. And many of those who do are not impressed by a few novels where heroes who don't act but merely make decisions command great power in a phantasy world.

But it is likely that if her philosophy will influence the 21st century as much as Marxism influenced the 20th, Randists will see the influence as a positive one, just as Marxists see Marxist influence today.

And perhaps the world will even gain advantages comparable to those brought about by Marxism, perhaps a Libertarian equivalent of workers' rights or some such thing; I don't know.

But to live in a world commanded by those who have an extremist view towards property rights, one way or another, is not a dream of mine. Whether the state owns everything (and cannot be democratically controlled) or some land lord who can legally own, say, all the land in a region (and thus control production) is of no particular importance.

I would like to live in a world where what nature provides is controlled democratically and what individuals provide is controlled by these individuals. And that is, I believe, exactly in the middle of the two extremes.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I would like to live in a world where what nature provides is controlled democratically and what individuals provide is controlled by these individuals. And that is, I believe, exactly in the middle of the two extremes."


Urm, that would leave us where we are at, wouldn't it? I mean, the government controling the land we supposedly own. You assume that because you use the word "democratically" we'll have some say. And we do. The "We" just happens to be private business interests.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
sounds like the LP is ready to go mainstream, BUY elections just like the dems and reps.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is many gun control opponents aren't going to donate money to a cause that supports abortion and drug legalization, and most of them aren't going to financially support people who oppose gun control and social programs.

The Libertarian Party is an odd fit for most people.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Urm, that would leave us where we are at, wouldn't it? I mean, the government controling the land we supposedly own. You assume that because you use the word "democratically" we'll have some say. And we do. The "We" just happens to be private business interests."

Yes. That's pretty much correct.

I'd only want a few changes to get closer to my ideal place. For example if use of land and other natural resources as well as pollution (which is, in a way, also a use of a natural resource) was taxed and income and property (that is personal property, aka stuff) were not, the guiding principle would be exactly what I mentioned: natural resources would benefit everyone (users would pay a tax that benefits everybody else) and one's own labour would benefit oneself (since no other man has any claim to it, I think).

And apart from the principles involved, this would also lower rents and encourage productivity.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the government can "redistribute" land and natural resources for the public good, the natural resources "benefit everybody", and we're taxed for using the land, do we really own it? I can see no incentive for owning land in such a system, unless you are working magnanimously for "humanity" or something.

If you take the benefit from land ownership, and allow the government to "manage" land ownership, then is there really any point IN land ownership?
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If you take the benefit from land ownership, and allow the government to "manage" land ownership, then is there really any point IN land ownership?"

Perhaps not. But why should there be?

Why is it desirable for land ownership to be an asset?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If the government can "redistribute" land and natural resources for the public good, the natural resources "benefit everybody", and we're taxed for using the land, do we really own it?"

BTW I did say "tax" land ownership, I did not speak of "redistribute", even though you put the word in quotes. Redistributing land is a concept you brought up, not I. Please remember that when you address my point, should you decide to do so. Thank you.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Why is it desirable for land ownership to be an asset?"



I think the value is so fundamental that it is hard to put into words.

I mention redistribution because that is the enevitable end of the government managing land to "benefit everybody". The quotes were a bit snide, sorry. The recent Supreme Court decision allows state and local governments to do just that.

If every piece of ground was equal, and we all lived in tents, I could see your point. Instead, we invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in homes, built upon land that ranges in value from peanuts to astronomical.

How difficult will it be to, say, get a loan for $250,000 to build a home in a nation where the land can be taken away at a governmental whim? What would a $250,000 house that could be levelled by the state on a whim be worth?

Land ownership creates security creates the value. Without ownership, frankly, it has no value.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I think the value is so fundamental that it is hard to put into words."

I find that most things so fundamental that it is hard to put them into words are really not fundamental at all. They are often beliefs without reason, things one simply believed and never questioned, and the result of indoctrination rather than individual experience.


"How difficult will it be to, say, get a loan for $250,000 to build a home in a nation where the land can be taken away at a governmental whim?"

Again, you spoke of redistribution, not I. You are creating a straw man, I think, and you don't even realise it. You have come closer than ever before to doubting something you have always believed in and are looking for arguments to confirm the belief and reject alternative theories. Hence the straw man you accidentally created.

I did not speak of "governmental whim", I did not propose that government take land away from people, I spoke of taxing land ownership and using the money to benefit everyone. The idea is that since nature provides some resources for free, and since no man has anything to do with the availability of these resources, why can one man have a greater claim to them than another, why should not everybody profit from the existence of these resources equally?

If land ownership, use of natural resources, and pollution are taxed, the money could be used to fund government (and thus benefit everyone). That's not the same as taking land away at a whim. People are already taxed. The difference is that I want to tax the use of natural resources rather than the production of goods. It is because I believe that natural resources are for everyone while produced goods are for those who produced them that I think that the first must be taxed and the second must not.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Land ownership creates security creates the value"

And that statement is plain wrong.

The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it. It is based ONLY on what OTHER people do near it. It is location that makes land valuable, it is demand for the land that makes it valuable. The land itself, not created by man, does not contain any value except the value created by demand.

Imagine two identical houses. Both owners have invested the same amount of money to create exactly the same buildings with exactly the same features.

Now for some reason somebody else happens to pay for a street (income tax payers, probably). And the street just happens to be located so that the one house benefits but not the other.

And the house thus becomes more valuable, not because of what it is, but because of where it is. It is not a property of the house, but a property of the location, of the land, that makes it more valuable.

It is not the ownership of the land that created the value.

It is the street.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. You can't divert this by crying 'straw man'. Imminent domain is the direct result of government "managing" our property. I don't have to disprove your idea, the Supreme Court did about a month ago.

The line

"The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it."


is shamefully false, as anyone who has made improvements to land and resold it for a profit, or had to PAY HIGHER TAXES ON IT AS A RESULT could tell you.

You're the one making the strawman, since these are economic TRUTHS, not vague ideas. If you can't own the land, the land has no value, since nothing you put on the land has any permanance. Who would invest a year and $250,000 in a house that can be snatched away and levelled to make a mini-mall by the local government a year later?

Government "management" robs land of any security, and therefore any value. Only land that is of no use to anyone commercially is secure, since it can be taken for commercial purposes. If you think this is a strawman argument, it is because you have no clue what the results of your policy would be.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"No, sorry, I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. You can't divert this by crying 'straw man'."

So you insist that I proposed redistributing land?

"The line "The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it." is shamefully false, as anyone who has made improvements to land and resold it for a profit, or had to PAY HIGHER TAXES ON IT AS A RESULT could tell you."

I reject the insane notion that a land owner can make improvements to the nature of space time. Land cannot be improved. You can merely add buildings, mines etc. But the land itself is not changed.

And regardless of how loud you scream HIGHER TAXES, you will notice that I have specifically stated that I want to tax land NOT produced goods (like a house).

And PLEASE stop misquoting me. It's ridiculous and doesn't help.

Your continued insistence that I advocate government management of land or speak of taking land away from people for commercial purposes in spite of my repeatedly telling you that I never said these things makes a mockery of what could have been an interesting discussion.

If you think that I have "no clue" what the results of my policy would be, I can refer you to several economists' explanations of why it would work well. But I guess understanding what they wrote would involve a lot of remembering what they wrote, even five minutes after you read it. And that seems to be, judging from your constant misquoting me, your weak point (among others).

Honestly, I have had lots of discussions with people opposed to a land value tax, and many did not understand the difference between a natural resources and a produced good, but you are the first to CONSTANTLY change the subject from land taxation to land redistribution or even taking land away for commercial reasons, intertwined with made-up quotes and personal attacks.

I suggest the following:

We either end this discussion now.

Or you agree to the following: not to misquote me or pretend that I said or support or advocate something which I did not say, made no claim to support, and specifically told you I do not advocate; you apologise (again) for misquoting me; and you agree to make a distinction between natural resources and produced goods.

The first is, I think, merely the most basic rule for any kind of honest discussion.

The second is to be expected, I believe, to ease the transition to an intelligent debate.

And the third is crucial to even understanding what I'm talking about when I speak of taxing natural resources and not produced goods. I honestly cannot believe that you could possibly understand whether I have a clue or not, if you cannot even understand the difference between the two things I want treated so differently by the tax system.

So-called improvements (houses, mines, canals, cables etc.) are MAN-MADE PRODUCED GOODS, not LAND, which is a NATURAL RESOURCE.

Natural resources != produced goods.

Taxing natural resources and not taxing produced goods, as I spoke of above, means the taxing of the one but not the other.

Is that a bit clearer now?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
End it, then. I'm not misquoting you, any more than saying "The grass will get wet" to someone who is proposing that it rain. You just refuse to accept that there are results to "natural resources benefitting everyone".

I don't need to guess those results, because i can open a newspaper and see them. I can see how "the public good" turns into public management, and further on into public ownership.

As for

"I reject the insane notion that a land owner can make improvements to the nature of space time. Land cannot be improved."


That's a totally irrational statement. I suggest that you discuss that with the folks that appraise your property, and the people who levy taxes based upon that estimation, and the the next people who want to buy it for the price you did, regardless of the tens of thousands of dollars of improvements you make on it.

If you sank time and money into property, turning it from undeveloped land into something beautiful and useful, I doubt you'd feel that "Land cannot be improved." or that the value of land doesn't have anything to do with what has been done to it.

You can't pick up roads or wells or landscaping or any of these kind of improvements and take them with you, nor do they dissolve into the air when you leave. So, if you want to see them as different from land, fine, but that isn't the way the rest of your society sees them.

You're basing your reality on something different than the rest of human civilization, so I really can't see any way to discuss it with you.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet,

you were misquoting me. I did not say the words you attributed to me. I did not even mention the subject. I merely proposed taxing natural resources rather than production, and you started your crusade against all sorts of positions you claimed I agreed with.

I would be very curious to learn in what news paper you read news about which land taxation scheme with the results you claim such a scheme would have. I believe you are guessing the results.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between a produced good and natural resources.

What I am worried about is that you actually believe, no you KNOW, that you can judge my scheme, a scheme depending on taxing two things differently, without actually UNDERSTANDING the difference between these things.

"What kind of taxation is least harmful?....My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation."

(Luckily other people understand the difference. Guess who said the above and didn't have a clue.)
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
LMAO... ah, I thought I recognized the style, but I didn't realize which one you were. Had I, I wouldn't have even bothered.

Again, you just ignore what I say, and repost the same thing again.

You ignore that land can be developed, that it's value CAN be effected. You can take a bulldozer onto a piece of property spend the afternoon and drive away having increased its value by thousands of dollars, and leave NOTHING there that wasn't there before.

Therefore, your idea that "Land cannot be improved" is patently false.

You ignore the fact that your tax plan basically makes us all rent the property we "own", and in the guise of "benefitting others", the land can be seized and redistributed as it is being now.

Therefore, your idea that you are pro-ownership and anti-redistribution, even though you propose a system that enevitably leads to such, is patently false.

Like you said, lets just end the conversation. We're approaching it from two separate realities.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I reject the insane notion that a land owner can make improvements to the nature of space time. Land cannot be improved. You can merely add buildings, mines etc. But the land itself is not changed.


You can reject this all you want and to be truthful you are right but only "partly". Two pieces of property exactly the same. one with a house one without. Guess which is going to cost more? The house is considered to be an "improvement"! No the land itself is not changed although in the case of a mine it damn sure would be! How do you create a mine? You "remove" earth from the "land". But by all rules, regulations and laws putting a house on the land is considered an improvement. Want to argue the point? Fine. Go read the homestead act first and then we'll talk. Link



What was the Homestead Act?

The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one the most important pieces of Legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this Act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. 270 millions acres, or 10% of the area of the United States was claimed and settled under this act.

A homesteader had only to be the head of a household and at least 21 years of age to claim a 160 acre parcel of land. Settlers from all walks of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers without land of their own from the East, single women and former slaves came to meet the challenge of "proving up" and keeping this "free land". Each homesteader had to live on the land, build a home, make improvements and farm for 5 years before they were eligible to "prove up". A total filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
the homestead act is a quintessential example of the evils of government redistributing property.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kingbee is right, that was just wrong. Let's all leave.

Kingbee, you make reservations for us to go back...
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
whatcha mean 'us' kemo sabe?

*ordering 295,734,134 tickets back to the old country*

whoa...hey obitz can give mosta yall an incredible deal if you don't mind relocating to pakistan.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
"You can reject this all you want and to be truthful you are right but only "partly". Two pieces of property exactly the same. one with a house one without. Guess which is going to cost more? The house is considered to be an "improvement"!"

Yes indeed. But isn't a house by definition a produced good and not a natural resource?

So how could it be an improvement of land within the context of taxing natural resources but not produced goods?

I was talking specifically (and I think I made that clear, despite Bakerstreet's invented quotes) about the difference in price resulting from location (natural resource) as opposed to the difference in price resulting from the house (produced good).

I realise the distinction between produced good and natural resource can be difficult for some, although I have no idea why (for me it is really easy). But wouldn't it be an important part of understanding an idea based on such a distinction to at least understand the distinction?

Bakerstreet has two problems here. One is the fact that he cannot grasp the idea that I was talking about land taxation, not any of the concepts he brought up (even though I repeatedly told him that). Resolving that issue would take more intellectual honesty on his part.

But the second problem is the inability to distinguish between land and a house located on it. But the distinction is vital (and an easy one to make). It is plain impossible to understand land taxation without understanding what land (as opposed to a building) is. And it is certainly not possible to meaningfully reject the system without understanding its basic concepts.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler,

referring specifically to the act you quote: it refers to improvements according to American law. It does NOT make the claim that a house is a natural resource and thus doesn't affect the distinction between the two.

Any taxation based on such a distinction would be entirely unaffected by it.

I insist again on the fact that an improvement to land, which is, in fact, produced by man, is by definition not and can never be the land itself, because the land itself is a natural resource.