Talk:Geolibertarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of template

i dispute the use of the libertarian template on a page which essentially describes, despite claims to the contrary, rank socialism. it should be removed. SaltyPig 13:58, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

It's not even remotely related to socialism, unless you think you know more about it than Albert Jay Nock and William F. Buckley, Jr. Jeebus! The number of rank and ignorant propagandists that frequent Wiki is sad. I no longer use it as a reference as much as I used to. It's Cooperative Individualism and Cooperative Capitalism. Google those. It's the future. It's also the past. Many of the founders held these beliefs. Paine, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams wrote extensively on the land issue, from similar thoughts by Locke and even Adam Smith. The DOI says Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, not property. Think about it.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/buckley_hgeorge.html

"Henry George and the Single-Tax William F. Buckley, Jr. [an interview with Brian Lamb, C-Span Book Notes, April 2-3, 2000]

CALLER: Mr. Buckley, it's a pleasure to talk to you.

William F. Buckley, Jr.(WFB): Thank You.

CALLER: I've heard you describe yourself as a Georgist, a follower of Henry George, but I haven't heard much in having you promote land value taxation and his theories, and I'm wondering why that is the case.

W.F.B.: It's mostly because I'm beaten down by my right-wing theorists and intellectual friends. They always find something wrong with the Single-Tax idea. What I'm talking about Mr. Lamb is Henry George who said there is infinite capacity to increase capital and to increase labor, but none to increase land, and since wealth is a function of how they play against each other, land should be thought of as common property. The effect of this would be that if you have a parking lot and the Empire State Building next to it, the tax on the parking lot should be the same as the tax on the Empire State Building, because you shouldn't encourage land speculation.

Anyway I've run into tons of situations were I think the Single-Tax theory would be applicable. We should remember also this about Henry George, he was sort of co-opted by the socialists in the 20s and the 30s, but he was not one at all. Alfred J. Nock's book on him makes that plain. Plus, also, he believes in only that tax. He believes in zero income tax."

Another good reference for Cooperative Capitalism is here: http://www.populareconomics.org/

Socialism is not a dirty word in any case. The American Libertarian party is an aberration of the original concept comprised of extremists and lunatics. 15:08, June 22, 2006

I'll concede up front that my entire experience with geoliberarianism consists of five minutes on Google. However, pages like this, (if accurate) seem to indicate that geolibertarianism is just libertarianism with an exception for land. Can you be more specific? Dave (talk) 23:08, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

yes, and thanks for your input. it does seem that this "geolibertarianism" claims to be libertarianism with an exception for land. however, that one exception, especially in the ramifications listed for it, is anti-libertarianism. according to the article (as i saw it early today), it doesn't even allow that somebody could sell, under their warped definition of property, his "rightful" allotment of land to an entrepreneur. there's this mythical "communal" pot to which everybody is beholden. hello! socialism. it's just the usual "let's claim the mantle of libertarianism", regardless of what anything means. it does not belong anywhere near libertarianism, except as something marked as far more opposed than merely with regard to real estate (or whatever one wants to call it). it is a criticism of libertarianism, not a flavor of it. this template trick is a base form of distortion, and it should be nipped in the bud. the libertarian template isn't meant to be free advertising for anybody who wants to throw the "L" word in their philosophy. their philosophy must truly be in line with libertarianism. otherwise, what's the point? the name alone doesn't do it. SaltyPig 02:06, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Unless you want to argue that the quotes from Jefferson, Locke, Smith, Friedman, and Nolan on the right of the page I linked to above are all fabricated or taken out of context, it seems to me that geolibertarianism is pretty clearly more in line with libertarianism than socialism. I think any movement alligned with those thinkers is pretty clearly related to libertarianism. Dave (talk) 03:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

the correct question is not whether "geolibertarianism" is more aligned with socialism or libertarianism; it is whether "geolibertarianism" is aligned enough with libertarianism to include it as libertarianism. i believe that it is not. clearly, its handling of real property goes directly against hundreds of years of libertarian thought, with strong elements of socialism (here i'm not saying it's wrong, BTW; that's irrelevant). one may as well argue that republicanism is closer to libertarianism than it is to socialism; therefore, we should have the libertarian template slapped on it. i don't think there's anywhere near adequate a case made for it. if it is to be added, i believe it should be put up for serious debate within the entire wikipedia libertarian community, not just thrown at us via a backdoor insert on an obscure article that would never have gotten much attention otherwise. that's what's going on here, so let's not pretend otherwise. it's an attention grabber for an article with strong socialist underpinnings. i think it should be removed, at least until a week or so of debate and further research into this queer creature with the, i believe, false name. SaltyPig 05:03, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

My understanding is that a geolibertarian would agree with, say, Milton Friedman on just about everything not related to rent or land ownership, and Friedman would concede some points in an argument with, say George. I agree the article sucks as written and may not refer to a particularly important group, but I disagree about the "strong socialist underpinnings" and think that the intellectual pedigree of the movement, combined with the shared positions between the two groups is sufficient. For the record, the Thomas Paine Caucus says that the Libertarian Party of the United States and Geolibertarians share "positions on corporate responsibility, limited liability, and subsidy, on defending our country while having peaceful discourse with other nations, the civil rights of consenting adults in various activities, labor laws that have a negative effect on workers and their rights, and laws that have a negative effect on the environment and ecology of localities, regions, nations, and the world."[1] Dave (talk) 14:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

this is an example of their kind of argument. Since landlords didn't produce land, it's not theirs to rent out, but anything they build on it is really theirs:

The only kind of legitimate land title is one that gives a landowner the right to control the use of that land, the right to own buildings and improvements, or to rent buildings, or sell them to other people, if he wants - but not to collect welfare payments from people, by charging them for merely using the land, which the landowner did not produce.

Tell me what you think. Dave (talk) 14:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the triple post, but here is another of their arguments. Geolibertarians really are a branch of libertarianism, albeit a relatively obscure one. Dave (talk) 14:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Geolibertarianism favors a free market economy, and therefore cannot be socialist. Socialism involves a planned economy, which geolibertarians join other libertarians in opposition. Geolibertarianism in practice differs from other forms of libertarianism only on the matter of where the burden of taxation should fall. With the exception of anarcho-capitalists, most libertarians agree that some form of taxation is necessary to fund the legitimate functions of government. Most tend to prefer sales tax, but geolibertarians recognize the enourmous benefits that a land value tax has over all other forms of taxation. We also recognize the implications that land ownership has for natural rights, carrying the philosophy to its logical conclusion.--Paradigm 28 June 2005 17:15 (UTC)

I've edited the disputed parragraphs. Geolibertarianism isn't Socialism, because Geolibertarians favour profit and interest, while Socialist don't. It's close to the individual anarchist movement Mutualism. Both Mutualism and Geolibertarianism support free markets, but Mutualism don't support interest nor profit. Atreyu42

• • • • • Here is a confusion, and it`s about the meaning of Socialism; Libertarian Party and Conservatives have made a big damage to that word and obviously the Communist Parties, Progresives and other Statists.

Socialism originaly means: the products are PROPERTY of the productor, and that is the meaning that Libertarian Socialism gives to Socialism. Mutualists consider themselves also Socialists, Individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker or Lysander Spooner considerated themselves like socialists and anti-capitalists in the same sense.

In anarchism (societarian and individualist), property and free market are not conditions for Capitalism; the conditions for capitalism are that you can make your private property something that you don`t work and that you could produce, work but don`t have your products (emploiment, wage labour also called by anarchists wage slavery)

Geolibertarism is more near to anarchism than to libertarianism, and is a system of property, free market... and anti-capitalist

Anarcho-communists are libertarian socialists and they certainly don't believe the product of labor should belong to the individual(i.e. private property). They believe it should belong to the collective. That's essential to anarchist communism. In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, they declared the principles of Anarcho-Communism, beginning with: "The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity. The federal congress at Florence has eloquently demonstrated the opinion of the Italian International on this point..." RJII 23:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

comments here. SaltyPig 02:59, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

"Geolibertarians" and property rights

i also dispute this sentence and anything that resembles it: "Geolibertarians are as strong on property rights as any other libertarian, but they consider land to be an equal right shared by all mankind." it is false within itself. SaltyPig 14:01, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Poorly written and should be changed. Dave (talk) 23:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Any form of libertarianism requires a definition of property and rights thereto, or else it devolves into mere anarchy. Geolibertarianism provides such a definition, which is not the same as the more common "any asset, absolutely, in perpetuity" definition but is nonetheless equally valid within a general framework of libertarianism. That contrasts quite sharply with socialism, which denies *any* private right to *any* property. The article as written is fairly objective, and any change in the direction suggested by SaltyPig would be an imposition of a slanted view.

"direction suggested by SaltyPig"? "imposition of a slanted view"? nonsense. show me up there where i've said the article should be changed to meet a certain view. i want the libertarian template removed. period. and i will remove it, since opinion supported that elsewhere. please don't push straw men. BTW, if the article is objective now, it's only because i objected and changes were made. as i've said elsewhere, i'm not going to keep riding herd on it, so i don't know about it now. however, it is still poorly written (see the first sentence, which i've pointed out elsewhere), at least in part. please sign your name if you're going to post to talk pages. i've left instructions on your IP address talk page. SaltyPig 08:00, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

NPOV

the article offers doctrine as fact. example: "When someone owns more than their equal share of land, that land gains rental value, which geolibertarians believe should be paid back to the community." the last part of the sentence is correctly noted as POV, and is encyclopedic. however, what came before is a wikipedia abomination, regardless of one's view on the subject. it is POV, and should be stricken or rewritten.

another example: "Since public utilities and services increase land value, they could essentially fund themselves through the Land Value Tax."

the article is a vanity piece -- borderline candidate for deletion. SaltyPig 14:06, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Badly written, but it seems to be describing a real political philosophy, so it should be fixed up rather than deleted. I'll take a look at it. Dave (talk) 23:10, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have another problem with NPOV here. "Geolibertarianism is anti-environmentalist since it abhors natural preserves or any fallow land." Shouldn't it be written more like "Geolibertarianism is seen as anti-environmentalist since it abhors natural preserves or any fallow land."? I could direct you to quotes by several environmentalists who support the Georgist idea, so clearly it isn't objectively anti-environmentalist.--Paradigm 21:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What about a merge?

From what I can tell, Geolibertarianism and Georgism are the same thing, so shouldn't we merge the two articles? If not, what is the difference? anthony 19:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the georgism article,

Some Georgists are not entirely satisfied with the label. Henry George is now little known, the principle predates him, and "isms" named for a single person have developed an image problem. Some use the term "Geoism", with the meaning of "Geo" deliberately ambiguous. "Earth Sharing", "Geonomics" and "Geolibertarianism" (see libertarianism) are also preferred by some Georgists. These terms reflect a difference of emphasis, and sometimes real differences about how land rent should be spent (citizen's dividend or just replacing other taxes); but all agree that land rent should be fully taxed.

I'd say that's good reason not to merge. Dave (talk) 14:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I support a merge, and I wrote the paragraph Dave quotes above. I do think that the difference is merely one of emphasis. Having been recently reminded that Geoism now redirects to Geolibertarianism I have had another think and a google, and I'll lay out my arguments.

• After years of reading (what I generally call) georgist literature, LVT advocate mailing lists and other such forums, I have not been able to discern two distinct ideologies.
• Google searches turn up "georgist and geolibertarian" or "georgist/geoist", not "geolibertarians, in contrast to georgists...".
• If the word "Geolibertarian" was changed to "Georgist" throughout this page it would still be correct and make perfect sense, except for the bit that refers to "Georgist" as something distinct.
• Geolibertarianism is full of description of belief. Georgist has historical references. Both are fairly short. Merged they would be more complete. If complete but still separate they would be redundant. There is already creeping redundancy in the LVT-related pages, with content in Henry George and Land Value Tax which overlaps with Georgist.

However the merge would have to be at Geoism, as the most inclusive term. I wouldn't be arguing for a merge if Geolibertarianism as defined here had not turned out to be so indistinct from Georgism, or if Geoism hadn't been redirected here. If we don't merge the pages, here is my cite for moving Geoism back to Georgism: [2] Pm67nz (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Localist Party

I am thinking of forming a Localist Party which is essentially Georgian/Geolibertarian in nature. If you care to help out please visit my site and email me.

www.geocities.com/ishmaelsword ussa@seanet.com

-Lucas Werner

Move to Geoism

I think this article should be moved to Geoism. It seems to be the most common terminology. Here are the results from a Google search (subtracting Wikipedia finds)..

Geoism 15100

Geolibertarianism 1640

Georgism 11000

Ok? RJII 18:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Geoism is more popular than geolibertarianism http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=geoism+-forum+-archive+-blog+-wikipedia+-wiki+-google+-%22search+engine%22+-encyclopedia&btnG=Search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=geolibertarianism+-forum+-archive+-blog+-wikipedia+-wiki+-google+-%22search+engine%22+-encyclopedia&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.58.38 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

private property in land

The article says: " They follow John Locke's proviso that one has private property in land only to the extent that there is "enough, and as good left in common for others." When this is not the case, the land accumulates rental value." How can it be one's private property if he's renting it? I don't think that's an accurate statement. As I understand it, in geolibertarianism everyone always owns all the land collectively. If you use the land, you pay rent to the rest of the community. RJII 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps they interpret Locke to mean that, since land is finite, there can never be enough? I'm really not an expert on this, although I think it's a very interesting answer to standard libertarianism. Dave (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing I haven't seen explained is how society can come to own all the land collectively. It just seems to be posited. An individual has to labor to create property, but society owns all the land simply by being society. RJII 03:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

They have good arguments against individual ownership in land, but I don't know about arguments for collective ownership. Presumably, if land cannot be owned by individuals or groups, it has to be owned collectively, but I don't know why that has to be done through the state. Dave (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

no, no, no! society does not own all the land collectively, individuals own land. however, we understand that land ownership (titles, deeds, etc) is a government priviledge. it is one we accept because land ownership via private defense/protection is not very efficient especially when you are talking about large scale communities. we also know, from adam smith, that in a free-market economy, money pools in cities, drawing in lots of services, and jobs, which causes increases in "ground rent": land owners see their property value skyrocket due to no improvement of their own, and they can collect higher and higher amounts of rent from their tenants without the need to do anything with their land, or even hold the land idle speculating on future gains. geolibertarianism says that rather than letting private landlords accumulate this socially created surplus, we pool it in the form of a land-use fee and share it amongst the citizens. this has the dual effect of encouraging the landowners to use their land efficiently, or sell it, as well as pooling a socially created good amongst those who create it.

Colorless Green Ideas 10:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

geolibertarianism = mutualism ?

what exactly is the difference between these two schools of thought?

Geolibertarians think that land is naturally (a prior) owned by the everyone collectively, so they think that an individual that uses land should pay everyone else in the society rent. Mutualists think the land is naturally owned by no one. An individual can use any vacant land he wishes without paying rent to society. The mutualists hold a labor theory of value so they think government intervention prevents the price paid for labor from naturally coinciding with the value of labor --in other words they think profit is exploitation whose root cause is government economic intervention which prevents competition. I'm not sure what the geolibertarian position on profit is, so I can't speak with confidence on that -I'm guessing that they generally accept profit, with the exception of old-school people who adhere to the labor theory of value. RJII 20:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

moved from article

Bolivia is a very poor example. Yes, Bolivia has a lot of land and poverty. The government is backward. The government of Bolivia does not have good records of land ownership. The people of Bolivia have little or no knowledge of land titles / deeds. If individual Bolivians were given land that is or can be made productive and near markets and then required to pay economic rent for the services they receive from their government, they will not experience poverty. (by 70.241.197.120)

I think the mention of Bolivia is misleading. Far more important than available land is arable land, which only makes up a few hundreths of Bolivia's land. OWiseWun (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Geolibertarianism → Geoism — Geoism is the prevalent name for this ideology. A Google search for "Geolibertarianism -wikipedia" yields 674 results. Conversely, "Geoism -wikipedia" yields 14,800 results. —Skomorokh ^incite 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose Geolibertarianism is a philosophy that combines Georgist economic philosophy with with an individualist political philosophy that encompasses (among other positions) the right to bear arms for self-defense, opposition to victimless crime laws, free market health care, a non-interventionist foreign policy. Not everyone who subscribes to geoist economics necessarily holds libertarian views on non-economic issues. So, while there are many parallels between the two philosophies, there are also distinctions, and thus they should have separate articles.--JayJasper 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For a longtime libertarian I'm disgracefully dim on the nuances, but I always took "Geoism" to be an abbreviation! If it's not an abbreviation, where did the word come from? —Tamfang 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment After further consideration, I realize that I had confused "geoism" with "Georgism" and have withdrawn my remarks in opposition to the move. For the time being, I hold a neutral position on the matter. --JayJasper 21:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mild Oppose I am planning to apply some wikipedia categories to the whole family of land value tax advocates so I've been looking into how these Geo* words have been used by different authors. Sometimes "Geoist" is used as a synonym for 'Georgist', sometimes for 'Geolibertarian', sometimes ambiguously, and sometimes in such a way as to deliberately include both (as "Georgist" often is too). At least "geolibertarian" is unambiguous about being a subset of "libertarian".

Discussion

I deleted:

"They believe that people have the right to do anything with what is legitimately theirs. Like all libertarians, they believe in the legalization of every activity between consenting adults, which includes any trade to which both parties agree."

from the Property Rights section. IMV Geolibertarianism concerns itself with larger issues of economic justice as it relates to Land, not societal policy issues that reasonable minds can differ on (eg. prior restraint of drug production/use, public nuisances like smoking, the commercialization of sex, a woman's free access to pregnancy termination medical procedures, etc etc etc etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.101.177 (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Any additional comments:

In the article it states: Geolibertarianism is considered anti-environmentalist by some who worry that it wouldn't acknowledge natural capital as separate from land, thus abhorring natural preserves or any fallow land.

By encouraging the most productive use of land, less land is needed for the same output. In addition, urban sprawl would tend to be reduced because vacant land now at the center of cities -- either held off the market for speculative purposes, or because improvements would be costly for tax reasons -- would be placed back into productive use, which would have the effect of consolidating fallow land outside the city. In other words, instead of having a patchwork of vacant lots, slums, abandoned buildings, and underutilized land in a city, people now pushed to the suburbs would be pulled back in to the city to use it, leaving more open space at the periphery. Reducing urban spraw makes transportation more efficient, in that less energy is needed to move goods and people around for the same amount of economic output. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.215.81 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Better Sources for this article or might be deleted

It should be noted that Neolibertarianism was deleted because it had poor sourcing. This one probably has more 3rd party sources, but they should be brought in ASAP before it suffers the same fate. Also, its entry in the Libertarianism article is in jeopardy for that reason. Anyone out there care?? Not being a big fan of Georgism, I really am not that motivated; though Foldvary does good work so it might be worth it to look around. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This source I found isn't enough to establish notability, so I tagged the article. I hope someone finds better sources than I could before I redirect to georgism... I find the topic interesting. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a couple pretty good sources, though perhaps not enough for an article. Otherwise I agree that redirecting to Libertarianism where there already is a section is the best bet. One blog comment suggests geolibertarianism belongs under Left-libertarianism: "Geolibertarianism, or geoanarchism, or left libertarianism, on the other hand, recognizes not only the principle of self-ownership but also the principle that the earth and other natural resources are commonly owned by everyone born into the world." And then since much is based on Fred Foldvary's work it could just go there. If someone else wants to do the work.

• Murray Rothbard and Henry George
• Contra the "Labor Theory of Property"
• William F. Buckley the Georgist by Foldvary CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add a reference or two (from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology), but when I try to edit that section, all I see is "</references>" How do I add a reference? hkyriazi (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

For how to see: Wikipedia:Refs#Quick_summary. Also look at HTML how others have been done. Or just stick it in in plain text after relevant sentence and I'll fix it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)