|
This article is not meant to deal with the economics of Geolibertarianism. It is meant to give grounds to the moral base upholding Geolibertarianism. You may, if you will, call me a radical for Geolibertarianism. You can also call me a radical for Capitalism as the two philosophies are not incompatible. Here is the Moral Foundation for Geolibertarianism.
All governments that have existed, exist today, or ever will exist, do two things - protect men's rights and demand men perform their duties. A proper government is one that enforces the proper rights and the proper duties. A "right" is something to which men are entitled; a "duty" is something to which they are obliged. It is impossible to determine what men should have a "right" to and what they should have a "duty" to by studying politics. It is in the realm of ethics that one finds what "rights" men have and what "duties" men have. Indeed, all ethical systems, answer two fundamental questions: what are men's "rights?" and what are men's "duties?" It is based upon these answers found in the examination of ethics that a government designs itself. All governments are based upon a system of ethics. Socialists, for example, believe that a person has a "right" to certain things such as an education, health care, or anything else he feels a person is entitled to. Morally, the socialist feels that men have a "right" to these things. Subsequently, he also thinks it is the duty of those who produce that wealth to give it to his fellow men. These are the rights and duties that govern a socialist's politics, derived again, from what he feels is just and unjust. Another example are advocates of civil rights. Civil rights activists finds it immoral to judge a person by their skin color. Their code of ethics dictates that a person has a "right" to a job without being discriminated against. He subsequently feels it is the duty of the business owner to hire certain minorities. Again, all political systems are based on what a person find just and unjust, i.e. their ethical system -- whether they are conscious or unconscious of that system is the only question. Objectivism proudly and consciously advocates the ethical system upholding its political beliefs. Objectivism does not start by diving right into ethics, but first starts by studying reality. Why does man need a code of ethics in the first place? The answer is: so he can live his life. Thus, the fundamental "right" that Objectivism advocates is a person's right to life. The fundamental "duty" that Objectivism advocates is a person's duty to respect others right to life. This belief, that men have a right to life is known as "the virtue of selfishness" within Objectivst philosophy. Man's right to life dictates that he be allowed to live in the objective method in which he must. How man must live is not arbitrary - it is objective. Given this, the next step is to ask -- how does man live? What is the objective, i.e. unalterable, method in which man survives? It is based on these two things -- that man has a right to life (the virtue of selfishness) and the objective way in which man must live that man's political rights within Objectivism are determined. A plant lives by growing out of the ground and waiting for rain to fall on it and the sun to shine on it. An animal lives based on instinct, using claws to grab things or fast legs to chase things. Man cannot rely on these methods, in order to live, man must use his mind. In order to live, man must use his mind to build tools, build homes, design cars etc. Man cannot live as a plant or an animal, in order to live -- man must think. It is based upon this metaphysical fact, that man must use his mind to live, that man thus has a right to his mind. Subsequently, man also have a right to his mind's practical application -- production. This right, man's right to his mind and his production is called "rational self-interest" within Objectivist philosophy. The proper government thus is one that enforces this ethical code. A proper government enforces men's right to their life and their duty to respect others. Given the metaphysical nature of how men live, this means the proper government protects men's right to their mind and production, i.e. their individual rights. Given man's only duty is to respect other's right to life, a government thus punishes those people who infringe upon other's right. Men's only duty is a negative -- to *not* initiate force upon his neighbors. This governmental system is the system of capitalism. Notice that under the Utopia of capitalism, based upon the premise that all man must acquire to live must be produced, unfettered rational selfishness is allowable. At no point would your selfishness harm another person's life. When you go to work and make $5, you didn't have to steal $5 to get it. Given men must produce to live, and production is limitless, one can produce as much as they want without subsequently harming his neighbor. Men, thus, can pursue their own life as aggressively as they want, i.e. can be as selfish as they want as at no point will they harm another person by doing this -- that is, at no point will they infringe on another person's right to life. Indeed, this would be a perfect governmental system over all issues if one were operating under one assumption -- that everything man needs to survive must be produced. This, however, is an erroneous assumption. Not all that man needs to live must be produced by his own effort. There are things which man is born into the world and can enjoy immediately. One such good is oxygen. Another such good, and the focus of this article, is land. Both oxygen and land have one thing in common -- they are not products of man's mind. The assumption that "rational self-interest" rests upon is that man must produce to live. If this assumption were changed, logically, the conclusions based upon this conclusion must change. Imagine a world where this metaphysical fact, that men must produce to live, was completely altered. Imagine man did not have to produce to live, but rather that all he needed fell out of the sky. In this Garden of Eden, there are, let's say, 500 units of what is needed for men to live in a Garden of 50 people. Based on the same ethical base of Objectivism, that man has a right to life - what would be the proper moral law in such a land? If someone were blindly selfish, in this scenario, it is not such that he would not harm his neighbors. If one person took over 10 units, he would have to do so at the harm of someone else. If all were uninhibitedly selfish in this society, who got what would come down to fist-fights and brawls. If one had the right to their life and the duty to respect others right to life -- in such a society, it would be fitting that their right would be 10 units of goods and it would be their duty to allow their neighbors to have 10 units of the goods. Indeed, in this situation, rational self-interest would not apply -- instead the proper philosophy would be rational egalitarianism. Man's political rights, as advocated by Objectivism, again, are based on two things -- his right to life and the objective method in which he must live. Since the objective method in which man must acquire most things necessary for his life is by producing them -- it thus dictates that man has a right to produce, i.e. the right to earn wealth, not the direct right to wealth. As Jefferson noted, man has the right to pursue happiness, not the right to happiness. However, if the nature of how man acquired things necessary for his life changed, so do the political rights that he has. If man lived in a world in which wealth did not have to be produced, but merely taken -- man would have a right to a fair portion of that wealth, not to "earn" it. One does not have to "earn" that which isn't earnable. You may say, and appropriately, that man does not live in such a Garden of Eden where wealth can be merely taken. That is true, he does not. However, there are such metaphysically given forms of wealth. It is important for all rational people to make the divide between metaphysically-given wealth and man-made wealth. Most people make no such distinction and err on the side that all wealth is metaphysical. Most people completely negate the source of cars, computers, houses, universities etc. and assume they must fall out of the sky, thus they have a natural right to these things. They are wrong, these things are products of men, hence the men who produced them own them and can sell them, at will, to whom they want. However, just like people who treat all wealth as being metaphysical are wrong, so people who treat all wealth as being man-made are wrong. There is a difference between various forms of wealth, and it is important one "checks their premises" for why certain forms of wealth are thrown on the free market -- and if other forms of wealth meet those same requirements. Land is a form of wealth which is metaphysically-given. It was given to all as a "free gift of nature." Land is very similar in this respect to oxygen. Both are, again "free gifts of nature." Land, however, has been subject to free market principles while oxygen hasn't had that unfortunate fate yet. Imagine, however, that oxygen, another metaphysically-given form of wealth, were to be slapped on the free market. Under the name of "private ownership," a young ambitious engineer was able to bottle up all the Oxygen in the world. His technology allowed him to get to the oxygen first, thus, he gets to own it. He owns it and now he is going to sell it on the free-market. Instead of walking outside from now on to take in a fresh of breath air, you are going to have to pay for oxygen. You don't have the "right" to oxygen, you only have the right to earn oxygen. If you can't pay for oxygen, then you will just have to die. This should not seem moral or just to any rational person. If it were the case that someone were allowed to horde all the oxygen, a metaphysically-given good, and then sell it, it would be such that the horder is trampling another person's right to life. By taking all the oxygen in the world, and then selling it -- one is damning any person who cannot afford it to death, similar to the man in the Garden of Eden who took 20 units instead of 10. Oxygen should not be subject to free-market principles. Oxygen is a necessary requirement to man's life. The objective method in which one attains oxygen is by merely stepping outside to breathe it. Oxygen does not have to be produced the way that food, cars, clothes etc. must be produced. Based on man's to life and the objective method in which oxygen is acquired, man thus has a right to Oxygen, not the right to "earn" Oxygen. However, this does not mean that, like the entrepreneur, any man can horde all the Oxygen based on his "right to life." One also has the duty to respect other's right to life. Based on one's duty to respect other's right to life -- man must also allow others their right to Oxygen as well. The political system in place is easy to design based on these rights -- it merely dictates that man is forbidden to claim private ownership of a disproporationately high amount of Oxygen which would cause damage to his neighbors. Land, like oxygen, is also a metaphysically given good. No one has to produce land, it is immediately available to humans. Land, like oxygen, also has immediate worth to all human beings (unlike iron, coal, or other "free gifts of nature" which do not have immediate worth to man, but this will be discussed later). A human being will desire land from the day he is born, regardless of the human production put on it. There is no more anti-intellectual argument than "land has to utilized before it has worth," or "land has labor 'mixed' on it therefore is labor." Nonsense. People who make this argument are trying to smear a person's ability to think by, in essence, making the argument that since land has man-made goods "mixed" with it, it therefore is a man-made good. These people, again, are failing to make the divide between the metaphysical and the man-made. Land is a metaphysically-given good. More importantly, the value that land has is strictly metaphysically-given, i.e. land has value regardless of "human value" added to it. Land's primary value is space. Land is of value to human because a human needs some place to put himself and his belongings. Land, by its own right, has immediate value to humans regardless the labor "mixed" with the land. [Other forms of free gifts, however, do not.] For those still in denial over this fact, imagine the entire world to be inhabited. Imagine the entire globe to be already occupied, both land and sea. Where would you, a latecomer, go? You can go nowhere, you would be a trespasser. Land, any land, be it weed-infested, unable to be farmed, and totally uncultivated, would be valuable to you. Land's primary value is space -- which is an entirely metaphysically-given form of wealth. Because of the nature of land, i.e. land is a metaphysically-given limited good, it is similar in every relevant respect to Oxygen. Land is a good such that if one person were to take and privately own more than their equitable share, like the engineer who horded all the Oxygen, they would subsequently harm their neighbor. Similar to taking more than 10 units of one's share in the Garden of Eden described earlier, a person who took over their 10 units of land would be subsequently trampling on another person's right to life. Indeed, a person with a land monopoly directly harms other people. The person with the land monopoly is denying another person's right to even exist. Taken to its logical extreme, the private ownership of land, i.e. the "first come first serve" philosophy in which when a person buys a piece of land they hold exclusive rights to that land without further payment, could be such that one person or one million people privately owned all the land in the world. All those who weren't fortunate to be born earlier would become, again trespassers. Like in the Oxygen scenario, the land monopolists would be damning all those who didn't own land to death. Given this scenario, it is entirely possible that the first landowner will either rent out or sell the land that he lives on to the latecomer. The rent or fee that the latecomer would pay would be such that the firstcomer got to a piece of land first and is forcing the latecomer to pay for that land. The firstcomer didn't make anything, he only took something and is making a profit off of it. Indeed, he is no longer "making" a profit -- he is taking a profit. The land-owner receives a welfare check -- he is receiving something for nothing. Indeed, if one finds it immoral to receive unearned profits, one should find the pennies filling up the firstcomers pockets to be taken unethically. Given the nature of land, in that it is not a product of man's mind, traditional private ownership should not be applied to it. The governing moral principle is not rational self-interest, but rather rational egalitarianism. The political application of distributing land in an equitable fashion is not as easy as the distribution of Oxygen. It can, however, be done without the use of physical coercion. Yes, you heard that right -- geolibertarianism does not advocate the forcible distribution of land. In order for land to be distributed fairly, the only fundamental difference is in how a person will pay for land. With the "first come first serve" philosophy (neolibertariansim), land is paid for all up front to a previous owner. Under geolibertarianism (the belief that all are entitled to a piece of land), land is paid for continuously for as long as you stayed on the land - and the profits would go to the "community," that is, the government. To understand a typical geolibertarian transaction, imagine that you owned a house on a plot of land. While on the house, a market analysis would determine the market value of the raw bare land that you lived on. It would compeltely discard the value of the house on the land. This market analysis would determine the "rent" you owe for the land. You, the landowner, will pay that rent for as long as you live on the land. Then, when you wanted to move off your land, you would sell your house, and a new owner would voluntarily decide to buy your home and land. The new owner would then pick up the rent on your land. Wherever you ended up moving to next, you would simply pick up the rent for that house on that plot of land and, again, pay for it for as long as you live on it. The only financial transaction between you and the new owner of your previous land would be in exchange for the house, i.e. the man-made product, on your land. Despite any smear campaigns against the philosophy -- geolibertarianism is not socialism. Socialism is defined in one of two ways 1) People are given things based on need or 2) The government controls the production and distribution of wealth. Geolibertarianism is not the first definition. As just previously described, people do not get land based on need. Land would still end up in those hands who could afford it. And geolibertarianism can't be the second definition. There is no "production" of land. No one opens a factory and starts an assembly line of land. Thus the government cannot control the production of land as land cannot be produced. And, as noted above, the government also would not not control the distribution of land. Who the land would be distributed is entirely based upon people's **voluntary** decisions and their ability to pay for land for as long as they live on it. The government's only role in geolibertarianism is to take in the profits off of the selling of land. The only difference between geolibertarianism and what we do now is in terms of how land is funded and thus who is able to profit off of land. Geolibertarianism is also not the destruction of private property. There is also no more anti-intellectual argument against geolibertarianism than "Uncivilized people are ones without private property rights." This is nothing more than a smear, don't fall trap to it. Private property means you have the right to do what you will with what you own. Under geolibertarianism, if you are paying your rent on your land -- you own it. You have the right to do what you will on your land, and forbid people to come on your land if you want. Again, the only difference between what happens now with land and what would happen under Geolibertarianism is the method of payment for land. The "land question" is not a capitalist vs. socialist issue. It can't be a capitalist vs. socialist issue the difference between capitalism and socialism is a question of "who owns the means or production" -- private individuals or the state. Given land cannot be produced, it is not a capitalist vs. socialist issue. The "land question" is a neolibertarian vs. geolibertarian debate. Indeed, even if one disagrees with the geolibertarian stance, one must concede that the "philosophical proof" put forth by Objectivism for why one has private property rights -- does not apply to land. Indeed, if one wanted to put a philosophical base under neolibertarianism, one cannot rely on the one traditionally used to defend capitalism. At the very least, recognize that Objectivsm, as of yet, has no legs to walk on if it wishes to advocate the neolibertarian, i.e. the "first come first serve" philosophy. The difference between advocating neolibertarianism (the exclusive private ownership of land) and capitalism (the exclusive private ownership of production) is the difference between take and make. The differences in the objective methods of acquiring these different forms of wealth should be heavily noted when one is designing a political system. If man has a right to life, he has the right to his equitable share of the wealth that is "taken." If man has a right to life, he has the right to earn the wealth that must be "made."
All governmental systems are designed on a system of ethics. The ethical question with the "land issue" comes down to - does a man have the right to live on the earth? If you find that ethically, man has a right to live on the earth, thus a right to land, you must necessarily become a geolibertarian. Geolibertarianism is not incompatible with capitalism, genuine capitalism in which man owns his mind and the things he produced, hence is not incompatible with Objectivism. Because of this, Objectivism should fully embrace Geolibertarianism as if one were to "checked their premises," one can see that Geolibertarianism is the only system in alignment with man's right to life and his duty to respect other's right to life. Geolibertarianism thus should be fully embraced as it is the moral system. Amber Pawlik |
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed" (Thomas Jefferson, The Republic of Letters, p. 390).