Neolibertarian philosophy, which creates a system in which firstcomers to land have the ability to exploit latecomers to land, creates a system in which people feel powerless. Latecomers to the earth will feel exploited, as they should, as they are paying a disproportionately high amount of money just to exist on earth. People who feel powerless naturally turn towards liberalism, i.e. towards getting the government to help them.
Liberal ideology is grounded in victimhood. People who vote for liberals are people who feel they are incapable of self-reliance. They thus turn to the government to help them pay for housing, education, food etc.
While it is easy to blame these parasites as being lazy, their economic misfortunates may not be entirely their fault. These people may be victims of an exploitive land policy.
There is a distinct relationship between the likelihood of a person’s politics to become liberal and a land shortage in that area. This may seem obvious to some, as large crowded cities often vote liberal and small open ones vote conservative, however, for science’s sake, I have compiled some statistics supporting the claim that a disproportionately high amount of people in an area with a disproportionately low amount of land creates the recipe for someone to vote for a liberal, i.e. to vote for someone who will help them out in what seems to be a world in which they have few opportunities.
This is a chart of the percentage vote that went to a liberal vs. the density of that area. The areas were taken by state for the 2000 Presidential election. A vote for a liberal was either a vote for Gore or Nader. A high density of people means there are a higher number of people per every unit of land which in turns means a shortage of land. As one can see, as the density increases in an area, i.e. as the land becomes more and more scarce, the more likely it is for a region to vote liberal.
The District of Columbia was excluded from this chart due to its extreme value, which distorted the chart. In the DC area, the percentage of vote that went to a liberal was 90.4% and the Density of the DC areas was off the charts at 3814 people/sq km.
The land monopoly does not need to be taken to its logical extreme, in which one person owns all the land, before the destructive effects happen in society. There is a direct relationship to the hording of land and the decreased opportunities for those around. You can observe the effects in the 2000 presidential election.
Ask yourself why, in the 1800s when land was free and abundant, invigoration for liberty was high. Why was the attitude “where there is a will there’s a way!” Ask yourself why, 150 years later, in which land is no longer abundant, invigoration for liberty is pathetically low, so low that are lives are now spent working 20 years for the government.
Ask yourself why in land-grant college areas, in which tens of thousands of college students are forced to live in 2-3 square miles, liberalism is nothing short of a rampant disease. Why do so many college students damn “the system,” as being a place that does nothing short of exploit those who are weak and frail? Indeed, it is hard to argue when there is a place with one-bedroom aptmts for 3 people charging $930 per month for 12 months when most only stay 9 – that college students aren't being exploited.
What these cities need is a huge shot of a land rent. Geolibertarian philosophy would shake up who owns land, i.e. would put pressure on firstcomers to have a highly marketable product or else be unable to afford where they are sitting. It would force, for instance, apartments in college towns to pay a pretty penny for their highly desirable land position, thus allowing only the best of the best to be there. The price of sitting on this land would not be passed on to the consumer, as the market, not the cost-price of goods, determines land rent.
For a more thorough investigation of Geolibertarian philosophy, please see the rest of my website.