Henry George

Over at Lib Dem Voice they've printed a biographical piece from the Directory of Liberal Thought about Henry George, the leading proponent of the "single tax" in the nineteenth century that many of us know nowadays as "Land Value Tax" or "Site Value Rating". Several of the correspondents in the discussion following the article felt that they had never really understood, or had explained clearly and convincingly, what LVT is and why it is such a good thing. So I'll give it a go, though many have tried before me, and no doubt many of them more intelligibly.

Land.

Forget what you might think you know about land. In economic terms land refers to the third factor of production. If "labour" is the work that goes into something, "capital" the wealth invested or expended in producing more wealth then "land", in economic terms, is everything else - "the entire material universe not produced by the application of capital and labour." So yes, it includes the land underneath our feet, but it also includes the air, the electromagnetic spectrum, the cosmos, the mineral wealth of the planet, all in their natural states, natural fertility, self-seeded trees and plants, water and fish and non-domestic animals and so on.

Now, billions that we humans number, for most purposes most of these types of land are either unlimited or of indefinite supply. Some types we don't absolutely need to survive. Others we do need to survive. Others are fixed or limited in supply. As far as I am aware, we are pretty well attached to this planet. Every single human born so far has only had the resources of this one planet to sustain them. And since we need it to survive, then we must all, every one of us, have an equal claim on its natural bounties.

In early human society, hunter gatherer family units or tribes would simply range over as big a territory as necessary to meet their nutritional needs. For some, in fertile temperate parts of the world, this may have been a small area.  For others, in less fertile territory, it might be a large area of rough foraging. But of course this sort of isolation, subsistence living, is not very conducive to human development. Through trade we grow, both as individuals and as communities. And as soon as we come together to trade certain locations become more important as places where people meet and we can no longer justly grab as much space as we want without excluding others. It is at this point that land begins to have...

Value.

The value of "land" is its "rent". Just as the cost of "labour" is "wages" and the cost of "capital" is "interest". When natural resources (land) are in infinite supply, so that anyone who wants to use some of it can just take it and there will still be plenty for everyone else, it has no rental value. But as soon as humans get together in clusters, the further we move away from being a agricultural based economy and as our survival is based more on our ability to sell our specialist labour for enough to sustain us those locations where we form our clusters begin to attract rent, because many people are in the scramble to be in the best location for their market.

A landowner might be able to make more efficient use of his location and fit more people onto a particular piece of land, or they might invest in creating a work of art for the discerning occupier who will pay a premium for quality. But the landowner, as a landowner, does not have to lift a finger to contribute to any change in the rental value of that location.

And when we buy our homes, what we are doing is rolling up all the location rent for a number of years and handing it over, together with the capital value of the buildings at that location, to the previous landowner, and usually borrowing to do so. This is a key concept in LVT - we are already paying this rent either monthly when we actually rent, or up front when we buy (but inflated often by the cost of borrowing to afford it). It is this "rent" value that Land Value Tax seeks to...

Tax.

To me, this is a big misnomer, and causes a deal of confusion about LVT even amongst "Land Value Taxers". The Georgist purist like me intends really for the community to share the rent for the locations that are made valuable by that whole community equally with everyone in that community. Shared equally because, remember, we have that equal right of access to the land as our birthright as creatures tied to it for the very stuff of life, and because we all help to create that overall rent value. We more commonly think of a "tax" as an imposition used to fund government spending. The community sharing of rent is really a way of each and every one of us paying everyone else who has just as much right to make as good use of our location as we do for the inconvenience of having to avoid it because we have exclusive rights to it.

The community in question is the area within which land has rental value - technically speaking "within the margin of production". In some cases that may still be just a single town or city - the desert outside Phoenix, Arizona, for example might well tail off to zero in rental value at the end of the irrigation system pipes. In others, it could be an entire country - for example it could be argued that we are such a small country that London creates some rental value almost everywhere in the country.

The effect of this rent sharing is that those in that geographical community, however big it is, whose productivity - ability to earn - means they can only afford to live in the cheapest locations with the lowest rents will get more, perhaps much more, than they pay out in location rent. Those whose ability to earn enables them to commandeer the best locations will be paying into the community rent fund much more than they get out. And the net effect of all that is that we create an automatic, self-adjusting safety net which, if you have nothing else coming in, should enable you to eke out a basic living on the most marginal, cheapest locations.

Of course many of you reading this actually do believe that government is sometimes the best body to deliver "essential" "public" "services" and will recoil from the idea of giving people a basic income for fear it becomes an invitation to idleness. That's fine. For you, the Land Value Tax would be a way of financing those public services. I will tend to try to persuade you to take that one further step and believe that giving people their money to spend for themselves will lead to better and more efficient services in most circumstances.

The single tax.

Now this is the other side of the equation. Nobody who is serious about LVT's benefits wants to add to the current tax bill. LVT must replace other taxes if it is to achieve its most important benefits - of freeing up labour and capital to invest and work in productive wealth creation. And so Henry George called it the "Single Tax" and his adherents were called "Single Taxers". Henry George reasoned that virtually all other forms of taxation constituted tariffs, and therefore barriers to wealth creating free trade. All except tax on land in the generic economic sense affect the resources that can be applied to productive enterprise - labour, capital and, in the end, consumer spending.

And remember, the best thing about all this is that most of us, that is everyone who is still paying a mortgage or anyone who rents anyway from a landlord, are already paying this "single tax" in the form of location rent to our landlord or previous landowner, who have done nothing as landowners to earn that bit of the rent. So reductions in any of these other taxes, such as employers National Insurance, Income Taxes, VAT and capital taxes, feed straight through into more money in our pockets. And not only that, but all the disincentives to work and creating employment created by our complex income tax system and the problems associated with benefits withdrawal rates and tax credits and so on, will be removed.

Nor must you believe that the "Single Tax" only refers to a tax on the rental value of one type of land. There are other finite natural resources that we can rightly claim belong equally to all of us but which attract an economic rental value because they are scarce amongst a given community of users. One can argue for a "Land Value Tax" on the exclusive right to transmit on particular frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. Or to fly through our airspace at a particular time and place. You could even describe some mechanisms for taxing polluters as a specialized "Land Value Tax" - though it may not be the best way to deal with such issues.

Common Objections:

"We've already been taxed on the money we bought our home with"

Actually, you've been taxed on what you have paid your rent with - whether you actually rented, or bought from the previous owner by paying over several years' rent up front. Any rise(or fall) in your property's rental value by the time you come to sell it on is mostly accounted for by changes in the location rent, to which you have not actually contributed, as a landowner anyway.

But think of it in a post-LVT world - you'll have paid substantially less for your home, you'll have borrowed substantially less to do so, and you will not be paying all those unproductive taxes on income and capital anyway.

We have plenty of "double taxation" in our current system anyway. I pay tax on my income, but then when I go out and spend my post-tax income on most most goods and services I will pay VAT at another 17.5% and possibly duties. And this is an ongoing double taxation - at least with LVT we're only talking about this effect being felt once - at the implementation date and then not again because all the other taxes will have been ended.

"Land rich, income poor - the "poor widow bogey""

As long ago as 1909 Winston Churchill used to be taunted by the Tories with what he called the "poor widow bogey" - the supposedly unbeatable argument that LVT would be wrong because people who happen to have seen the rental value of their location rise will have to pay more in location rent without necessarily having more income with which to do so.

First, again, think of it in a post-LVT world - you will have borrowed substantially less to acquire the various places you will have lived in your life and you will be paying, if you are efficient in your use of land at least, less in tax in the form of location rent. You will have more to save and invest in productive assets other than housing. If you choose to save for your retirement an amount that allows you to continue paying your location rent till you drop, fair play to you. But the evidence is in fact that there is a huge unmet demand for people downsizing nearing retirement (indeed it is mostly the best off pensioners who are able to do this at present). LVT, because it makes the market in land and locations much more reactive to community change, will more than likely encourage this need to be met.

But in the implementation there is some evidence that a very small proportion of pensioners would indeed face larger bills than they have at the moment. For those Land Value Taxers who would prefer to implement LVT slowly, increasing the rate of the tax over a long period of time, their answer would be to allow such people to roll up their tax bill until they do eventually sell up and move or for their estate to pay. I, preferring the big bang approach, would simply compensate people for the lost land value in bonds which they can use to pay their tax into the future.

"Confiscating the value of our biggest asset"

It is true that implementing the full rent sharing I outline above will wipe out the capitalized rent values that one is accustomed to seeing as part of the "sale price". And it is also true that this will hurt those most recently on the ladder and having just borrowed to pay for that up-front location rent.

But the home you live in is not really "wealth" in the conventional sense. Until you are at the stage of downsizing or selling up completely, the value of your home really only matters in respect of its relationship to the price of your next one. For most of us, for most of our lives, our shelter is a cost of living - either in rent or mortgage payments. And if we have slashed the cost of buying by removing the land value, then we have also slashed the cost of your next home in similar proportion.

Again though, in transition from one system to another, with my big bang approach, those who lose out can be compensated with bonds with which, for example, they could pay off any outstanding mortgage over the new land-free market value. If you take the slower incremental implementation mechanism, again, the loss will be less all at once; indeed you could structure implementation such that it effectively only capture future rises in rental values.

"Impossible to value"

This is the "experts' objection" that it will be too cumbersome to invent a system that values the rent for each plot of land every year. And more than that, that it will be arbitrary. But we know from evidence in on the ground pilot studies that we only actually have to value about one in ten plots that share common characteristics in the form of access to services and infrastructure say. It's also not really too different from the current system of self-assessed income taxes. A game is played out every year with taxpayers trying to minimize their liability and the HMRC trying to catch people out hiding some of their income. And here there is no market to help.

The average mortgage lasts eight years. That means that somewhere around 12.5% of our owner occupied housing is valued every year just to get a mortgage valuation. More in recent years where people have been encouraged to chop and change their mortgage even though they are not moving home.

And then there's the rental market. There will always remain benefits to renting for some in the population - short term workers and so on. So there will remain a rental market. This presents yet more, and really very accurate, evidence on which to base valuations- more accurate once you take away the capital gains aspect of land ownership as landlords will only be investing in a rental stream.

And ultimately the market will still highlight areas where the assessed location rents are higher or lower than investors think they should be. If buyers think the current rents are too high, they are going to offer a discount on the capital value of the buildings themselves and if assessed rents are adjudged too low by the market, buyers will offer a premium over the building values in order to get the more desirable location at a lower location rent until the location rent is adjusted the next year.

And finally, let's not pretend that this is new - we had Schedule A imputed rent on our homes on our tax returns until 1963.

"Concreting over surburbia"

There is often concern that when Land Value Taxers talk about our system leading to more efficient land use we mean that every available inch of land will be developed. There is no reason to think this in reality. It will first bring into use completely unused land - that mouldering old factory that's been sitting empty and becoming more and more of an eyesore for a decade for example.

But there's no reason why Land Value Tax would not be subject to a similar planning regime as now. It would change - because a community decision that they would prefer housing to a factory on a particular site for example will lead to that factory being redeveloped a deal sooner than it might today, because its owners are going to be seeing their location rents rise to the point that running a factory there would be inefficient compared with developing it for housing, say.

Personally I would also like to see many planning controls repealed anyway and have most (ie small scale) developments make their peace privately with its neighbours through mediation rather than state control.

Overall though, there is little evidence that people would suddenly settle for a squashed apartment instead of a suburban semi with garden and garage just because of LVT. It will encourage people to consider whether their continuing use of a particular location is cost effective for them and it will make the market more efficient and so there is likely to be more rebuilding, but that doesn't need to be at the expense of amenity.

In conclusion

So, there then was my now not so concise explanation of Land Value Tax and some brief responses to some of its most common objections. It is quite important to get across just how land gains its value though. That helps to explain why some of us see LVT as such a just and equitable way of doing things. If we had Star Trek style free instant transportation systems, land would again be worthless but while it take time (which is money opportunity lost) and money itself to get from A to B the land in between A and B is absorbing some of your hard earned income (and that of everyone else who has to pass it by every day) for doing precisely nothing.

Land values are effectively a tax on all production and one we already pay anyway. Getting rid of all those other taxes on production and capturing for the community the rental values of land will create such a different more equitable economic playing field on which we all continue to ply our various trades.

We've seen much over recent weeks about how awful the City has been. How banks have made rash dodgy loans. Short sellers, overpaid executives and whatever else...

But I'll let you into a little secret: for every loan there is both a lender, perhaps a dodgy spiv with too high a bonus to be sure, but just as importantly there has also to be a borrower.

We have seen a little po-faced political bemoaning of the culture of consumer debt, but this unsecured credit - spending money - does not appear to be the primary debt that has caused this collapse. With few exceptions, when the banks talk about the sub-prime loans lying like a half-dead half-back at the base of a maul, they are talking about mortgages. Are not these borrowers to be condemned in equal proportion? Did the bankers force them to borrow? Are not they just as greedy, in their own way, as the bankers making themselves rich on those borrowers' seeming insatiable demands for more money? Maybe these are the real "sub-prime loons" that are really responsible for bringing our economies near to systemic collapse?

Of course it would be electoral suicide to lay so much blame on the ordinary "Joe Sixpack, the hockey mom". And indeed it would be quite wrong to do so. For most of those mortgage borrowers, perhaps especially what has become known, horribly disparagingly, as the "sub-prime" borrowers, were being completely rational. Rational, that is, in an utterly irrational system. And the results of that rational behaviour are now serving to highlight just how irrational the system is.

Indeed, it is so utterly irrational a system that those borrowers we might want instinctively accuse of being the least rational - those whose chances of paying off the large loans were the smallest - are in fact the most rational. Because in that mad upward spiral of house prices, those still left renting would be the worst hit. The urgency of getting out of renting and fixing your future housing costs at today's rates is all the more pressing.

Because here's the second little secret for tonight: we all rent.

This may seem counter-intuitive in a world where 70% of folk "own" their home and most of the rest want to. If you are, or can recall when you were, on the point of making the transition from renting to buying the first time, this will be easier to understand. One of the factors in your decision to stop renting and to buy instead will have been whether the mortgage payments, as compared with your current rent payments, are reasonable value, over the length of time you expect to be needing to use that property.

Of course there are many other factors as well. Some in favour of ownership, such as being able to improve, redecorate or even trash the property, and having the prospect of capital growth. Some in favour of renting, such as not being responsible for all the maintenance, or not being stuck with a mill stone if you can't sell it when you need to move. And of course the supreme benefits: a. you don't need to charge yourself rent - after all you are paying for it anyway and b. if you get to the end of your payments okay, you get it rent free for as long as you like and still get to sell the rights to it hopefully at a tidy profit.

But as tradable assets, our properties are valued on the basis of the yield it could achieve to an investment buyer now, and their view of how that is going to change over the time they expect to hold the investment. And when we buy a home, what we are actually buying is the right to collect the rent on that property for several years ahead at a "fixed" price today that we think will benefit us. Few owner occupier buyers will probably think about it that clinically. They might instead look at local comparisons to assess what they ought to be willing to pay. But so long as there is a rental market, and since there are some disbenefits to ownership as noted above it is likely that there will always remain a rental market, the money-value to the market is going to be based on its current and future rental potential and the overall yield over the time an investor would expect to hold that property investment.

So, what rising house prices indicate is that investors believe that there are going to be higher returns in terms of future rent potential. And if you are still a tenant, higher returns to the landlord mean higher costs to you. So if it is economic to freeze the rent payments at or near today's levels for the foreseeable future, you definitely want to do so. This becomes a bubble because the effect of future expectations compounds itself. Throw in relatively cheap loans and people can afford more in the present to secure those expected future gains.

Okay, now having, I hope, got you thinking in terms of "rent" I want to get you thinking about the different components of this "rent".

Take two identical, some might call them identikit, homes. Two same model "Barratt boxes". Only one is in Kensington & Chelsea, the other in Blaenau Gwent. I choose them because they are the highest and the lowest respectively local authorities by "land value" in England and Wales. Three bedroom, 100 sq m and with a rebuild cost of £1500 per sq m. On the face of it, they ought to cost about the same to buy, somewhere around £150,000, but of course they don't, do they.

If you managed to find the same little plot in K&C as in Blaenau on which to place your "Barratt box" you'd probably find that in Blaenau it would cost next to nothing - probably a couple of thousand pound per plot, for the trouble of clearing it! But in K&C it would cost several million and probably wouldn't be worth your while putting that Barratt box on it! In fact, in the recent purchase of Chelsea Barracks by the Candy brothers, which was reported as £959m for 12.8 acres, your average tenth of an acre plot would set you back a cool £7.3 million.

In fact, the Chelsea Barracks site is a good one to look at, since it will not involve criticizing the "poor widow" for not developing her prime land, but the government! What did the government, the Ministry of Defence do to make that barracks land so valuable? It certainly wasn't its former use as a barracks! It's not because it was a barracks that makes it an in demand site. But because of all the economic and social activity that goes on around the site. In fact, once upon a time, as a barracks, no doubt the site would have attracted the usual motley collection of military hangers on - whore-houses, bars and so on - it may even have depressed local land values initially, but certainly for the past few decades holding it out of its more productive use has meant other local prices have been pushed higher than they would be if all that land had been used productively.

In fact, the proportion of the "rent" due to the value of the building, the same sort of building as in Blaenau, is a tiny fraction of the overall rent. The rest is due to the location. The popularity of a location which is made up of dozens of factors, but centres around the fact that there are hundreds, thousands, of people who could beneficially make use of that location to be nearer work, social and other opportunities created by the surrounding community.

Now, here's the easy part to remember. What Land Value Taxers want to see, from David Ricardo, Adam Smith, J S Mill, Henry George to Lloyd-George, Churchill, Asquith and many others to the present day, is that the portion of the rent a property yields due to its location, and not the building on it, should be collected by the community and redistributed amongst the community instead of privatised by the highest bidder (or in some cases still the person with the most brutal land grabbing ancestor!), shored up by cheap bank loans. It is rent due to its monopoly as a good location that many people could make use of rather than any effort of the landowner.

In an LVT based tax system, when you "buy" your home, you'd be buying the right to collect the rent for the building alone. This is something you as an owner can affect, through your diligence or negligence in maintaining it or in building something of higher density on the same site. In the language that a typical home buyer will understand better, we want you to pay the £150,000 for the Barratt box to Barratt or the previous occupier, but you pay the remainder, the rent caused by its location, in annually assessed chunks, to the state instead of paying taxes on the earnings from your economically productive labour.

You can already, I hope, see the advantages. This bubble we have lived through over the past decade, the angst of people priced out of the market stressing about if they ever will get out of renting, the ballooning of borrowing that now threatens the very system that created it, will be things of the past. For as long as you can justify paying the location rent given the benefits that particular location gives you nobody can shift you. If that rent rises it is a sign that more and more people are being excluded from land that they might make more productive use of than you. Why should you be able to exclude them for as long as you like and then also reap a massive profit from having cost so many others much money "avoiding" your plot?

Instead of that home in Kensington & Chelsea costing you £7.35 million up front, it'll cost you £150,000 or so up front, which you can borrow to pay for if you need to, and a hefty annual location rent bill instead of both the remaining £7.2 m mortgage it would have cost you to buy the location up front and your income and other taxes on productive labour. Your disposable income is likely to be maybe 30% higher just for losing those income taxes. You can save in a wider range of productive assets for your future than just the monopolistic endeavour of owning a popular, or up and coming location. You may even choose to save so you can continue to pay the location rent when you stop earning for whatever reason - though most would probably find it just as good to save for an income in retirement and to downsize or move so that someone else can have the benefit of the local school you no longer use, the local rail station you no longer commute from and whatever other factors have made your location a popular one and for the proximity of which you would continue to pay even after you have stopped using them.

In the lingo, this is called creating "free land". Returning it to common ownership and paying as you go to occupy the bit that most suits you at any particular time of your life.

Even apart from the source of government revenue this would provide (though some of us would prefer to see the rent collected and simply doled out to all citizens in that community as a community dividend, a basic universal non-withdrawable income in place of most cash benefits) it fundamentally shifts the burden away from working and producing and onto inefficient use of scarce resources.

It is essential in an environmentally responsible regime, because it makes the choice of whether to live close and not pollute by commuting or to live far and spend a fortune in travel costs, more available to more people.

And it is essential in a liberal regime, as it gives people a choice in the "taxes" they pay - the tax savvy will soon work out that if they can spot an up and coming area that still meets their needs early they will pay less tax and watch the services there get better as others catch on, until it reaches some kind of equilibrium again. And it stop people making monopoly profits out of excluding others from what we all need access to - a location to base ourselves at.

This would be so much more than just a "tax switch" though - it would so fundamentally change the fairness, equit, economic justice for millions of people who, knowingly or not, are trapped in a system that takes money from them to line the pockets of landowners, the ranks of whom are getting ever more distant for many people all the time.

They've been talking about poverty in Glasgow for a long time. They've been into land reform as well. Not just the work of Mary Barbour and the Glasgow Women's Housing Association and rent strikes during the first war, but at the turn of the twentieth century Glasgow was also the de facto HQ in Britain of the Single Tax movement, those followers of Henry George's idea of taxing land values. The poverty in the city was legendary, and it was it seems often used as an example by either side in the land tax debates almost exactly a century ago.

Here's a response from Winston Churchill in the House of Commons to the leader of the opposition, Arthur Balfour's attempts to rubbish the idea:

One hundred years ago, the Liberal Party could have begun to eradicate Glasgow's poverty once and for all. How sad that a hundred years later Glasgow East continues to shine mostly as an example of those same problems we could have solved all those years ago. What benefit has the political game been to them in all those years? What good the franchise? What good socialism? Or the vested interests of the Tories' friends? BBC News tonight suggested that this might be the most important by-election in thirty years. Maybe for the first time in a century someone could once again explain how they are going to make life really better for the constituency's long suffering inhabitants. And then make it happen.

There's this extraordinary debate going on (well actually the comments are closed) on ConservativeHome about a piece by a chappie called Tony Makara who is advocating a protectionist trade policy the likes of which has not been seen in the UK for a generation:

Anthony Makara: Britain imports too much

Over the last weeks I've read much about the subject of welfare reform. The arguments about incapacity benefit and workfare. However all these strategies for welfare reform fail to answer one fundamental question. How are we going to get people into work? I believe all the proposed plans for welfare reform will fail because they do not tell us how we are to create the one million plus jobs needed to end welfare dependency. This is because the British economy no longer produces the jobs that the unemployed need. Lets face it, a person is either in work or they are on benefit, it really is that simple, the answer to unemployment is to create jobs. [From ConservativeHome's Platform: Anthony Makara: Britain imports too much]

The outrage in the comments is interesting. We all know the Tories made a seismic shift in the mid-late seventies in embracing what they liked to call "free trade". Of course, without radical tariff eradication and resolute policing of monopoly and cartel, there is no truly free trade. But what is interesting is that this was the debate over which Winston Churchill first left the Tories at the turn of the twentieth century and joined the free trade Liberals.

You see, for forty years, free trade was a policy of the "left" (indeed much longer if we go back to the Radicals and the Corn Laws debates), a key plank of trying to increase the returns to labour and in reducing the cost of necessities to make the average working person better off, either through higher wages or through lower prices (they have the same effects). It was Philip Snowden, the Labour chancellor of the exchequer, who wrote in a foreword to a new edition of Henry George's book of the same name "Protection or Free Trade" that...

"Each new generation has in a large measure to re-learn the truths which its ancestors established by discussion and practical experience. Free Traders have been so confident in the fundamental soundness of their faith and in the security of the system, that they have neglected to keep the rising generation well grounded in the principles of the faith."

He was writing in response to the Tories' re-adoption of a protectionist stance in the face of the beginnings of the Great Depression.

I have no doubt that most Tories today believe in something called "free trade". I don't believe that most of them actually realise how far away we are from it and what steps will be necessary to get there. But I am sure myself that if we get there, we will all benefit. As Snowden also wrote, "Protection is the foster-mother of monopoly, and monopoly in all its forms...is the robbery of the community for the benefit of private interests" (you can see why Tories would like the idea!).

It is worth mentioning that the Lib Dems have a consultation paper out on the UK Response to Globalization. Go respond - we must resist any attempts at introducing protectionist policies.

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.