Ask a Libertarian Socialist

[Geoist]

Land may or may not be the fruits of labor.

It is if you are God.

I don't believe an individual should own land just by finding it first.

Agreed.

I believe once enough work has been invested into the land, that individual, or group, should own it.

How much work is 'enough?' Ask 10 different people and you will probably get 10 different answers. Also, who decides how much work is enough to declare the land 'private property?'

Land is frequently altered and transformed for housing purposes. If I build my house on a plot of land, how can I own the house and not the dirt beneath it? This would mean anybody could use the dirt beneath my house.

Well, it would be impossible for anyone else to use the dirt beneath your house. I am actually open to a minimum acreage remaining tax free to account for living space.

But government, by its very nature, is coercive. The government is funded through taxation, i.e. theft. I agree that unjustified coercion should be retaliated against, just disagree that a coercive institution is the means we should use.

I agree that nearly all taxes are theft, but I just see land 'tax' as different.

As mentioned before, coercion is not inherently immoral/unjustified. If coercion is used to defend self or (true) property then I believe it is justified. I believe we all have a right to access the Earth. If any part of it is closed off for exclusive use then that is coercion. A 'tax' is justifiable retribution.

This man wouldn't be able to own the entire earth because property rights must be acknowledged by other people to actually exist.

If we are going by current standards of land ownership, then all he needs is a title.

1 man, or group of men, claiming ownership of the earth would not have this claim recognized by other people.

True, the idea of one man owning the entire Earth is ridiculous. I guess that goes back to my earlier question on how much land do we 'own' once we put in x amount of work? Did the first man have ownership over the entire Earth since he was here first and was first to work it? Was it his decision to divy up the land between his offspring? If he wanted to, could he have denied all of it to one of them? We are all inheritors of the Earth so I believe we all have a right to access it. To take our current system to its logical end, then none of us have a right to access the Earth. We can only get permission to use it. And if we wanted a piece to call our own we must purchase it from the 'owner.'

We recognize governments as legitimate landholders, unfortunately, because of our flawed upbringing.

I don't see government as any more legitimate of a landholder than an individual or corporation.

Our hunter-gatherer days taught us to rally behind strong authority figures, even if they are actually detrimental to our existence.

While hunter-gatherer societies obviously had their leaders, they usually did not have governments (at least in the form we know it) until agriculture began. And while life was often tough for hunter-gatherers, they were at least mostly free due to the recognition of common property. Its interesting: Landownership began at the same time as the State. This was because the landlords WERE the State.

Now, there exists 1 major, defining distinction between governments and landlords. 1 operates through force and violence, the other through voluntary means.

It only appears voluntary because we have far more landlords than we have governments. Mainstream libertarians say if you do not like the rules/rent of your landlord then you just need to find a new landlord. But do not statists say the same thing about government? "If you don't like the taxes/laws then you can just move to another county/city/state/country."

We do not have the right to live on somebody elses property, be it a house, apartment, suite, or otherwise.

No one has a right to the fruits of your labor, there is no disagreement on that.

No force is introduced when I deny an individual access to my home.

Actually force can be introduced to deny access to one's home, and justifiably. It is called the police department.

In a free-market, if you reject the landlords offer, you would have the freedom to build a house on some other plot of unclaimed land. This isn't the present reality, because government claims to own land it has no right to own.

I think it is a stretch to say that if the government did not own the land that there would still be unclaimed land. If the State declared that all the federal land was going to be sold tomorrow I guarantee you there wouldn't be an inch of unclaimed land left.

I will read this book in my spare time. For now, how would you define a free market?

I define the free market as the open and voluntary exchange of services, goods, and information. It is also a system without the privileges we witness today.

Goods are finite though? The amount of say iron ore is only going to decrease as it is transformed. How is a finite good different from finite land?

Certainly, the resources to create the goods are not endless. However, my point was that we can produce more goods while we cannot produce more land. That is why economists say land is fixed in supply.

 

[bonfire]

How much work is 'enough?' Ask 10 different people and you will probably get 10 different answers. Also, who decides how much work is enough to declare the land 'private property?'

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Apologies once more for the late reply. It takes awhile to write out these responses and time is always so limited.
I honestly have no idea how much work is enough to consider something somebodies property. Does this mean we through out all notions of private property? Surely not.

Well, it would be impossible for anyone else to use the dirt beneath your house. I am actually open to a minimum acreage remaining tax free to account for living space.

I'm confused. Are you saying you wouldn't tax land used for housing? If so, why make this distinction?

If we are going by current standards of land ownership, then all he needs is a title.

Which is more signifying than most other property. All I have is a receipt for most of the items I own. I have zero paperwork for things like gifts, yet they are still my property.

True, the idea of one man owning the entire Earth is ridiculous. I guess that goes back to my earlier question on how much land do we 'own' once we put in x amount of work? Did the first man have ownership over the entire Earth since he was here first and was first to work it? Was it his decision to divy up the land between his offspring? If he wanted to, could he have denied all of it to one of them? We are all inheritors of the Earth so I believe we all have a right to access it. To take our current system to its logical end, then none of us have a right to access the Earth. We can only get permission to use it. And if we wanted a piece to call our own we must purchase it from the 'owner.'

This argument can be made for any piece of property. How can I not have a 'right' to your personal belongings, which all derive from land, yet still have a 'right' to land? Both can be modified, so that argument can't be made. Both are finite. What argument is left?

I don't see government as any more legitimate of a landholder than an individual or corporation.

Yet you still wish to give government the power of taxation over land. In a sense, you are making government into the landlord. How is a government charging 'rent', taxes, any different from an individual or corporation doing the same exact thing?

While hunter-gatherer societies obviously had their leaders, they usually did not have governments (at least in the form we know it) until agriculture began. And while life was often tough for hunter-gatherers, they were at least mostly free due to the recognition of common property. Its interesting: Landownership began at the same time as the State. This was because the landlords WERE the State.

Landownership began, and exists, absent the state. Historical anarchist societies recognized property rights. The so called 'wild west' recognized land ownership absent the state. Pioneers would create extra-legal organizations to sort out land ownership claims. Of course, the state eventually got involved and distorted property ownership as it so frequently and fervently does.

It only appears voluntary because we have far more landlords than we have governments. Mainstream libertarians say if you do not like the rules/rent of your landlord then you just need to find a new landlord. But do not statists say the same thing about government? "If you don't like the taxes/laws then you can just move to another county/city/state/country."

Nobody has the right to live in a landowners establishment. I make no distinction between living in a space and temporarily occupying a space. A person has no right to enter my home without permission, much less live on it.
The main distinction between government and landlords deals directly with property rights. The government simply claims to own property, and seizes this property through force and violence. Your typical landlord doesn't just make claim to a plot of land and charge in with guns drawn. They acquire the land through peaceful means, not with aggression. Typically this means buying land from the government, which I find appalling. But this brings up an interesting point. At what point does property I illegitimately acquired become mine? If I steal a pencil from you 30 years ago, should you have the right to take it back? What if my grandfather stole from your grandfather?

Actually force can be introduced to deny access to one's home, and justifiably. It is called the police department.

True, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that no aggression, immorality, or otherwise occurs when I deny somebody access to my home. The guest is not being aggressed upon.

I think it is a stretch to say that if the government did not own the land that there would still be unclaimed land. If the State declared that all the federal land was going to be sold tomorrow I guarantee you there wouldn't be an inch of unclaimed land left.

True, because government runs a monopoly on courts and laws. They legitimize ownership of land no matter how its acquired. Remove government from the equation and you will find unclaimed land. Excuse the analogy, but this would be equivalent to removing the man with an ace of spades up his sleeve from a poker game. Remove the cheater, and the game may be played fairly.

I define the free market as the open and voluntary exchange of services, goods, and information. It is also a system without the privileges we witness today.

Well said.

Certainly, the resources to create the goods are not endless. However, my point was that we can produce more goods while we cannot produce more land. That is why economists say land is fixed in supply.

Gold is a good and we can't produce more than what already exists, same as land. Does this entitle everyone to gold? Plenty of resources and goods are in shorter supply than land, yet you don't see to be advocating common ownership over these things? Is this not a contradiction?

 

[Geoist]

Bonfire, I will respond asap.

In the meantime, I think some posters, especially Kindness, will find these links on libertarian socialism interesting:

I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? | Anarchist Writers
How a Libertarian Capitalist Became a Libertarian Socialist

 

[Geoist]

I honestly have no idea how much work is enough to consider something somebodies property.Does this mean we through out all notions of private property? Surely not.

I agree that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. The fruits of your labor should be respected by the community. You build a house then no one else should have a right to take it away or use it without your permission. But I see land as common property. It is something we all have a right to access. Does that mean we do away with all land titles? I don't believe so. I believe private control of land has its place in society (ie farming). But I believe those denied access to that common property should be given restitution for that loss.

I'm confused. Are you saying you wouldn't tax land used for housing? If so, why make this distinction?

I make the distinction because I see it as a compromise or part of the transition. I am more concerned about the land hoarding/speculation/absentee ownership that goes on (for example, the biggest landowner in America owns 2 million acres), than the poor family that has 1/2 an acre they live and work on.

Which is more signifying than most other property. All I have is a receipt for most of the items I own. I have zero paperwork for things like gifts, yet they are still my property.

I'm sure slaveowners had paperwork, as well. There is property under the law, and then there is natural property. Those gifts are your natural property because there was a creator of those gifts who decided to trade it to you or whoever gave it to you.

This argument can be made for any piece of property. How can I not have a 'right' to your personal belongings, which all derive from land, yet still have a 'right' to land?

We all have a right to the land. We don't have a right to deny the land to others. However, we may acquire the privilege to hold the land privately. I believe that privilege is only justified when the community is reimbursed for this exclusion.

Both can be modified, so that argument can't be made.

The land can be improved. The improvements are your property. The land (space) itself remains common property.

Both are finite.

Land is not only finite but also fixed in supply which is partly why it is unique from capital.
What is Land Economics?

When demand for capital goes up, the supply of capital increases. When the demand for land goes up, supply stays the same but its price increases.

Yet you still wish to give government the power of taxation over land. In a sense, you are making government into the landlord.

Land is already taxed, yet no one is making the argument that the government is the landlord right now. Geoists do not advocate for the government telling people how to use the land or who they may trade it to. The only difference under a geoist tax system is that the property tax system would be replaced with a land value tax system. That means no more paying taxes on houses or other improvements. Oh, and if you want a really pure geoist system there would also be no more income or sales tax.

How is a government charging 'rent', taxes, any different from an individual or corporation doing the same exact thing?

The community-generated wealth returns to the community, either through citizen's dividend which some of the Founding Fathers advocated, or through the funding of programs (or both, depending on the community). An individual/corporation renting out the land profits individually from the community-generated wealth.

Landownership began, and exists, absent the state. Historical anarchist societies recognized property rights.

Anarchist societies often respected each other's right to use specific plots of land, but still saw the land as common property. Usually, the 'private ownership' was temporary or restrictive in other ways. Most Native American groups are a classic example. You will not find huge tracts of land privately held, or absentee landownership in anarchist societies like we see today.

Will respond to the rest later. Break over.

 

[Geoist]

Nobody has the right to live in a landowners establishment. I make no distinction between living in a space and temporarily occupying a space. A person has no right to enter my home without permission, much less live on it.

I also do not believe anyone has the right to enter your home without permission. I don't think you'll meet many socialists or libertarian socialists who would advocate such a thing.

The main distinction between government and landlords deals directly with property rights. The government simply claims to own property, and seizes this property through force and violence. Your typical landlord doesn't just make claim to a plot of land and charge in with guns drawn. They acquire the land through peaceful means, not with aggression.

The acquisition of land requires aggression, doesn't matter if the party is private or public. Sure, you may buy some land from someone who already 'owns' it. But how did that original owner come to have it? By forcing others off/keeping others off what was common property.

Typically this means buying land from the government, which I find appalling.

Agreed.

But this brings up an interesting point. At what point does property I illegitimately acquired become mine? If I steal a pencil from you 30 years ago, should you have the right to take it back? What if my grandfather stole from your grandfather?

This is the central point behind Kevin Carson's term 'subsidy of history.' Should we recognize land titles that were acquired through aggression (ie kicking Native Americans or other settlers off or forcing them to pay rent to a landlord when they were there first?) Should we recognize certain property/land/patent rights for those who benefited (directly or indirectly through inheritance) at the taxpayer's expense? What measures should be taken by the government to correct these mistakes? I'm glad you ask this question because it is one that many right-libertarians willingly ignore.

True, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that no aggression, immorality, or otherwise occurs when I deny somebody access to my home. The guest is not being aggressed upon.

I would agree that there is no aggression in protecting the fruits of labor (though there may be a certain amount of justifiable force). However, as stated, I believe land is common property and therefore cannot be denied without aggression.

True, because government runs a monopoly on courts and laws. They legitimize ownership of land no matter how its acquired. Remove government from the equation and you will find unclaimed land. Excuse the analogy, but this would be equivalent to removing the man with an ace of spades up his sleeve from a poker game. Remove the cheater, and the game may be played fairly.

What happens to the land titles then if they cannot be enforced by a government?

Gold is a good and we can't produce more than what already exists, same as land.

Does this entitle everyone to gold? Plenty of resources and goods are in shorter supply than land, yet you don't see to be advocating common ownership over these things? Is this not a contradiction?

Gold can be privately acquired just like any resource. Its the exclusion of access that requires a 'tax' imho.

 

[Geoist]

A recent article from the Guardian addressing the very issues we are discussing:


Much of the wealth of private householders has also been provided by the state. The value of our homes, for example, has been greatly enhanced by the infrastructure and public services the state provides. Yet the proposal to reclaim some of this unearned wealth through a land value tax is angrily dismissed by the party promoting a bedroom tax for the poor.

Similarly, every year taxpayers in this country spend £3.6bn on farm subsidies. We could by now have bought all the farmland in Britain several times over. But this money has earned us no property rights: farmers still feel entitled to announce at public meetings that "it's my land and I will do what I want with it". Most of the land in this country, if you go back far enough, was seized from other people -– often, in the case of the commons, from entire communities. Much of the law we abide by today was drafted to formalise these seizures.

There is a sacred line that divides the world into public and private property. The line is arbitrary and moves every year: ever further across the public realm. But it is policed religiously. As soon as you can bundle the public wealth you've snatched over the line and into the hallowed ground of the private sector, you can claim sanctuary.

Among the Russian government's backers are oligarchs who were enriched by acquiring government assets at a fraction of their value. Their political alliances have ensured that their wealth is neither questioned nor reclaimed by the government. But when the government of Cyprus plans to acquire some of the assets stashed by tax-avoiding oligarchs, the Russian prime minister denounces it as "stealing".

What of the gagging clauses deployed by banks or oil companies or insurance firms, which shield their malpractice from public scrutiny? Where in the media or in government have you heard a call for those to be removed? And why should freedom of information laws stop at the fence marked "private: keep out"? Why, for example, should we not have the right to know what the banks are cooking up?
Property, theft and how we must breach this sacred line | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[jmotivator]

Good Lord are loons like Monbiot insufferable. On one hand he argues that private information should be made public to suit the government tax demands, and on the other he bemoans the corrupt Russian state that benefits the rich. For him a state is only nobel when it is taxing, apparently.

He also argues that the state adds value to the houses so therefor they have every right to levy yet another tax on land value. But then the reverse is also true. Building houses adds value to the land. Without people building homes on the roads the roads would be a bit of a waste. But then Monbiot's screed is the forever song of the tax-the-rich crowd. If the state so much as lifts a finger they will claim the finger lift as justification for 37 different taxes, ignoring that the finger lift was paid for on the first tax, and the other 36 were a simple shake down.

Anyway, I demand full access to George Monbiot's life to see what he is "cooking up". All emails to all people, all bank accounts, etc... I here that someone who wrote something at some point did bad things, so obviously Monbiot, being a someone who wrote something, can't be trusted. Let's get to the bottom of this.

 

[Geoist]

He also argues that the state adds value to the houses so therefor they have every right to levy yet another tax on land value. But then the reverse is also true. Building houses adds value to the land.

And that is why Single Taxers believe that the value of the house belongs fully to the owner of that house and should remain untaxed.

 

[dnsmith]

Man did not make the earth!

Correct! But man certainly makes the resources to buy his own parcel of land and hold it in freehold without the fear of governmental whim without just compensation.

 

[Geoist]

Correct! But man certainly makes the resources to buy his own parcel of land and hold it in freehold without the fear of governmental whim without just compensation.

Buy it from who? Did the original holder buy it from God?

 

[dnsmith]

Buy it from who? Did the original holder buy it from God?

Then by right of claim and building and improving. But the fact remains land is owned by someone, either individuals or governments, state/national and can now be purchased based on the earning from the sweat of ones brow. I would not have anything to do with land that was not owned in fee simple/freehold.

 

[Geoist]

Then by right of claim and building and improving.

There is no need for building and improving if all one needs is a claim (and that is how it has worked throughout history).

But the fact remains land is owned by someone, either individuals or governments, state/national and can now be purchased based on the earning from the sweat of ones brow.

So were slaves.

 

[dnsmith]

There is no need for building and improving if all one needs is a claim (and that is how it has worked throughout history).

So were slaves.

That is a perversion of the thought I was conveying. The fact remains, I like the way we treat it in the US; whereas we can buy land, we can own the land, we can (or not) own the fruits of the land to include mineral rights if we bought them along with them. I could care less if some place at some time in history land was not owed but man had a solid control over the land he claimed, or possessed, or rented from the government. What you call ground rent, I call tax. If I control the land and reap its benefits, it is irrelevant what you call it.

I could accept the concept of the land belongs to all, PROVIDED, in which ever way it is allowed for me to come into the possession of land I and I alone can reap all the benefits of that land.

 

[dnsmith]

The very cornerstone of the most prosperous economic system the world has ever known is concrete recognition of private property and the protection of the right to private property, one of the few purposes of government. Land ownership being obviously one of the principle types of private property rights!

 

[Geoist]

That is a perversion of the thought I was conveying.

It is the logical conclusion.

The fact remains, I like the way we treat it in the US; whereas we can buy land, we can own the land, we can (or not) own the fruits of the land to include mineral rights if we bought them along with them.

Under a geoist system people still buy land, control land, and own the fruits of labor. You just pay for the exclusionary "rights."

I could care less if some place at some time in history land was not owed but man had a solid control over the land he claimed, or possessed, or rented from the government.

So now you're saying government has/had a RIGHT to the land? Gotta love the non-proviso lockean logic.

What you call ground rent, I call tax. If I control the land and reap its benefits, it is irrelevant what you call it.

Control does not mean a right. The slavemasters controlled the slaves but that did not mean it was their right to do so.

I could accept the concept of the land belongs to all, PROVIDED, in which ever way it is allowed for me to come into the possession of land I and I alone can reap all the benefits of that land.

And you have not explained how the originally possessor came to "own" that land rightfully. And don't tell me purchasing it. I want to know how the originally possessor acquired this "right" to exclusive control of common property.

 

[Geoist]

The very cornerstone of the most prosperous economic system the world has ever known is concrete recognition of private property and the protection of the right to private property, one of the few purposes of government. Land ownership being obviously one of the principle types of private property rights!

The most successful communities recognized common property in land and protected private property in the fruits of labor at the same time. When the land is distributed to only a few, we get a huge gap between rich and poor like we have witnessed in Africa and South America.


If you are familiar at all with freeD market libertarians then you'd be familiar with Albert Jay Nock. You would find no bigger critic of the State and yet he wrote:


The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry. --Albert J. Nock "Thoughts on Utopia"
Albert Nock

 

[YoungConserv]

I still think this whole concept is contodictary

 

[dnsmith]

It is the logical conclusion.

In your dreams.

Under a geoist system people still buy land, control land, and own the fruits of labor. You just pay for the exclusionary "rights."

Tax not rent, and all mineral and use rights remain with the owner.

So now you're saying government has/had a RIGHT to the land? Gotta love the non-proviso lockean logic.

Did not say that. Only when there is a bonafide "eminent domain" (not capricious) question can government get into the mix.

Control does not mean a right. The slavemasters controlled the slaves but that did not mean it was their right to do so.

Land is a thing, slaves are people, big difference. Control of ones land is a right subject only to the conditions the owner chooses to accept when acquiring the land.

And you have not explained how the originally possessor came to "own" that land rightfully. And don't tell me purchasing it. I want to know how the originally possessor acquired this "right" to exclusive control of common property.

I don't care about something which happened outside of living memory. What is the state of the issue today. In the legal world that is what tends to take precedence. Of course rarely when injustices are proved to have occurred in time past there can be justice. The very tenet of capitalism (the most successful economic system the world has ever known) is protection of private property. I agree with that.

 

[Geoist]

I still think this whole concept is contodictary

Nothing contradictory about voluntary action.

 

[Geoist]

Did not say that.

Yes, you did. You said once someone has bought land from the State its theirs. So how did the State have the right to allocate land in the first place?

Land is a thing, slaves are people, big difference.

You argued that as long as it is controlled then there is a right to it. The history of slavery proves that theory wrong.

I don't care about something which happened outside of living memory.

You must not have found much value in history class then.

You willingly ignore the 'subsidy of history.' We have a rigged system thanks to actions of the past. The present does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[dnsmith]

Yes, you did. You said once someone has bought land from the State its theirs. So how did the State have the right to allocate land in the first place?

Either the State or the previous owner has the right to sell land. It is a natural right! There need be no other "right".

You argued that as long as it is controlled then there is a right to it. The history of slavery proves that theory wrong.

There you go again, substituting human "property" for inanimate property. You are the only one I recall trying to equate slavery to land ownership and it simply does not wash.

You must not have found much value in history class then.

That some history suggests your theory is correct is really irrelevant and I am quite satisfied with my understanding of history, not your "version" of history.

You willingly ignore the 'subsidy of history.' We have a rigged system thanks to actions of the past. The present does not exist in a vacuum.

Of course it doesn't and the wisdom of history tells us land can be claimed, bought, inherited and passed on, along with all of the rights and value to include the surface and what is under the land.

That the past saw exploitation of the common man by vast ownership and control by the few is irrelevant to the present in which individual people have acquired and used land to their advantage. Past exploitation never, not ever, justifies the state or society attempting to further that exploitation by taking away the individuals right to own land and other property. Land can be bought, sold, inherited, left as an inheritance, all lawful means to transfer ownership of land.

Neither you nor any of the citations you have referred as support suggests even a little bit of reason to support non-private owner ship of land and all of the rewards gained from it. That is especially true of the "Subsidy of History" you linked me too.

 

[Geoist]

Either the State or the previous owner has the right to sell land. It is a natural right!

Its a natural right for the State to control the land? Never heard that argument before.

There need be no other "right".

Never said there was. There are natural rights and then there are privileges.

There you go again, substituting human "property" for inanimate property. You are the only one I recall trying to equate slavery to land ownership and it simply does not wash.

I am not equating the two. However, historically, being subject to a landlord has meant being a serf (which is essentially a slave). What I am doing is putting your argument that "force" makes things natural property. THAT does not wash, and that is why I brought up slavery. Since civilization began, States have forced the people to give up their possessions (taxation). Does that make those possessions the property of the State? By law, yes. Naturally, no.

That some history suggests your theory is correct is really irrelevant and I am quite satisfied with my understanding of history, not your "version" of history.

Translation: Let's ignore the State-enforced monopolies and privileges that have propped up certain groups. Somehow, by some act of God, the past does not affect the present. We live in a bubble.

Of course it doesn't and the wisdom of history tells us land can be claimed, bought, inherited and passed on, along with all of the rights and value to include the surface and what is under the land.

History has also demonstrated how the centralization of land control can lead to rampant poverty and tremendous wealth disparity.
Reducing Poverty Through Land Reform

That the past saw exploitation of the common man by vast ownership and control by the few is irrelevant to the present in which individual people have acquired and used land to their advantage.

If a man stole your iphone and then sold the iphone to a 2nd person, does that 2nd person have legitimate ownership over that iphone?

Neither you nor any of the citations you have referred as support suggests even a little bit of reason to support non-private owner ship of land and all of the rewards gained from it.

Geoism does not mean the end of private control of land, just the deterrence of speculation. Private control of land would be no different than it is now.

That is especially true of the "Subsidy of History" you linked me too.

I would like to see quoted examples that you disagree with, please.

 

[YoungConserv]

Nothing contradictory about voluntary action.

I agree but socialism is predicated on government action not private individuals.

 

[dnsmith]

I would like to see quoted examples that you disagree with, please.

I don't have any interest in discussing specifics of the "Subsidy of History". I simply disagree that old time monopolies of land control are still relevant. IE, I don't accept any of it as valid today. Mises and Rothbard were correct about how land was monopolized by the Gentry of old. That issue has evaporated in the modern world.

 

[Geoist]

I agree but socialism is predicated on government action not private individuals.

If you look at the history of socialism you would see that the ideology was not completely dominated by statist-thinking/statist solutions. Individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker often referred to themselves as 'socialists' or 'libertarian socialists.' And while anti-state socialists today are about as rare as a Javan rhino, there are a few notable thinkers including Gary Chartier and Kevin Carson.

You may disagree on whether voluntary/grassroots actions could create a more "equal" society. And that is a fair debate. However, many people do not realize that being a "socialist" does not necessarily mean that one is a "statist."