Fine the Landlords

Part 2

By M. Randolph Hamilton

Determining whether or not an idea or ideal is libertarian or socialist requires putting the idea or ideal though a litmus test. We have seen what a socialist is. Let's take a look at the what a libertarian is.

A libertarian is best described as one who believes that people have the right to live theirs lives anyway they see fit so long as they do not infringe on that same rights of others. That means that people cannot have government intrude on the free workings of the market and still call themselves libertarian. Well, to be fair, they cannot call the idea to involve government as libertarian.

OK, so we now know the difference in a libertarian and a socialist. Why then would this site have a common thread of thought from multiple libertarians? When one is described as libertarian or socialist, it is a description used for the individual because most of his leanings or beliefs are libertarian or socialist. If I have 8 libertarian beliefs and two socialist beliefs, that does not make my socialist beliefs libertarian by default because I am generally libertarian. We cannot claim on the one hand that government should do no more than protect our individual liberties and on the other that it should control rent of land. That is ...well...hypocritical.

As pointed out previously, this site is proposing that we "fine" landlords who rent land without buildings. They claim it is okay to rent buildings or sell them, but people should not rent the land alone without being fined for it. Their basic philosophy is we should all get some free land and not have to go very far to get it. This is not only unreasonable, but impracticable. People tend to congregate in cities where they can get access to modern conveniences. They do this usually voluntarily in some cases and because they happened to be born there in most cases. Sometimes, there will be a large influx of people to a given area, because of new industry creating new jobs. Usually, when there is a large demand for any given item, the cost for that item goes up.

So if there is enough land in a given area, like Miami, to give each of 1 million people free land "of average quality", what do we do with the 1,000,001st person?

People have the opportunity to buy real estate just like anyone else. This site proposes they should not have to; equating the buying of land to paying "a one-time freedom tax". People have to live somewhere and they do have a choice. There are still places where people can get free land. I was once offered a lot in a town in Kansas by the mayor of the town if I would agree to build a house on it. So there is a free market solution without interference by government, even though it was a lot owned by the town that was being offered.

We should also take note at this point, that although it is a nifty idea to give everyone upon his birth a parcel of land, there will still be people, and I am sure a good portion of them, who will sell that parcel for the money so they can blow it on gambling, drugss a new boat or whatever got their fancy that week. We cannot force people to live responsible lives, although, in a libertarian society, people are more likely to do so, because government would not be forcing producers to pay for failures.

Fruits of Your Labor

John Stuart Mill is quoted as having said,

Landlords "grow richer as it were, in their sleep, without working, risking, or economising." It is "a kind of income which constantly tends to increase, without any exertion or sacrifice on the part of the owners." (John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, bk.5, ch.2, sec.5) [Note that Mill is referring to ownership of land itself, which landlords did not produce, which is different from ownership of buildings, which are products of human effort]

This is not actually an accurate opinion. People who invest in real estate are doing so in the hopes of making an income. As was evidenced by the number of businesses and towns that dried up after the building of the federal expressway system in the united States of America, it is not always as sweet potato pie as those who do not participate or have participated in real estate investment would have you believe. The value of much real estate decreased along with the increase of real estate along the highway system.

It is also not accurate that the funds use to purchase land is not the product of the landlord. The money earned to pay for the land was due to the fruits of his labor.

Defend Freedom™