But, if you think about it, that is true of all commodities. They are all composed of essentially indestructible base materials, which are always scarce to a degree and which would cause inherent problems if they all wound up being owned by a small group of people in the future. There is nothing particularly special about land, other than the fact that it is one of the easiest commodities to “harvest” in terms of labour input and that laying claim to it is inherently visible.
If you are against private ownership of land, you are against private ownership of all commodities.
- Jaded Voluntarist, Samizdata commenting on a post about Land Value Tax.
I agree with JV but would go further. It appears to me the basic argument for LVT is to kind of force people to be “productive” with their assets. It seems it takes almost a moral view on this. I don’t know in what sense JV meant “commodity” but I see no reason, if you accept the LVT logic, not to extend this argument to all property from a heap of coal (a commodity in the technical sense) to things that aren’t commodities but just “stuff people own”.
Let’s say you own a helicopter. Why not, by the LVT logic, should you not pay Air-transport Value Tax on the chopper because you might decide to use it to run an air-taxi business? Well, why not? Those hundred acres you own might similarly be used to raise crops, build houses or whatever in exactly the same way.
So, you don’t have a hundred acres or a whirly-bird but I bet you have a computer? So why not Website Development Tax on the basis of owning a computer?
To take it to a sort of reductio ad absurdam in terms of possessions – what of underwear? You might have those frillies and posing pouches for purely personal reasons but that doesn’t mean they can’t potentially be used to pursue a career as an “exotic dancer” (or similar) any less than the hundred acres of land be used to enter into organic market-gardening? So why not just tax them the same way?
My point here is that if the mere ownership of land can can be taxed on the basis of it’s perceived economic potential then so can everything else. The LVT principle means an undermining of the entire principle of private property whether the mightiest of estates or the skimpiest of g-strings.
PS. And before anyone starts… I appreciate foxy underwear doesn’t last as long as land but in much the same way your underwear drawer’s contents need maintaining with a continual influx of expenditure so does property if you want to maintain the value of either.