So, just a shower thought, but georgism is often framed as a form of libertarianism, but when I discuss stuff with georgists, their views come off to me as insufferably authoritarian. Many of them are very pro work and seem big on LVT specifically because it doesn't cause disincentives to work, and at the same time, they seem to like to tell people whether they're entitled to their own home.
So to me, georgism comes off as insufferably authoritarian, to the point I have to wonder if it's really authoritarian.
But then I realized: yes, it is libertarian, it's just a more moderate form of RIGHT libertarians. Right libertarians (called propertarians by indepentarians) are generally in favor of minimal government. Minarchism is the default position of right libertarianism, with right libertarians liking to have minimal government, mostly limited to things like police and courts. Some would even go further into anarcho capitalism in which even that stuff should be privatized. And while minarchism at least works, even if it would be hell on earth, anarcho capitalism seems so laughably out of touch I'd compare it to communism.
Georgists seem to build on that minarchist consensus in liking minimum government, and also, minimal taxes. Minarchists and ancaps will claim "taxation is theft", but georgists, or as they're sometimes called, geolibertarians, believe taxation is theft....unless it's a land value tax. The problem with taxation is that it is seen as stealing, and right libertarians are big on property. Georgists tend to adopt slightly more left wing views, recognizing that no one made the land, so no one really earns it or deserves it. Therefore, taxing land is fair game. But still, other than that, geolibertarians seem to have largely right wing libertarian views of the world otherwise. Taxing labor is evil, taxing property built through human effort is labor. They're basically right libertarians with a fixation on land taxes. Land taxes are favored by these guys because they dont tax labor or effort or something they earn, but also because the tax is economically efficient, and we know how gung ho libertarians are on economics. Econ 101 is a religion among those guys. And that doesn't really change with geolibertarians, they're just slightly further left and tend to recognize that monopolization of land is harmful. But they tend to treat it as a solution to everything, even if it isn't.
You see, this is where I'm further left than a geolibertarian, but I kind of believe markets themselves are coercive. The need to do labor to survive is coercive and reduces our freedom. So I take aim at work itself, and view markets as inherently coercive institutions. And I believe a UBI, and other socdem type measures like medicare for all are needed to make the economy more free and work for the people. I view bog standard social democracy as more authoritarian than me, but I otherwise occupy the same general left-right perspective as they do. Meanwhile, right libs are libertarian conservatives, and geolibs/georgists seem to occupy a similar space to neoliberalism, with its focus on high density housing, economic efficiency, but mild left wing ideas at times. At this point I think a neolib and a social democrat are far enough apart to be distinct ideologies, and I feel like the same applies to georgism/geolibertarianism and indepentarianism.
My own ideology is in a weird place. Generally speaking, if I call myself a left libertarian I get gatekept by ideological leftists who scream I cant call myself left unless I fully oppose capitalism, but this often means I'm more a lib center "social libertarian", but at the same time, georgism is technically that too. But that ideology is further right to me, much like a US democrat is to the right of a social democrat. maybe both can be called "liberal", but they don't want the same things. The same can be said of my ideology vs geolibertarians. They're right leaning social libertarians who border on right libertarianism and neoliberalism, and I'm a left leaning social libertarian that is arguably closer to social democracy and even mild forms of socialism like market socialism. I'm like a "center left" libertarian and georgists are "center right" ones.
The difference is that I tend to see right leaning libertarians as ignorant of market forces, which I deem coercive, while they view people acting through a system of incentives as freedom with no problems at all. Meanwhile, I view georgism as just further doubling down on the tyranny of the market. Yes, you're "free" on paper, but the land value tax imposes extra economic coercion on people. It takes the worst aspect of the landlord system, having to constantly pay money to gain access to a place to live, and applies it to everyone.
We should be trying to expand property ownership. A while back, reparations for blacks enslaved by white slavers was "forty acres and a mule." By that, it was intended to give former slaves land to gain economic independence. By denying former slaves property, the former slave owners could get those slaves to continue working their plantations. A cycle of poverty does nothing but keep people enslaved. The reason I'm for UBI is to free people from de facto slavery in its own way. And while we still need to worry about landlords, I don't see how LVT is actually supposed to liberate people. It might help some renters MAYBE (I'm not even sure on this, it depends on the final policy they want, and as we know they are all over the place in what they want with no single georgist vision seeming consistent with others), but at the cost of forcing everyone into subservience.
I guess georgism is then considered "libertarian", but mostly based on right libertarian principles that ignore the tyranny of market forces. It isn't really a left leaning libertarian philosophy based on a more positive view of freedom. It might have some left wing elements with georgists using populist language regarding "taxing the rich" and going after landlords, but they seem to divide people into land owners and renters, with your typical American homeowner being considered wealthy by virtue iof having a place to live. Why, in my view we should encourage policies that turn all Americans into homeowners. The only reason I don't support guaranteed homes directly is that I suspect the logistics of such a policy would be difficult to hash out in practice. So I support UBI, which should, in theory, help people acquire homes. But yes, my own vision of libertarianism is everyone being economically self sufficient where they can't be coerced into doing anything. Working, engaging in economic activity, etc. Geolibs seem to be more right wing than that, recognizing no one deserves to own land while simply refunding people what they deem their fair share of land usage. Could some georgist theory make its way into my own policies? Sure. I've expressed support for LVT in certain limited instances and do think that a targetted LVT aimed at landlords could potentially improve the economy. But regular homeowners shouldn't be targetted, and UBI should be distinct from LVT. For a georgist, LVT is just a tax refund, whereas for me, it is a means to guarantee people freedom.
THat said, this is why I don't get along with georgists. They want different things, their ideology is different, and we don't want the same policies. Even on UBI what we want is radically different. They want a tax refund for a land tax, I want a grant large enough to live on without coercing people into economic participation.
From a rawlsian perspective I view my ideal world as superior to a georgist's. Rawls believed in a veil of ignorance in which we looked at the most disadvantaged person in society and imagined what it would be like to be them. With my ideal society, they would have a UBI, universal healthcare, and while they might struggle with the housing market at times, I have yet to find a society that actually has SOLVED housing problems. All capitalist societies have these problems. Socialist ones too. China has a housing crisis similar to that of capitalist countries, and I literally watched a video today about how the soviets would round people up if they couldnt present papers and shipped them to siberia. This was intended to discourage people from leaving rural areas and going to cities, because the USSR couldnt house people who wanted to flock to cities. It is a tale as old as time. So let's not act like there is an easy solution to housing. People want to live in cities, limited housing is available, it needs to be rationed. At least with my UBI i give people the option to move to a cheaper cost of living area. That literally would solve half the problem right there. From there we just need more housing. And we should have housing programs aimed for people on a UBI level income to be able to acquire it.
LIke, really, as I see it, I am literally trying to, from a Rawlsian perspective, ensure no American is poor.
Georgists might have an interesting perspective on housing, but they base their entire ideology on that, with no real answers to solving all questions regarding poverty. Their UBI isn't enough to live on. It has no liberating power. The taxes required to fund it zero out what little UBI exists for many people, and ultimately I view the existence of such tax as increasing the coercive potential of markets.
Honestly, I just don't see georgism as the solution. And while it is libertarian in its own way, its principles are closer to right libertarianism than my own brand of left libertarianism.
No comments:
Post a Comment