I might as well get this out of the way, while I'm making myself popular with my fellow Libertarians. Back in the days when the LPUK forum was an open one, there was a discussion of the issue of the right to roam and ownership of land. I have to say, I found some of the perspectives given rather confusing.
As far as I'm concerned, you can own a piece of land. This, apparently, is tantamount to heresy in some Libertarian circles. Personally, I found the arguments to say that you can't own a piece of land complete sophistry.
And then we got on to the right to roam: well, since I own the land, you don't have a fucking right to roam it. As someone from a rural background, I was somewhat amazed that people felt they had the right to go wandering over someone else's farm, piss in their fields, whatever.
And then someone said that the landowners don't have the right to their lands, because they were the result of enclosures. This really is the pinnacle of stupidity for me. Does anybody know anyone who is still alive who was directly affected by an enclosure? I mean, for fuck's sake, this is something that was pretty much over and done with by 1832. Slavery was abolished in 1807, I don't think we need to apologise for that, and I similarly don't believe anyone owes me an apology for the enclosures.
If we're going to divest people of property they've owned since 1285 or whenever, who are we going to give it to? The government? What will they do with it? Piss it up the wall in some stupid bit of social engineering?
What right do we have to punish people who may be very careful and generous with an asset that has been in their family for centuries? And if they've been bastards, how bad to they have to be to merit this? Is there a reward for being nice?
As far as I'm concerned, we are where we are today. There is no sensible way of redressing something that started and ended before any of us were born. Far better (in my opinion) to accept that some people were born with a privilege and accept that. And if you're going to tax me on my land that I didn't buy and I don't earn any money from, you'd better believe that you can take your right to roam and shove it up your arse!
2 comments:
That's why I like the LVT. After all the basis of geonomics is taxing people for excluding others.
Perhaps an discount to the LVT for people who let people "roam" on their property?
I was going to explain about the impact of different taxes on supply and demand, and how, as land is fixed in quantity, a tax on its value does not impact on economic activity, but AC1 beat me to it.
A bit of land with easements is of necessity worth less than otherwise, so LVT bill goes down automatically etc.
Post a Comment