Those who followed our recent Land Symposium might be interested in Thomas Hodgskin’s critique of Herbert Spencer’s views on land (and possibly also my critique of both Hodgskin and Spencer).
Finer points aside, nobody has offered a specific and coherent and realistic more efficient and equitable alternative for public revenue than land rent or land value.
Our days are a vast, intricate, evolving dance of mutual understandings.[1. I’m cobbling together threads of articles I’ve written on property. Please visit http://www.davidschmidtz.com/ for more. I have never written on libertarianism & land or, for that matter, on any “ism.” I recognize that much of my work places me within a libertarian […]
First, I would like to thank all those commentators who responded to what I wrote in “Natural Rights and Natural Stuff.” Second, I would like to clarify or restate a few of the basic points that I sought to make in that contribution.
To begin with, I did not […]
I may be writing under false pretenses. Although I was invited here to make a case for the “occupancy-and-use” or usufructory land property theory of P.J. Proudhon, J.K. Ingalls and Benjamin Tucker, I’m going to devote most of this article to what it has in common with other libertarian land rights theories.
What kind of external property rights are consistent with self-ownership?
It seems to me that once one acknowledges self-ownership, one cannot acknowledge any other rights unless those rights are themselves grounded in self-ownership.
How so? Well, the difference between rights and other moral claims is that rights are legitimately enforceable. So any limits that […]