Liberty and Equality

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. It's about Rand Paul and Civil Rights.

"Value" Voters and Location

This is an interesting theory, with very strong statistical evidence:

Inland areas have lower land values. This includes metropolises not bounded by water, which means you can build suburbs on all sides of the central city (as opposed to, say, Chicago); the greater supply of land lowers its price. This means housing costs are lower, which makes it easier to own a house and raise a family and have more children at younger ages, which means one is more receptive to (traditional, nuclear) "family values" rhetoric that can irritate the hell out of single adults, single-parents, and those with alternative household arrangements. The #1 determining factor to predict whether a state is Republican or Democrat is the average number of years a woman between 18 and 44 has been married. The theory also suggests that the Bush/Greenspan years, unfriendly to homeowners, will backfire on the Republicans. This theory comes from Steve Sailer at the American Conservative.

If you make six figures in San Fran and can't afford a house, but can raise a family in a house in Dallas-Ft. Worth at 50 grand, that's bound to affect one's political and social views. Aside from the moral/religious/ racial ramifications, I can see how the Republicans are the party of property owners (even if low-income) and the Democrats the party of angry renters (whether high- or low-income), and there is a "class conflict" here by the very reason that owning property affects one's outlook on life. I know there are exceptions: I know some prospering, suburban, in-tact traditional nuclear families who are very liberal. And I'm sure there are differences between those who own their own trailer and modest plot in a godforsaken area, and home "owners" whose finances burst when the housing bubble did. The former may make one-fifth as much money, but may still vote Republican while the latter will blame the Republicans for their problems.

But even in the most liberal state, Massachusetts, 40% of whites are Republican. It's not surprising that states with a higher percentage of whites, particularly more property-owning whites, will be Republican. It is also not surprising why homeowners may call Estate taxes "death taxes" whereas others may wonder what's the big deal.

In any case, whites seem to feel, more so than minorities, that they have to have a house before they can raise a kid. Minorities don't inherit this cultural proclivity, and apparently feel no shame to their status, or sense any harm to their children, if they rent.

I can also see how libertarianism - the original left-wing philosophy - has a hard time gaining adherents from members of the Left. Its focus on "property rights" easily can easily turn off people with no property. Libertarians must emphasize that their philosophy is about individual freedom, not private property. The question of property, particularly, property in land, is much more complicated. Are the property values in Manhattan and San Francisco fair? Does tax policy artificially inflate land values in some locations, and de-value it in others?

I would prefer a regime that didn't tax straight-up exchanges - i.e. good and services for cash, or labor for wages - and taxed instead some percentage of those who profit from rent - from income derived not from improving a piece of property, but merely from owning it.

Of course, figuring out how that would work isn't easy. But it's worth investigating.

"Ideal" Government

The limit to my libertarianism is based on the land/natural resource problem. If living space and resources on which to live are infinite, there is no justification for any sort of aggression, and everyone should be free to do as they please as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others to do the same. But when one takes from the earth, and thereby leaves others with less than they need, we have a problem. This person can impose payments, or other terms and conditions, on others that they must meet in order to get what they need. This is rent. The question is, when does land-taking for personal use violate the rights of others, and when does it not?

Death and taxes may be certain; death and rent are even more certain. Taxes are just a form of rent. All government revenue is ultimately derived from human labor creating value from the raw materials of the earth. The government can tax in a variety of ways: the market value of the land and natural resources used, the purchase price of finished goods, the income received from one's labor, or variations of all three. The just tax of a just government, however, would tax only the value of land/natural resources taken beyond what is necessary for personal use, and would distribute this wealth to others within the jurisdiction of that government.

But problems remain. What scale are we talking about; how big should the government's jurisdiction be? be? Should the "government" govern only unique geographic areas within a few square miles? Should there be a world government we should pay taxes to? Can multiple governments exist within the same geographical area?

And who is to determine the value of land? And how will people make payment?

If I could advance my ideals within our present framework (i.e., the existing states and the United States), my main libertarian concern would be to get people off government rolls. Tax rolls, business licensing rolls, social security number rolls, etc. Take a census to find out how many live in a residence, but don't take names. To the extent the government doesn't "know" you exist, i.e., doesn't have your identity on file, the freer you are.

I would

a) work toward going back to the federal government's original purpose: to represent the states as one voice on matters of interstate and international trade, immigration, and defense, stay out of religion, morals, and social policy, and remain neutral in foreign conflicts.
b) collect the revenue for the federal government's purposes through one low, uniform tariff on imported goods.
c) in the states, collect taxes only from owners of land and those with exclusive rights to natural resources, based on the value of their sites. Persons, as persons, wouldn't be taxed, only persons who are owners of land, based on the site value. It doesn't matter who the owner - whether an individual or a foreign-owned conglomerate, is. Local governments already determine site value when they assess property taxes; I'm just suggesting they tax the property improvements (construction, etc.) less and the site value more.
d) If you want to receive benefits as a citizen, to vote, to receive dividends from tax revenue, receive social welfare services, public education, etc., then, and only then, do you register for them - and registration makes you subject to jury duty, service in the militia, and other obligations. And stricter standards for citizenship could be enforced for foreign-born residents: proof of residency for a certain number of years, fluency in English, etc. Those who chose not to have these benefits and obligations of citizenship don't have to have them, whether native- or foreign-born, but all who expect benefits must prove citizenship, and all owners of land, regardless of citizenship, must pay site-value taxes or risk losing their land.
e) The federal government would try to prevent importations of dangerous goods and prevent migration/invasion from threatening countries, but would almost always leave residents within its borders alone.
f) The state governments would let people do what they please provided they didn't harm anyone else without their informed consent, and only those who owned land would pay taxes. The only people who would be registered with the State are those who want to participate in the political process and receive benefits from the State.

In other words, I would do my best to direct the State to be something that exists only through voluntary participation. The fewer the number of people who want to participate in the State, the lower the taxes land-owners will have to pay. The more unjust and/or unbeneficial the land-owning and rent-paying situation is, the higher the taxes on landowners and more political the government, whereas the more just and/or more beneficial the private land-owning arrangements are, the quicker the State will die. And that would be the greatest benefit for all.