Monthly Archives: March 2020

Margaret Thatcher was a self-described libertarian from that era. She did something quite different with the single tax problem; she altered the class structure of the country.

No single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the State to the people. MP Michael Heseltine on the sale of publicly owned housing (Right to Buy), UK (1980)

The introduction of the Right to Buy policy in the 1980s can be considered one of the greatest intergenerational injustices in recent political history. David Kingman at the Intergenerational Foundation, UK (2017)

The Single Tax broke through in elections on two occasions. In 1886, Henry George ran for mayor of New York, leading a party of labour unions, Catholics, and Georgites with a land value tax platform. The Pope himself took part in stopping him. Then, in 1906, in Great Britain, the Liberal Party, propelled by an historic re-emergence of the land reform movement, won a landslide general election victory. The House of Lords sacrificed its legislative veto to halt land value taxation.Two elections, two crises.

The single tax (i.e. the shifting of taxes from labor and capital onto land value) had met formidable opposition. The single tax as something one can vote for ended in Great Britain soon after the Great Warat that time of revolution, imperial dissolution, regicide, epidemic and economic dislocation. Very close to home, Ireland, where the land question had raged for decades, was at war with the British Empire. From Londons point of view, it was not a time for experiments.

The [Liberal-Conservative] coalition dug the grave wide and deep. They flung into it the Land Taxes of Mr Lloyd George, the Land Valuation of Mr Lloyd George and the Land Policy of Mr Lloyd George. They dumped earth upon it. They stamped down the ground over the grave. They set up a stone to commemorate their victory for testimony to the passing stranger. Here buried forever, lies the Land Crusade.Never, it would seem, was a cause so sensationally and utterly destroyed. C. F. G. Masterman, politician and commentator (1920) quoted by FML Thompson in The Land Question in Britain, 1750-1950

Exactly the same thing happened on the Left. The Left was very closely linked to Georgism. A majority of Fabian-socialists either were or had been Georgists, and the Fabian society was formed by activists minted by Henry George himself, by his speeches and debates in the 1880s. Years of trying to reconcile Georgism and socialism followed, but the vanguard of the Left then also abruptly dropped the single tax.

The attempt to put into force any such crude universal measurewhich, it may be explained, is very far from being contemplated by the Labour Partywould inevitably jeopardise the very substance of the nation. B. and S. Webb, A Constitution for a Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (1921),quoted in Peter dA. Jones Henry George and British Socialism.

The Representation of the People Act (1918) had added millions to the electorate. The pre-war land crusade, which was especially intense in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, had driven three general election victories in a row. What might it do now, with so many new landless voters? For the sakes of both the old right and the new left, liberalism, this thought-out, land-centric incarnation, had to be buried.

Disappearance was, indeed, achieved, but the burial was a hoax. The Single Tax to this day, lays living, etherized upon a table. The patient is tended to, kept under, by a staff of ex-devotees; lords, liberals, leftists unable to let go completely. Many were libertarians. Libertarianism was borne on the Georgist wave, just as socialism was. But unlike socialism, libertarianism naturally developed on Georgist lines: both are classically liberal and anti-monopoly. Albert J. Nock, the greatest libertarian critic of The State, had no doubt:

[Henry George] was the only [reformer] who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it.

But post-World War II libertarianism also reached for the anaesthetic. A heavy price was paid. In order to sever roots and accept in toto the current system of state-founded, state-protected land monopoly libertarianism had to sacrifice its first principle: self-ownership. It also had to withdraw its original and most powerful critique of The State. In 1939 the author of Taxation is Robbery, Frank Chodorov,had written: The socialization of rent would destroy taxes. The State (as we know it) would disappear.

That taxation is intolerable, of course, remains central to libertarian rhetoric. But the rhetoric is thin. Does libertarianism today claim, as Chodorov did, that taxation itself can be abolished, transforming the State into something else, free of systemic privilege, i.e. minarchy? Would it say this: The [modern doctrine of taxation] does not distinguish between property acquired through privilege and property acquired through production. It cannot, must not, do that, for in so doing it would question the validity of taxation as a whole. If taxation were abolished, for instance, the cost of maintaining the social services of a community would fall on rentthere is no third sourceand the privilege of appropriating rent would disappear

The answer is no. In 1957, a former student of Georgism, Murray Rothbard, stepped in and ended the single tax debate within mainstream libertarianism. He simply denied the existence of rent: The first consequence of the single tax, then, is that no revenue would accrue from it.

Despite the misunderstanding, he got away with it. Chodorov had placed the single tax at the center of the libertarian critique of the state. The prolific Rothbard, the quietist, the etherizer, overwrites Taxation is Robbery. The meme taxation is theft was then appropriated and etherized and has become a mantra. State transformation via tax reform is a cancelled option; the most a libertarian can aspire to now is tax evasion: We should welcome every new loophole, shelter, credit, or exemption, and work, not to shut them down but to expand them to include everyone else, including ourselves.

Such was the transition to Royal Libertarianism.

Margaret Thatcher was a self-described libertarian from that era. She did something quite different with the single tax problem; she altered the class structure of the country. Before Thatcher became Prime Minister, she was grilled on land economics and the unearned increment by William F. Buckley (a Georgist) on television. She skillfully tiptoed around the subject but did, when pressed, give a nod in the direction of the single tax. She clearly understood the Georgist diagnosis of economic malaise. However, a few years later, after the election, she administered the anti-Georgist cure. The policy was called Right to Buy, the sale of publicly-owned real estate (council houses and, crucially, the value of their locations) to tenants. Around two million took up the offer. A boom in the wider real estate market followed. The government, in the Parliamentary debate on the bill, was frank: No one can dispute that the home owner in recent decades has gained immensely from the fact of ownership. The gain has accrued partially from the judgement and thrift associated with the saving to buy, but even more from the tax-free windfall gains that have accrued to virtually everyone once he has bought his own home.

Heseltine then went on to describe how the tenant paying rent (i.e. the non-landowner) is in a very different boat. The tenant receives no benefit from rising land value. On the contrary, the renter pays higher rents. This, of course, is the Georgist thesis on inequality in a nutshell, presented as common fact. But instead of using that fact to advocate for the single tax, it is used to advertise real estate:

There is in this country a deeply ingrained desire for home ownership. The Government believe that this spirit should be fostered. It reflects the wishes of the people, ensures the wide spread of wealth through societyand stimulates the attitudes of independence and self-reliance that are the bedrock of a free society.

The aim was to create an incentive society, a property owning democracy. The home-owner was a variation on libertarianisms entrepreneur ideal-type. This entrepreneur does not see Chodorovs distinction between production and privilege: between an innovator-entrepreneur (production), and a rentier-entrepreneur (privilege).

The Bill has two main objectives: first, to give people what they want, and, secondly, to reverse the trend of ever-increasing dominance of the State over the life of the individual,Heseltine said in 1980.

The language is deflecting; it is the people who want the expansion of the land windfall. Thatcher was following Rothbard to the letter; she achieved the radical expansion of a tax loophole. It was a brilliant move, and it laid in a voting block hostile (we are told) to any attempt to revive the sleeping patient.

In recent years, the results of Right to Buy have been examined. The first Right to Buy house, a two bedroomed terrace was sold in 1980 to its council tenants. Located near enough to London, this is what happened to its price:

1980: 8,000 (average wage 6,000)

2020 301,000 (average wage 36,000)

332,000 (current est.)

That price rise, that increment, was privatized in 1980, an act of enclosure. However, in widening land monopoly, Thatcher ignored the law of monopoly: The big eventually devour the small. The attempt to engineer a permanent property owning middle class has failed.

40% Of Right-To-Buy Homes Now In Hands Of Private Landlords.

In The Huffington Post, 2017

For 25-34 year-olds earning between 22k and 30k per year, home ownership fell to just 27% in 2016 from 65% two decades ago.

In The Guardian, 2018

Adults in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago.

In The Guardian, 2020

Margaret Thatcher engineered a new landowner class large enough to keep the Single Tax out of politics. But she used the poison as the cure. The home-owning class is now shrinking. Monopoly feeds on monopoly. The patient lays etherized.

Darren Iversen is an independent student of Georgist history in England.

See original here:
Margaret Thatcher, Libertarianism, and the Etherization of the Single Tax - Merion West

The Federal Reserves bag of tricks is now empty. Politicians, however, always have more lies to tell about the economy. Voters might get a shot at hearing the truth, however, if the Libertarian Party nominates the right candidate.

Its consistently a top priority for voters, even during the high points of this fake recovery from the 2008 recession. The economy is closely tied to other issues like health care and education, with their high costs due to government price controls and red tape.

The economy is the essential issue for a candidate to speak on, especially a libertarian one. Only a libertarian can get at the crux of the matter the Federal Reserve and its vacuous fiat money system causing madness in markets and the wealth stagnation of Americas middle class.

Beyond their pocketbooks, voters stand to also gain clarity of mind on so many other crises that fuel the governments growth in power. Thanks to the Feds easy money, U.S. militarism can run wild abroad and at home, well beyond what citizens would naturally put up with under direct taxation.

It takes a special communicator to raise the Fed issue and command attention. Only Dr. Ron Paul grew his crowds and audiences on his call to abolish the Federal Reserve, making it a populist campaign theme while educating the youth, referring them to Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other heroic economists.

In 2020, there is an effort within the Libertarian Party to do that again. Jacob Hornberger, one of six candidates vying for the partys nomination for president, seems to be leading the primary race in no small part due to his ability to speak on the Fed in an educational and exciting way.

Hornbergers track record goes back decades, founding the Future of Freedom Foundation in 1989. It grew with the Ron Paul Revolution movement, so many libertarian activists see him as something of a rightful heir.

End the Fed and separate money and the state, reads Hornbergers campaign website. The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a socialist central-planning agency.

Like Paul, Hornberger can connect the dots between Fed policy and housing, education, and other issues typically treated as wholly unrelated. This holistic approach contrasts with previous Libertarian Party presidential campaigns that attempted to dilute libertarianism down to fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

His nomination is no sure thing, however. The way the Libertarian Party decides its nominee is not by primary electoral victories, but rather a direct vote of the party delegates at the national convention. That event takes place the weekend of May 22nd in Austin, Texas.

The state contests until then will give a sense of what Libertarian voters support, and so far, Hornberger is leading with about 29 percent of the total vote after winning five of eight elections.

Markets are crashing as the Federal Reserve runs out of bubble-blowing tricks. President Donald Trump blames his own pick for Fed chairman for not printing money fast enough, while he also claims to have created the greatest economy ever.

Meanwhile, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders are also full of lies, pushing essentially the exact same policy as Trump, though with more taxes and bureaucracy.

Whoever the Libertarian Party nominates, he wont be allowed to debate on the same stage as the Republican and Democratic nominees. But the party does have ballot access, and the internet isnt quite dead yet, so if there is any hope for voters to hear the truth about the economy, the Libertarian Party will be largely responsible for keeping it alive.

See the original post:
On the 2020 Campaign Trail, Where's the Truth on the Economy? - The Liberator Online

The profreedom and antiwar movement lost one of its most dedicated champions this past weekend. Jon Basil Utley was born in the Soviet Union in 1934. His Britishborn mother, Freda, had gone there as aprocommunist intellectual and writer. But after his father was spirited away to one of Stalins gulags (where he was executed in 1938), Freda fled with young Jon and became an outspoken critic of the Soviet Union, including in several bestselling books. They eventually emigrated to the United Stateswhere Freda hosted meetings of prominent anticommunists in their home. That is where Jon met many leading intellectuals and activists of the Cold War era, connections that lasted alifetime. He became an accomplished writer in his own right, as well as asuccessful businessman. He traveled extensively.

Jon was anearly ubiquitous presence at DC gatheringsand globally. He attended many events at Cato, as well as Grover Norquists Wednesday meetings at Americans for Tax Reform. He supported Reason magazine and the Reason Foundation, and many other libertarian causes. And he was proud to be associated with The American Conservative magazine, where he served on the board of directors, and as publisher.

Whenever Iencountered Jon at one of these meetings, he would always greet me with awarm toothy smile and afirm handshake. He made me feel so welcomed at these gatherings but he did the same for everyone else as well, as though he appreciated every single person in attendance.

But his warmth and affection for those around him concealed adeep and abiding hatred of Americas wars, and arelated sadness at his fellow Americans apparent disinterest in the suffering these wars caused for innocent men, women, and children all around the world. In meetings, he would often ask questions, or make comments, in his soft, almost lyrical, voice. Most of the time, his remarks conveyed his skepticism of these wars, even as he knew that many of those around him (mostly conservatives, but also some libertarians) wished desperately that he would just sit down and shut up. But that just wasnt his style.

Jon was apeacemaker within the oftenfractious liberty movement, too. His sadness about Americas wars was perhaps only exceeded by his disappointment that his friends in the antiwar movement were fighting with one another. He was anatural bridgebuilder with avery wide circle of acquaintancesand always on the lookout to make introductions and build alliances.

Last year, when it presented Jon alifetime achievement award, The American Conservative prepared afitting tribute video. Iknow and respect many of the people who offered their reflections on why Jon was worthy of such an award. TACs Executive Editor Kelly Beaucar Vlahos called him one of the bravest people that Iknow in Washington. To Ambassador C. Boyden Gray, Jon was one of the most gentle, generous men Ive ever met. My friend John Henry declared, simply, Jon is America.

This was particularly true in the post9/11 era, when conservatives, in particular, really didnt want to hear one of their own questioning the wisdom of George W. Bushs various foreign warsespecially the war in Iraq. Jon would be the only person to stand up and say the Iraq war made no sense, John Henry recalled, when everybody else was saluting, [and chanting] USA! USA!

The Heritage Foundations Lee Edwards counted Jons willingness to stand up for the truth as he sees it, regardless of what others say as his greatest achievement.

All of the wise men of the conservative movement, Edwards explained, believed that the United States should be waging war in Iraq. They would listen as Jon would question why. Then hed sit down. Afew moments of awkward silence typically ensued before the meeting moved onto the next topic.

But, after the luncheon was over, Edwards continued, people would come up to him and say Jon, keep saying that. Keep asking those questionsI havent got enough guts to do it, but you have.

Edwards noted that when the weapons of mass destruction werent found in Iraq, and most Americans came to realize that the war had been aterrible mistake, Jon didnt go around saying I was right. Itold you so and that, too, was to his great credit. Edwards congratulated Utley for speaking up when others were timid.

Jon was alongtime generous donor to the Cato Institute, and for that we are all grateful. But his influence ran much deeper that that. He was awarm and wonderful friend, and an inspiration to those of us who followed in his footsteps.

During this period of COVID-19, when all public gatherings have been postponed or canceled, we have more urgent things to attend to. But, when things return to normal, and Ifor the first time attend one of those meetings where Iwould have expected to see Jons kind smile and reassuring presence, Ifear that that is when the true depths of this loss will really be felt.

Rest in peace, my friend. Your legacy lives on.

Continued here:
In Remembrance of Jon Basil Utley (1934-2020) | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute

The coronavirus doesnt respect national borders, political ideologies or conventional thinking. As governments scramble to try to contain the pandemic and mitigate the fallout on economies and societies, the previously unthinkable is suddenly transformed into the essential. Policy ideas that were decried as madness yesterday are being redefined as the only sane response to this emergency. Positions once held to be immutable are being tossed into a great bonfire of discarded orthodoxies.

This is an especially bracing challenge for politicians of the right, they who have been animated for decades by the belief that the only good government is a small one and that there is no problem to which the market cannot supply the answer. A philosophy rooted in the conviction that individualism and competition are the wellsprings of healthy and productive societies is found wanting when confronted by a crisis that can only be endured and resolved by rediscovering the virtues of collectivism and solidarity.

You can see some of the tensions this creates in the strained and exhausted face of Boris Johnson whenever he appears at the now daily news conferences. This instinctive libertarian, who used to earn his living by penning newspaper columns ridiculing the nanny state is being impelled to introduce social controls of a kind not seen since the Second World War. Some of the constraints go further than that time of national trial. They didnt shut the boozers during the Blitz. He finds himself, and clearly hates having to be, the prime minister responsible for taking away the ancient and inalienable right of every freeborn Englishman to go to the pub.

As the beer taps are closed, the spending spigots are being turned up in a way never seen before. The Tory leader who only recently won an election in part by attacking Jeremy Corbyn as the last of the big spenders will now preside over the most dramatic escalation in government expenditure since the 1940s to try to save the economy from being ravaged by a depression.

For government and voters alike, this crisis is a rushed tutorial in the case for the active and well-resourced state. Only government can take the exceptional measures required to curtail human activity in the hope that it will curb the spread of infection. Only government has the capacity to effectively perform as an insurer of last resort for the huge number of companies facing extinction unless they receive state aid. Only government can provide a safety net for workers deprived of the ability to earn their living because they are ill or trying to do the right thing by isolating themselves or because their employer is in trouble.

Welfare is bad. Balance the books. It is not the role of government to bail out failing companies. All those beliefs long worshipped in the churches of conservatism are being sacrificed in the fierce urgency of the now.

When events are moving at such an extraordinary pace, it can be easy to lose appreciation of the boggling scale of this transformation. Rishi Sunaks first budget was just 10 days ago, but already feels like an artefact from another era. There was a bit of a collective swoon among Tory MPs at the 12bn he initially allocated to dealing with the virus. What he then called unprecedented intervention now looks like small change. Just six days later, he was back to announce a package of tax holidays, grants and business loans worth 350bn, almost 30 times as much as he had originally proposed. The chancellor declared this to be proof that the government would do whatever it takes only to be told that it would take a great deal more to see us through this crisis. The clamour came not just from opposition politicians, trades unions and charities.

Forced to decide between Tory doctrine and food riots, Mr Sunak made the right choice

One of the arresting tableaux of the past few days has been Bernard Jenkin and other representatives of the Thatcherite right adding their voices to those of more centrist Tories such as Greg Clark, the former business secretary, to demand much broader help. Under that pressure, Mr Sunak came up with what was effectively his third emergency budget in less than a fortnight, when he announced higher welfare payments and a mammoth programme to subsidise the wages of workers who would otherwise be facing redundancy. This is not a time for ideology and orthodoxy, remarked a man once known as a fiscal hawk as he dispatched another barrow-load of Tory sacred beliefs on to the bonfire of orthodoxies.

He presented a confident face designed to mask the profound fear within government about the consequences of not taking the extraordinary step of making the state responsible for much of the economys wage bills. The alternative was to see a massive and rapid surge in unemployment that would have overwhelmed the welfare system and threatened serious civil disorder. Forced to decide between Tory doctrine and food riots, Mr Sunak made the right choice.

Similar things are happening around the world as governments battle to prevent an inevitable downturn from sliding into a deep depression. Donald Trump is even talking about sending a cheque from Washington direct to every American.

This emergency differs in key respects to that of the Great Crash of 2008, but some useful lessons can be drawn from the last global crisis. One is that governments and central banks have to act quickly, decisively and at scale to give confidence to markets, households and businesses that the state has their back and that it is possible for people to plan for a future when the crisis is over. Near-zero interest rates, quantitative easing and bank bailouts, the tools used during the financial crisis, did avert a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s, but it was only slowly that people came to appreciate the negative social consequences that stretched wealth inequalities and stoked a wide and deep public alienation. The spectacle of shameless financiers walking away unscathed from a wreck of their own reckless making and then going on to further enrich themselves fed a righteous rage among the less affluent folk who felt the squeeze of subsequent austerity. We all remember what happened in 2008, Mr Johnson remarked last week, alluding to the debates within his cabinet about the dangers of a massive public backlash if the government is seen only to be looking after big business. Time and again, he tells companies that the government is standing by them so they can stand by their employees.

There are critics who say that the gargantuan amounts of government spending being fired at this crisis are too scattergun. Money will end up in the hands of badly run or badly behaved companies. Money will go to some who dont really need it. Money will be wasted. To which we can only say: so be it. There is no time for government to develop sophisticated schemes with complex delivery mechanisms. The need is to make financial assistance available as simply and swiftly as possible. This crisis calls not for the snipers rifle but the bazooka.

The hope it can be no more than a hope at this stage of uncertainty is that a sharp dive in the global economy will be followed by a strong bounce-back when restrictions can be lifted and millions go back to work and return to spending. But that can only happen if there are still businesses left standing.

Ministers and officials cannot say how much all the emergency measures will cost, because they cant know. We can safely say that the sums will be huge. Robert Chote, the director of the Office for Budget Responsibility, would normally have something very chiding to say about a government prepared to let the deficit rip in such a staggering fashion. Now he observes: When the fire is large enough you just spray the water and worry about it later.

Fiscal disciplinarians on the right are largely swallowing it on the grounds that there is no alternative. Libertarians of the state-shrinking and welfare-loathing disposition are reconciling themselves to measures that theyd normally hate with the thought that they are temporary impositions that will be lifted one day. Once the virus is brought under control, either by the production of a vaccine or other measures, then politics can go back to business as usual.

I rather doubt that. While it is far too early to make any confident predictions about the longterm ways in which this crisis will reshape society, it has already upended many of the assumptions that have governed politics here and elsewhere for decades. It is hard to believe that a once-in-a-century event will not have some once-in-a-century consequences.

Andrew Rawnsley is Chief Political Commentator of the Observer

See original here:
The coronavirus crisis ignites a bonfire of Conservative party orthodoxies - The Guardian