Randomly Selected Article or Link

...is that it always seems that the first steps towards it, the first things to be cut away from the protectionism ridden form of capitalism we have now, hurt the small person more than the big person. If the "average Joe" (and no, it's just a phrase, not meant for you Joe O or Joe T!) cannot see the benefits to them of peeling away layers of protectionism and bureaucracy why would they support removing the state's comfort blanket?

Much of what we remember about Thatcher era attempts to roll back the economic power of the state, for example, centers around mining and industrial communities with their "hearts ripped out" and of the "haves" becoming the "have mores" through privatisation whilst those often for whom the state industry had been the economic lifeline were cut off. Or of the rise of the oligarchs in Russia, leeching off the common property of the people of that country in the form of its natural wealth.

Which is why economic liberals must strive to show that the root cause of the grossest inequalities we see in the world around us is that the rich and powerful are, as often as not, made so and maintained by protectionism and monopoly. Then when we act, unlike in the Thatcher era, we must be clear that each step we take strikes directly at that privilege and produces a perceptible incremental and preferably material rather than hypothetical benefit to those whom the existence of that privilege has hitherto harmed.

Our Liberal forebears knew this, hence the urgency with which they attempted to go about radical change, attacking monopoly and protectionist created wealth, in the People's Budget. It must be equally obvious with hindsight that the failure to drive through the most radical of those proposals left the way open for the Labour party to sneak in and push socialist, statist, coercive rather than liberal means to what they claimed were the same ends. Those means we now know have failed and continue to fail wherever they are tried. And not only that but they do not have the saving grace of freeing people from that other gross dependency on the state and the political establishment.

This is the main task for our shared liberal future - and it looks like 70% of us might just agree.

Anyone who has read more than one post of my blog will realize that I am a passionate supporter of Land Value Tax. In other forums, when the subject comes up, people sometimes feel, and say, that I pursue the issue too zealously. Even those that support some LVT are sometimes embarrassed at the "hard core Georgists" like myself shrilly calling for more. I know plenty who regard the claims from some of us as to the myriad benefits Land Value Tax could bring as just plain rubbish - "nothing could be that good and not have been tried".

None more so than when housing policy is to the fore, as it ought to have been, floods permitting, these past couple of weeks. No sooner was the Housing Green Paper published to great fanfare than it seemed for all the coverage that half our existing housing stock was plunged knee deep in water and all the discussion about housing was about building in flood plains or not rather than the rather more pressing issue of ensuring everyone has a decent place to call their own in the first place.

So, read on if you want to try to understand just why it is that "hard core Georgists" like myself so fundamentally believe that not only is Land Value Tax the only permanent solution to the broken market that is housing, but also why it forms such a core part of any human being's fundamental right to an opportunity to achieve personal freedom and the root of many equity and economic justice issues. I hope you'll understand at least that we are not talking about just a different way of raising tax but a radical shift in how we think about tax itself and more importantly an alternative view of our relationship to the planet's resources and each other.

Land: our common birthright

The headline of Polly Toynbee's article on the green paper from Tuesday 24th July, "Everyone is entitled to a stake in the nation's soil and bricks", showed promise that at least one of the chaterati was going to describe this basic principle. Though she failed convincingly to explain the entitlement the headline proclaimed or how one might achieve such an entitlement the sentiment embodied in that headline gets close to the core rationale for Land Value Taxers.

Every human being ever born is ultimately utterly dependent on the bounty of our common planet's natural resources to survive. Consequently every human being ever born has to have a common entitlement to a share of that bounty if they are ever to achieve self-ownership. If you are always dependent on another for a place to rest your bones, that other has a coercive relationship over you, you are dependent on them for how much of the fruits of your labours you are able to keep.

It's an easy thing to say and in an agrarian, low population, subsistence economy a relatively easy thing to envisage - everyone simply spreads out until they've got enough land each of a quality sufficient to keep themselves alive by their own labours on that land, growing food for subsistence and no more. Indeed, John Locke, proto-liberal to some of us, said that since it was mankind's calling to be steward and master of his planet, you have the right to take as much as you can keep and make good use of with one important proviso - that you always leave as much left over, and of as good quality, to be divvied up amongst everyone else.

But such an economy isn't conducive to human development as a whole. In order the better to put nature's bounty to use for everybody's benefit we specialize, in specializing we come together in markets, communities, cities, and our relationship with land changes, though our dependence on it does not diminish. Johann Heinrich von Thunen described and then David Ricardo explained how human interactions and communities create rental value in land - those locations closer to where more people want to circulate, live, conduct commercial or social activities rise in value simply by virtue of where they are.

In fact, the rental value of a location in land is the financial expression of by how much that location breaches Locke's Proviso mentioned above - that you can take and own as much as you like, so long as you leave enough for everyone else, of as good quality, for everyone else who needs to be in that location to share. Collecting that value and pre-distributing it to all the people that together create that value - via a Land Value Tax (others have described it as the "Community Collection of Rent" perhaps more descriptively) and a Citizen's Dividend - is giving each person the financial value of their birthright to a piece of land.

Now, there are lots of objections to such a scheme, frequently voiced by those who do already own, or by those who don't think this could produce significant amounts of revenue. I shall try and anticipate and respond to some of those objections in following articles. But I hope at least that you get the picture as to why some of us believe LVT is more important than just another taxation method. The sharing of the land value we all collaborate in creating is a fundamental right to an equitable share of our common inheritance in a complex world where it just isn't practical for us to spread out and have an equal share of actual land each.

Technorati Tags: property tax, geo-libertarianism, land value tax, liberty, Locke's Proviso, John Locke

If you didn't believe that Orwell's 1984 was inexorably becoming a reality you should read this:

BBC NEWS | England | Kent | Local groups discuss terror signs:

Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators across Canterbury have been finding out how they can prevent terrorism.
It was one of the main issues discussed at an annual conference held at the Kent city's Christ Church University.

Co-ordinators were told how to spot signs of bomb-making and other preparations for terrorist acts.

What an awful prospect. If this is even necessary, which I frankly doubt, the best way to be watchful in our own communities is to be better communities, to know and if possible be friends with your neighbours. Neighbourhood Watch is a worthy campaign, and best placed to spot strangers coming in to burgle our homes and so on. But to spy on the very neighbourhoods they are set up to serve? No thanks.

Health seems to have become the theme of the day in the Lib Dem leadership debate, at least amongst bloggers (John Dixon's "A Radical Writes" here, and Tristan's "Liberty Alone" here as examples). The two candidates themselves have both now produced manifestos of sorts with Chris Huhne (page 9) promoting "the principle of universal access on the basis of need" and Nick Clegg earlier (despite John Dixon's interpretation otherwise) setting down the principle that "our universal public services must be free to use and accessible to all".

Both have admirable reasons for wanting to retain this universality and free access; that if we choose any other paradigm the poorest will miss out by not being able to afford to pay in a non-free system. But, as I've said about education, and more recently touched on in my piece about protectionism last week to me this seems, if you pardon the terrible health-related analogy, merely a sticking plaster. The ideal revolutionary liberal position surely would be to ensure that everyone had the financial wherewithal to participate properly in a market system and then to trust them to make their own choices.

On the day that the Marmot report into diet and cancer appeared, and whilst acknowledging that he said that his commission was still to deal with policy recommendations, one can be fairly certain that they are not going to recommend that the government, local or national, takes control of what dietary choices people are allowed to make. And yet our knowledge increases all the time that such choices are likely at least as important to our health outcomes as the treatment we may receive once we are ill. So why do we not do the same for illness care when all the evidence suggests that despite £110bn a year public expenditure, we are still the "sick man of Europe"?

Surgeons operating
Originally uploaded by el Reino

The NHS was, I believe, a fantastic idea at the time, in the context of the war on the five wants. In a near bankrupt nation post-war it was also clearly in the national interest to try to use economies of scale and national bargaining to ensure that you could provide a basic level of universal service to all. But let's face it, right now it is a gigantic protection racket, the mother of them all if you ask me. We also heard today that the average GP salary is now at £110,000 - a ten per cent rise in the second year of their new contracts - and yet the Department of Health today has said that 1200 British medical graduates are unlikely to get training places in the UK this year. So there's almost certainly an economic rent arising from the triple protectionism of the NHS, the GMC and the BMA.

Hopefully at least this and the national bargaining for other staff would end with localization so that those parts of the country where it is difficult (read near impossible) to live on a Grade D nurse's salary can offer decent packages, but I haven't even touched on the protectionism of NICE, NHS drugs contracts, the drugs patenting system as a whole and the stifling bureaucracy surrounding anything innovative by way of ways of treating and so on.

None of this is to say that the "private sector" is necessarily the best solution in all areas. I'm against monopoly and public protectionism, not public service per se - after all the nature of the hippocratic oath is dedication to a public service. And the worst of all worlds could be one in which there's a certain amount of public funding up for grabs by private operators who have no incentive to innovate and be really efficient - that's simply transferring the protectionism to shareholders.

No, the problem is really one of how to ensure that everyone would have the ability to pay for their choice of provider. And I return to the Citizen's Income and the systemic economic imbalances that concentrate unearned wealth, or more correctly the wealth created by the community as a whole rather than by an individual's or firm's own innovation, investment and labour. I'm not a good one to talk on health issues - the last psychiatrist I saw reckoned my attitude to my developing diabetes was one of the "slow suicide". But I'll bet if I was faced with a bigger insurance premium or buying more fruit and veg instead of eating crap, I'd probably plump for the healthier lifestyle to minimize my insurance. Redistribute the common wealth properly to everyone as is our birthright and we have these choices.

Just look at Nuffield Hospitals Group right now - it's buying up private gym firms like Cannons (effectively turning private companies into social enterprises of course). Why would it be doing that? Because BUPA really wants its members to live healthily, not to call on them when they're in a preventable medical condition. I'm also sure that insurance firms are likely to be better, with safeguards against abuse, at sifting out bad clinicians; it's in their interests to do so. Their actuaries will be poring over doctors' success and failure rates to ensure they're not granting accreditation to people whose patients inexplicably drop like flies, or who routinely over-diagnose or over-prescribe. Nor would they be likely to allow their members to spend a single night in a hospital where they're more likely to come out with a worse illness with attendant higher costs, if they come out at all.

One model I've looked at, for example, would see a GP as a "personal health adviser" who advises their clients through the maze of choosing lifestyles, treatments, clinicians and therapies that will be efficient and varied. I'd like to see surgical firms organized more like barristers' chambers with large national firms specializing in different clinical areas ready to hot-foot it to a treatment centre several hours away at the drop of a hat to do an op in their specialism rather than a patient wait on a list for the local, perhaps only semi-specialist to have a free spot in a tight general surgery list. You could have a choice of a large general hospital sized treatment centre thirty miles away in the local city, or a ten bed rural town cottage hospital with one theatre with the same surgeon prepared to visit either for the right fee but with different approaches to aftercare based on different needs of patients and families.

Sure, there's still a role for some kind of local democratic input - most especially in procuring facilities and staff for emergency medicine, but even their funding options could be varied - with some able to provide that by engaging local charitable resources, others perhaps by raising a local tax of some kind, perhaps even through planning obligations, who knows. But one thing is certain: these options and innovations are unlikely to appear when the system is riddled with protectionism and political game-play.

Not a lot of people know this, such is the popular perception of the city of Kingston upon Hull that I rarely even admit it to myself, but Haltemprice and Howden is my place of birth. To be more precise, Woodgates Nursing Home, North Ferriby. At the time my folks lived in Woodlands Drive, Anlaby and my dad worked for Northern Foods.

We returned to the area when I was eight and lived in West End, South Cave for a year or so. I went to Hymers, dad worked as Finance Director at Moore's of Hull (then an Opel and Colt main dealer), with a chap who would become a life-long friend, Ben Moore. I remember the school bus from Elloughton into town, getting a taste of silage when on a school trip to Bishop Burton Agricultural College, the (much tastier) Stroganoff at the Cave Castle Restaurant, the horses in the field behind the house (I see it's been developed now for housing from Google Earth), standing in a crowd around Hull Parish Church to see the queen on her Silver Jubilee tour of Britain (and the beacon on the hill up behind South Cave come to think of it that was lit on Jubilee day tiself) and discovering snails of all things down the lane leading to the A63 (we were allowed to play near the dual carriageway in them days without being taken into care!).

Ah! The A63. Blessed road, for it leads you away from Hull! The landmarks along the way - Howden Abbey, the high bridge over the Humber before Goole, Drax power station are all signs that you are approaching civilisation!

And then, inexorably it seems, it draws you back too, and so, with me just a year or so into a boarding school career, my folks moved back to Hull, and I find the street we lived in there, Maplewood Avenue - one of the worst hit in last years flooding I believe - is more or less the very easterly most road in the Haltemprice and Howden constituency. I remember big rows between my mother and father during school holidays. I remember finally uncovering the fact I had suspected for some time - that Santa Claus was actually my mother with a bag of Boots cotton wool stuck to her chin. But dad was back at Moore's meeting the new wife, so I remember divorce. And depression. I remember getting caught smoking by my mum the first time. I remember trying to make lager from a Boots kit. And her wondering why she had found a condom in my coat pocket when she washed it!

My sister did most of her secondary schooling at Willerby, and they went to church at St Luke's in Willerby. I learned to swim at the Haltemprice Leisure Centre. I discovered a friend at school 200 miles away (and not a mile too many!) who at the time lived in Malton so we shared most of our train journeys to and from school as far as York. When I got back in touch with him after school, my father was living in Driffield and his in Cottingham, so I've spent a good few nights out in Cottingham on Sam Smiths and Hull Brewery Co beers.

So actually, a pretty significant place for so much of my formative life. But the days when a boy from Hull had to deny his city and support Leeds if he wanted to support a top flight football team are over. I still managed to feel a little glow of pride on hearing that Hull City FC had made it into the premiership!