Note by Sean Gabb: This message is in response to an invitation that Mr Atkinson and I received to a seminar at the University of Buckingham. I merely sent my regrets. Mr Atkinson, however, has read the seminar paper in question, and here are his thoughts on it. They stand by themselves, even though I do not publish the seminar paper.
Critique of Dr Todd Mei – Seminar – Economy of Gift and Land
by Rodney Atkinson
I have read this paper and can think of nothing more likely to go against the grain of everything a liberal market democratic political economy stands for.
Land has no value. Like other assets (but more so since each piece of land is by definition static) its value is solely dependant on the use by entrepreneurs – counteracted by the depredations of the State.
It is precisely because land is usually held by those who must make their money in other ways (commerce, trade, finance, industrial production) that its ownership is justified by the money created in those competitive markets. Land’s ownership changes, as do buildings built on it, by virtue of democratic service in markets. Ownership is justified by the possibility of alternative use and alternative ownership by the more successful. (see my book The Emancipated Society)
The stagnation and degradation of “unowned land” (usually the amorphous State) shows everywhere why land should be privately and responsibly owned. The vast majority of UK land is not used or used profitably. It is held in stewardship by those wealthy enough from their democratic service of others in sundry market places so they can afford its upkeep.
Therefore to say that “the more land is owned means greater control of the means of production” is nonsensical. The reverse is usually the case – except that in competitive capitalist markets (not to be confused with the corporatist fascist systems in modern day Europe) no one can control markets in production – except the State. and those who have earned wealth in competitive markets are justified in holding land.
It is precisely where the State has intervened to provide fiscal privileges that perpetual private trusts can maintain large estates with little justification in the market place. But that is not a liberal capitalist stance to provide State privileges to private owners. And it is the State which suppresses democratically profitable land through taxes and planning laws and drives its price up by subsidy and inflation. Speculation is only possible if the State has distorted markets. Centre Point was profitable solely by reason that the State’s printing of money and restricting the building of alternatives provided more gain than the loss by inflation, taxes, 15 years foregone income, refurbishment, rates etc.
A tax on land would be grotesque, and would reward the State for its failure, corruption and incompetence while punishing the responsible owners whose interest is to use and thus in competitive markets, to serve.
Rodney Atkinson
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
