1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12393/progress-and-poverty-how-this-book-came-to-be-written/

Progress and Poverty: How This Book Came to Be Written

April 6, 2010 by

Henry George became something of a socialist in the one area in which he was both incorrect and clearly obsessed. Even so, the rest of his writings are quite glorious from a libertarian point of view, particularly his book on free trade. FULL ARTICLE by Henry George, Jr.

{ 3 comments }

ABR April 6, 2010 at 6:31 pm

“…he advocated the destruction of land monopoly by shifting all taxes from labor and the products of labor and concentrating them in one tax on the value of land, regardless of improvements.”

Libertarians believe in the homestead principle, which is obviously inconsistent with George’s view. If, however, one were to view the ownership of real property as an agreement among members of a coummunity, then George’s idea doesn’t seem quite so far-fetched.

That is, a person might agree to respect the property of an owner on condition the former receive some compensation for having waived his right to enter or enjoy what God (or random chance) created: the land.

The ability to homestead is a an empty one where there is no land left to homestead. The ability to purchase land is an empty one when no one is willing to sell to you, or when circumstances make it impossible for you to acquire the capital.

Kerem Tibuk April 7, 2010 at 8:52 am

” Hence, George became something of a socialist in the one area in which he was both incorrect and clearly obsessed. ”

Reminds me of another “something of a socialist” in one area.

IP.

Unfortunately Rothbard isn’t alive, and there isn’t anyone who is even close to Rothbard regarding intellectual prowess, in the institute.

Peter Surda April 8, 2010 at 7:36 am

Well, since you are “socialist” with regards to some immaterial goods (which you deem inadequate to qualify as “IP”), I fail to see the point. Maybe one day you will manage to provide some sort of an explanation instead of repeating the same vagueness.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: