Mugabe's land grabs

In today's news, Mugabe has made it "legal" to steal any land he wants, with no right to appeal. Under a pure land rent system, the only income a government can claim is a fraction of the market value of the bare land. Land that can be stolen at any time has almost zero market value. So land rent would make a kleptocracy economically impossible.

Of course, a clever dictator would get around that by giving land to his friends, and taxing them. But land rent has another stark advantage: whatever the leader does, he cannot hide from land rent. Land rent provides a simple, clear and objective index of the value of a government:

• simple because one index says it all
• clear because it is easy to measure
• objective because land rent is based on market values, not government whim

If Mugabe makes the land more valuable, his policy is proven right and the rest of us can stop complaining. But if the land becomes less valuable, there is clear proof that the guy is either incompetent of a crook, and other nations can move in and kick him out. Which is a topic for another day...

the Lord of the Rings

I argued earlier that copyrights, like patents, should last around twenty years. Today's news illustrates why. One guy made $168 million from the Lord of the Rings movies, even though he did zero work on the movies. All he had did was buy the rights in the 1970s (for his own failed movie), and waited. It's nice work if you can get it.

irrational fear

Being rational means being able to judge ratios (hence the word ratio-nal). So I loved this article in the Washington Post. Which dangers are we most afraid of?

Pneumonia killed 63,000 Americans in 2000 alone. The anthrax letters killed 5. We could also add that terrorism killed 3,000 in 2001, but almost nobody before or since. While road traffic deaths, gun deaths, heart disease... you name it, almost anything is more dangerous than terrorism. Whenever I see a headline about terrorism it always says the same thing: "Irrational fear! Irrational fear!".

Iraqi constitution

In today's news, the Sunnis refuse to take part in making Iraq's new constitution. One of the reasons is the exclusion of ex-Baath party members (i.e. all Sunnis with any experience of politics). The other is that the other guys (Kurds in north, Shias in south) have all the oil. Land rent would solve the second problem.

Under land rent, valuable land (such as land with oil) is taxed more, and other land is taxed less. As a result, there is no economic benefit in owning oil-rich land, beyond the profit you can make from your own hard work in fair competition with everyone else. So one result is an end to conflict over land, and another is that the land is used as efficiently as possible, because everyone has a fair chance to compete . Sounds like it's exactly what Iraq needs.

floods in Europe

I have resolved to stick to the narrow issue of land rent in its simplest form. That is, governments raise taxes from land values more than anything else. (Ultimately land values should be the ONLY thing taxed, but that would require some adjustment, so let's keep it simple.) Today's news shows once again where this would be a Good Thing. The floods will caused tremendous harm to land values (who wants to live where you might be flooded?) But under land rent, taxes (which is based on land prices) are automatically reduced. Land values go down when people move elsewhere, meaning the other land values go up, so the government does not lose out either.

completely off topic

In another life, I read the Fantastic Four comic. (The movie was OK, by the way, not great but pretty good all things considered.) I don't like the fighting, but the optimism and ideas can be wonderful. Well, my favorite character is a little known creature called Lockjaw. It seems that nobody has made him a web site, despite some fanboy retcon controversy a few years ago (is he just a dog? Can he speak?) So I did some research and here's the result. Look, I told you it was of-topic :)

tax shelters

In today's news, an accountancy firm is criticized for selling illegal tax shelters. But why were they illegal? If someone has created wealth, then it is their own wealth, and taxation is simply theft. Here we have the absurd situation where someone who creates wealth is punished, and someone who destroys wealth (by running a business at a loss) is rewarded with tax breaks.

The whole concept of taxation is wrong.

immigrants die in blaze

In today's news, 17 immigrants died in a Paris fire. They had been placed in an old house and were waiting for new housing. Under a more just system, immigrants would not be "placed" anywhere and would not sit around waiting to be allowed to work, or waiting for handouts. They would be working, creating wealth, in fair competition with everyone else. And there would be no shortage of housing because land rent means more land is on the market, and at a lower price. But under our crazy laws, creating wealth is often a crime.

information will get out eventually

In today's news, hackers are getting into a lot of US government files (though, officially, not the classified ones). This illustrates the points that

1. people want information
2. they will get it eventually

The more information we have, the less we support inefficiency. Land rent is the most efficient way to distribute wealth (See the website for details). So land rent is inevitable in the long term.

states versus individuals

In todays news, critics of China's regime find they don't have anywhere to go. That's the problem if we let governments monopolize land. What do you do if none of the governments want you? Where do you go?

Iran, the shah, and the BBC

Interesting report on the BBC (the link is only a brief summary). It's oil again, just as with Venezuela, and Cuba, and Iraq, etc., etc. Back in 1953, the US organized a coup in Iran, to get the unpopular Shah in charge. Britain helped, and got the BBC to talk up the "danger from Iran" and even broadcast the code word to start the invasion. In the 1990s, America finally apologized, but Britain never has. As a result of 1953, the Iranians never trusted the west (or the BBC) and instead turned to fundamentalism. The 1979 revolution looked back on 1953 and said "never again!"

Of course, none of this could have happened if land rent had been the policy. There would be no excessive profits from oil, so the wealth is spread more fairly, so there is more trust and less political interference, so there is more trade and a safer world, hence more wealth, and everybody wins.

Venezuela, Chavez, and poverty

Pat Robertson, famous follower of Jesus and lover of democracy, says the US should assassinate Hugo Chavez, that guy who keeps winning elections in Venezuela, but doesn't support US policies. Those elections were pronounced fair by outside observers. Chavez won despite having powerful enemies - the wealthy elite hate him, they control the media, and the media is constantly promoting anti-Chavez stories. Yet Chavez wins. Why? Because the poor love him. And after six years of his reforms, they love him even more.

This isn't a pure land rent story, but it involves resource ownership, and it illustrates how the poor can sometimes win against the rich. When Chavez came to power, Venezuela was an extremely unequal country. Most of the wealth was owned by a tiny minority, and they naturally want to keep that wealth. They own the businesses and they own the media, and are not afraid to use them against Chavez. Some of these bogus news stories are repeated in the USA. I don't have time to look at them all, so let us just look at The Big One.

The backbone of the anti-Chavez case is that he allegedly increased poverty in his country. Strangely, the poor people don't seem to have noticed. Let us look at the oft-quoted statistics:

before 1998: poverty was increasing steadily for 28 years.
1998: (Chavez first elected) poverty is at 49%
1999: Chavez reverses the trend: poverty is DOWN to 42%
2000: (Chavez is elected again) poverty DOWN AGAIN to 41%.
2001: poverty DOWN AGAIN to 39% Chavez has a great record. But he made powerful enemies. In April they organize a coup, which is quickly supported by Washington. But the coup fails. Plan 'B' has the bosses and managers shutting down the oil industry for several months. Oil is Venezuela's life blood - this is a catastrophe of the worst magnitude. When a country is crippled, who is hurt most? That's right, the poor. Notice that this is caused by the oil managers. It's called a strike, but it was led by the owners and managers. Poverty skyrocketed:
2002: The statistics are gathered in the first quarter of each year. After just a few weeks of the chaos, poverty is up to 41%
2003: After months of no income, thanks to the oil barons, poverty peaks at 54%
2004: now the strike is over, Chavez once again gets poverty going DOWN: just 1 percent to 53%, but getting poverty down is much harder than getting it up.
2005: The numbers aren't in yet, but every indication is that they will be DOWN again.

These numbers only tell half the story. They don't count the longer term social changes put in place. But the poor see the changes. That's why they vote for Chavez in landslide numbers, again and again. The power of the oil barons has been broken, now Chavez can turn his attention to tackling corruption and other problems. His biggest danger is Pat Robertson-inspired assassins, or an US backed coup. If the USA can just give democracy a chance, the future looks very bright for Venezuela.

geniuses - how smart are they?

Further to the discussion on 20 year copyrights and who owns oil, this comes down to the genius argument. The word genius comes from the same root as genesis and generate, it means creator. The level of genius decides the level of ownership. (Note that even the most mundane job requires some creative effort, until such time as it is fully automated and its value approaches zero, but this post is about the extreme cases of genius.)

An oil prospector could claim absolute ownership of an oil field forever, because his input is so unique he is, in effect, an oil genius. But if it was a simple matter of looking in an obvious place, then he would not deserve much more reward than the market rate for wages and machinery. So the question is, was this guy a genius? And if so, what level of genius - just a few years ahead of his fellow man, or centuries ahead? Both theoretically and empirically, we can state with confidence that super-geniuses probably don't exist, or at least not in the commercial world.

First, how likely is it that a brain will be so far in advance of others? Intelligence follows a statistical distribution called the "normal distribution," hence standard deviations, etc. Maybe one in a hundred million people are likely to be twice as intelligent as average, but that is about the limit. Statistically, a super-genius is vanishingly unlikely. Note that for a genius needs to communicate his esoteric discoveries to others - adding an even greater requirement for brainpower.

Second, every super-genius relies heavily on previous discoveries, and if they don't publish their results, others come to the same conclusions within a few years. Just look at the lives of Newton, Einstein, etc. Or in the case of oil exploration, new techniques are developed that make finding the stuff much easier.

In conclusions, no matter how great the genius, it is reasonable to assume that in twenty years their discovery will be either irrelevant (in the case of some fashionable book) or duplicated by others. So the twenty year rule reflects true ownership, and nobody can claim monopoly ownership on their ideas forever.

who owns oil?

I'm reading a book about privilege, and it made me think. Who owns oil? Nobody created it (no human, anyway), yet certain humans (oil companies) did create the conditions that made it available. Meanwhile, society created its value, though the oil companies certainly did most of the work to allow this situation to arise. So who owns it?

To answer this question, we would need to compare the wealth of society with and without oil, and see how easy it was for some competitor to find the oil, and see the effects of different prices (do we harm society by making oil less profitable?) and so on and so on. This just isn't practical. But the flip side is that, whatever argument the oil companies use to justify profits, we can create equally convincing counter-arguments. For example, an oil company might say they need vast profits from some wells, to pay the vast costs of finding them. The response to this is, if they had lower profits, we would till have oil (from easier wells) but society would benefit from lower carbon emissions, more incentive to find alternatives, less international conflict over oil, more oil left for future generations when finding it will be easier, and so on. There is no clear proof either way.

One day we might have clear answers, but until then we have to treat oil discovery like any other discovery, like an engineering design or a new drug, both of which may take vast effort to develop. In other words, use the twenty year rule. Let them make their vast profits for twenty years, then treat oil as uncreated wealth, and let land rent do the rest, creating wealth and justice for all.

loaded words

In today's New York Times: Troops and Extremists Face Off in West Bank. I don't think that wanting your own country, and being ready to kill for it, is extreme. Maybe foolish and harmful, but perfectly normal. In which case, the Israeli soldiers are defending an extreme, but correct position, that you do not own land just because you grabbed it. I agree with them. (Who would have thought? I agree with Israeli soldiers!) The article should have said "Extremists and Ordinary People Face Off in West Bank."

science and ethics

In today's New York Times, an article on science and religion. The article presents a false dichotomy - EITHER we keep science and ethics separate, OR religion provides the ethics. The third (and I hope, obvious) explanation is ignored: that maybe science can provide the ethics.

Note that I say science and not scientists. A scientist in one discipline may be hopelessly bigoted in another. Religious people may collect examples of scientists who have created bombs, etc. But for every example of a bad scientists, I can show a bad religious person, and also show that the scientist in question based his ethics on religion.

Science is simply a rational approach to truth. For example, science can demonstrate that cooperation helps survival, and skin color creates less difference than random variation. Most important, science is testable, and if it is proven wrong it changes (or else it isn't science). To find systems of ethics based on science, just Google words like atheist or humanist and ethics.

To illustrate: My daughter's homework this week requires her to see how different religions approach an ethical issue. To help her, I found the nearest I could find to official statements on a hot ethical topic (in this case, stem cell research) from various religious and non-religious web sites, including Catholic, Anglican, Unitarian, Humanist, and others. On this topic at least, it is pretty obvious that the less religious you are, the more likely you are to be well informed, sympathetic to others, non-judgmental, and concerned about real consequences as opposed to imagined ones. Based on this, science has better ethics than religion.

more support for genocide

Further to the 'nation of outlaws' post, today America is trying to dilute an anti-genocide law. Their words are against genocide, but their actions say otherwise. Oxfam notes that the US is trying to water down the proposals, and urges the US to reconsider. Why are they soft on genocide? Draw your own conclusions. But I think that many Americans, if given the choice, would be strongly against genocide. If we could choose our own governments, peace-loving Americans would not be tarred with the same brush as the rest.

UK and US support for torture

Just a reminder that we (the UK and US) routinely send people to be tortured. As I noted in an earlier post, it doesn't work.

bankruptcy: of people and nations

The availability of bankruptcy is in today's news. Bankruptcy is counter-intuitive. Who would have thought that allowing people to default could actually be good for the economy? It took thousands of years of debtors' prisons before the world woke up to the fact. As long as there were no criminal acts, society steps in to remove any remaining assets, and the person has to start again from scratch.

Bankruptcy works. We should apply it to nations. Nations should be required to pay their debts to the world (i.e. with land rent). If they cannot pay, their assets should be removed by society (the world) and freed up for better use by the market. Of course we have a long way to go - land monopoly is so entrenched that millions of people would support first use of nuclear weapons rather than give up their stolen wealth. But we should not forget the goal, and the inevitable future: good business practices (like bankruptcy enforcement and protection) extending to everything, including land.

ultra-low crime in the real world

I've mentioned earlier the obvious fact that high surveillance leads to low crime. So gated communities, and close-knit villages (like mine) have very low crime. Land rent leads to the freedom to choose your own community, so each community is like a close-knit village or gated community. But that is long term. In the short term, land rent has a more immediate effect in lowering crime, by lowering the cost of land.

Rather than argue about the links between land monopoly and crime, let us look back to the time when America had low land prices. Congressman Henry George Jr explained the causes, and here is the result:

While Minister to France, Jefferson explained to one of his French friends that
in the ten years of his attendance as student and practitioner at the bar of the
Supreme Court of Virginia there, never was a trial for robbery on the high road,
and that he never heard of one in any of the other States, except in the cities
of New York and Philadelphia immediately after the departure of the British
army, "when some deserters infested those cities for a time." (Letter to M.
Claviere, Jefferson's Writings, Ford Edition, Vol . IV, p. 402.)

economic reform in North Africa

Just read an interesting article on economic reform in North African states. It seems pretty obvious that we will wait a very long time before reforms come from inside. Reforms WILL come eventually, because the powerful want (a) survival, (b) wealth, (c) friends, and but it will be VERY slow in coming.

It's the same old story. The powerful grab the resources. Land rent would attack the problem right at the core, rather than throwing money at the edges and hoping.

the painless way to secede

In the last post I suggested that a new government could be made, based on a small difference from the old one. This is technically very simple. In Britain, we have several examples of separate nations that only opt-out on a few things. Scotland has had its own legal system for centuries. The Channel Islands are a separate state with different tax rules, and are not part of the European Union. The Isle of Mann has had its own parliament for over a thousand years - since Viking times. Each of these states relies on the English parliament for most things and we live quite happily together. Running a separate government does not have to be difficult.

a nation of outlaws

In today's news: Bush withholds aid from poor countries that refuse to hide American genocide suspects. The International Criminal Court was designed to try people for genocide. George W. Bush clearly feels it is likely to come after him or his people. So he opposes it - all Americans are now literally outlaws, setting themselves outside the laws that other nations follow. Bush says the ICC laws are not good enough. The ICC uses the same standards and methods as the Nuremberg war trials. Nuremberg was good enough to judge the Nazis. Why should Bush have problems with it? Are his own standards on international law any better?

If an American genocide suspect is held for trial, the so-called "Hague Invasion Act" says America can use force to free the suspect, like a Chicago mob blowing off the gates of the prison so a gang member can escape. For years, critics of America have referred the Bush and co. as outlaws. It is strange to find that Bush agrees with them.

Of course, every nation is free to create - or ignore - whatever laws it wishes. And other nations can judge it accordingly. Under a land rent system, those Americans who respect international law could opt out and make their own new, better America. And if the hawks were right, they could now go ahead with their brave new world, no longer hamstrung by the pinko wimps. Whichever side did better would soon attract most of the others to join them. It's the quick way to prove who is really on the right side.

property as a concept

In a recent post, I said the Temple Mount has no dollar value if the only people who want it (group A) have no interest in buying or selling. But if someone else (group B) wants to buy it, that creates a trading value. B creates the value, so B owns that value. A opposes the very idea of trade, so they cannot be said to create any trading value - they actively oppose it! This may sound perverse, so let's look at it another way.

Land ownership: what is actually owned?
If nobody created a thing (e.g. land), that thing is nobody's property. But we can create agreements, whereby one person has exclusive use of that thing. To all intents and purposes we can say they "own" it, but in fact what they really "own" is our trust that they are the best people to use the thing. The different parties to the agreement (owner, neighbors, police, etc.) all create the arrangement and so its results are their property, depending on their input. Anyone who opposes agreements and tries to maintain ownership by violence just creates problems, and is responsible for the costs of those problems.

Why we cannot have land rent on private property
Back to the Temple Mount. Group 'B' created its market value, and are thus owed land rent. But what if we apply the same logic to a building that group 'A' created? If group 'A' does not want to sell, and group 'B' gives it a price, then group 'B' has again created a market value. But let us look at the wider picture. To give group 'B' its rent, society must enforce a market against the will of 'A.' This act has consequences.

Enforcing a market in land is a GOOD THING. Why? If nobody created something (e.g. land) we maximize its efficient use by enforcing competition. But enforcing a market in created goods - against the owner's will - is a BAD THING. Why? We might maximize its efficient use, but we discourage people from creating any more. In other words, we have created negative wealth. The whole reason for property is to encourage the creation of wealth. Hence property implies land rent on uncreated goods, but not taxation of created goods.

If we accept the principle that we are responsible for what we create, then everything else falls into place.

Saudi reforms

A couple of days ago I revised the "land rent is inevitable" page. The old version said people would wake up one day and say "Aha! That's a good idea!" But what people think is really irrelevant. Land rent will arrive regardless of what we think or what we call it, because it is simply good business.

Today's news illustrates this fact on a governmental scale. The new Saudi king is allowing reforms. Very slowly, painfully slowly, but he is joining the World Trade Organization, and allowing just a tiny bit more dissent. This illustrates the point that powerful people WILL give up power and WILL allow choice, if it creates wealth. The bottom line is that justice creates wealth, and that is why, despite temporary setbacks, it is inevitable.

starvation in Niger

Mass starvation is another price we pay for not having land rent. The principle of land rent is that you keep the wealth you create. This provides the incentive to do something, such as turning starving mouths into a productive society.

If land rent was the basis of international law, each piece of land would be owned by whoever could make best use of it. As a result, there would be no deserts (except for aesthetic and biodiversity purposes), nobody would be trapped in a failing system, there would be no unemployment, and certainly no starvation. Or maybe we prefer the present system?

crime is the price we pay

Today's news features various crimes, or fear of crime. Ending crime is simple. Let each person choose their own government. Then each person will have the culture they want, and will be happy to have all the surveillance they need, and so crime will be impossible. It's that simple. But instead, we have a system where everyone is forced to live with rules they don't want. And crime is the price we pay.

Jerusalem's Temple Mount

The previous post made a bold claim: that land rent would solve the question of Israel and Palestine. Let's apply this to the hardest question of all, the Temple Mount. The Temple Mount is highly desired by Jews and Moslems. If only one group wanted it, the price would be very low, because nobody else would desire it - they would be happy to let some caretakers keep it. But the presence of a competing group raises its value. In other words, the competing group created its value! So they own that value. Nobody can prove who created the temple, but it is easy to prove who created its rental value.

The beauty of this system is that it is objective. And it removes history and religion and politics from the equation. Who created the current dollar value of the Mount? That is all we have to ask.

who's land is it anyway?

The headlines today are about Israel and Palestine. It's the oldest and biggest question in all history: who owns the land? Whoever grabs the best land has an unfair advantage over everyone else. Land rent removes that unfair advantage. Suddenly it does not matter who has the fertile land and who has the desert. The main site explains the details. The bottom line is that this world's oldest land conflict is solved in one stroke.

Iraqi government

Expectations over Iraq are being lowered again. Meanwhile, Iraqi leaders are horse-trading for power. Whatever happened to free choice? Here's an idea: those who want a western style nation can set up their own, with strong and welcomed support from the west. The rest can have what they want - to be left alone. If people choose their own government, we get natural, strong and popular borders. Problem solved.

abortion

In today's news, controversy over an advert attacking someone over their stance on abortion. This is a perfect illustration of how our system does not work. Abortion is far too complex and emotive for a serious discussion.

If we had clearly demarcated "pro" and "anti" governments, we could easily see which group did best. If one side created degenerate people and moral chaos, everyone would see. But instead, we mix up the results, and have no clear way of seeing the results of our actions. So we all live in ignorance and distrust, generation after generation.

"Google Print"

In today's Washington Post: more evidence of harm from vague and excessive copyright laws. If the laws had been clear and reasonable, the owners would have been protected, and far more information would be easily available. But instead we have a mess. (See earlier post on how copyright should last twenty years, just like patents.)

Abraham Lincoln and secession

Another long blog arguing that secession is a Good Thing.

Secession creates better governments
If you want to choose your own form of government, you need a way to leave the previous forms. That means the freedom to secede. Without this, you are unable to find better ideas for running a country. America is the best example of secession (it seceded from British rule) and is now the wealthiest country on earth. Norway is another good example (it seceded from the Kalmarian Union in 1814, and from Sweden in 1905.) Norway now has the highest standard of living and social justice on earth.

Objection: secession is not necessary – you can just emigrate
Often, no suitable nation is available. And emigration can be very expensive, especially if your business and skills are based on your location. Secession is often either the only way to innovate, or the most practical way.

Objection: many attempts at secession fail, or lead to wars
Most failed secessions are because the previous "owner" goes to war to regain the territory. The anti-secessionists are the bad guys. They start the wars. The secessionists are the good guys. They just want to be left in peace.

Objection: what about the American Civil War?
The confederate states tried to secede in 1960-81, but the northern stets then conquered them in war. We cannot know if secession would have been more profitable for both parties because it was never allowed to continue.

Lincoln’s objection (1): secession would show that the American experiment had failed
The American experiment was to allow people to chose their own government. If the south had been able to secede, it would show that the experiment worked. Instead, the experiment failed, and the people were forced to accept a government they did not want.

Lincoln’s objection (2): secession means disintegration
Secession does not mean disintegration. It means freedom. Secession simply allows people to choose the optimum size and type of government. Large, divided governments break up as they should, and small, inefficient governments join together for mutual benefit. The American experience demonstrated this fact – states wanted to join the union more often than they wanted to leave.

American civil war objection: secession would not have freed the slaves
The north the civil war largely because it had more money. A free society is more efficient than a slave-based society. Slavery fails for economic reasons - this would have been even more obvious if the two sides had been allowed to develop separately. Britain had already given up slavery for the same reason. The topic is a detailed one and leads to endless arguments about the econbomy of the south, so I won't go into more details here.

Objection: secession will destroy democracy!
The arguments against secession are the same as the arguments against democracy itself: "the people are stupid!" "there will be no continuity!" Yet democracies are almost always wealthier and more stable than their previous political forms (usually monarchies).

Objection: governments that allow secession cannot make long term plans, in case people leave?
Governments are like major legal or construction firms. Large buildings or mortgages often take twenty-five years or more to be paid for. At any time, customers can (and sometimes do) declare themselves bankrupt or leave the country. But this destroys their reputation and credit rating with other businesses, so people (and businesses) tend to stay and pay their debts.

Objection: people can cause chaos by threatening to secede?
The cost of land rent, and the need for long-term trust, secession is very expensive. The existing government has the benefit of economies of scale, so can always offer a better deal. As a result, the threat of secession becomes an excellent way to ensure that a government serves its people, but the threat would rarely be acted out. The only people to secede would be those with a genuine reason to hate the government, and the insane. A government is better off without such groups.

Objection: a state is like a marriage – divorce should not be easy!
Divorce is never easy. It has high financial costs, it makes people miserable, and frequent divorce leads to stigma. However, forcing people to stay together against their will leads to despair and encourages abuse of all kinds. Even societies that ban divorce usually allow separation. If a state is like a marriage, then separation is the minimum we should allow.

Objection: smaller parts are inefficient?
Sometime smaller business units are more efficient. Small parts compete against each other. The increased competition can more than compensate for any loss of economies of scale. New technology makes the potential advantage even greater. If people can choose their own government, they will choose the size that offers the best advantages. Large states are like large businesses. They can often benefit from separating themselves into autonomous units. Businesses did this on a massive scale in the 1980s and 1990s, and called it ‘reengineering’ or ‘downsizing.’ In a free market, people either choose what works best, or they lose to those who do.

Objection: powerful states can still dominate weaker states?
If a powerful state makes life difficult for a weak state, or forces it to do things against its will, it acts as a master with a slave. This is fundamentally inefficient (is it a coincidence that no advanced society allows slavery within its borders?). It is more efficient for other states to form free alliances. So the free alliances will gradually replace the slave states.

Objection: democracy already allows us to experiment with new governments
In a typical democracy, a new government can only be formed if the majority agree. If a new idea is good but the majority cannot understand it, they will never agree with it, so it will never be tried. Governments are complicated. There may be a hundred different ways of implementing a new idea. So it can take many years for a good idea to be understood. This is too slow to keep up with changing opportunities and needs. In contrast, secession allows many new ideas to be tried simultaneously.

Objection: we already have the best way, it is Liberalism/Shariah/Christ/Marxism/Libertarianism/etc.
If so, the freedom to secede will let you practice it in exactly the way you want, and amaze the world with your great success. You have nothing to lose, unless you think the present system is the best possible.

Objection: "Pure democracy would be a disaster – the American founders knew it "
Secession is not democracy. Democracy is a system within a state. Secession is a principle that allows states to be created (and they can then choose to merge through alliances). They are not the same things. Secession allows people to experiment with different forms of government, it does not replace those forms.

Objection: free choice leads to no government at all?
Where there is no government, government fills the vacuum. For example, in every state where law breaks down completely, local warlords take over. When people are given a choice, they get rid of the warlords and choose a better government. The important thing is choice.

secession and Armenia

I keep promising to make these blog entries shorter, but like a drunk I return to my old habits. Short entries just take so much longer to write! Anyway, the New York Times this morning has headlines about Gaza and Iraq, so let's talk about the benefits of secession. Why am I talking about armenia? Because this was written some time ago, and then Armenia seemed a perfect example of a nation that would not benefit from allowing secession. Or would it?

Is secession suicide for weak countries?
A strong nation can allow secession, because the new child states have a good reason to cooperate. But what about a weak nation? The seceding states may hate the old nation and become allies with its enemies. Then what? Let’s look at the example of Armenia.

Armenia is a small, landlocked country with few natural resources. It is in conflict with its neighbour Azerbaijan over the small Armenian area of Nagorno-Karabakh (within Azerbaijan). It is in conflict with its neighbour Turkey over the desire for Turkey to apologise over alleged genocide (from Ottoman times). It is unable to stand up to Russia because it is financially weak. The major powers (nearby Russia and distant America) have more interest in oil-rich Azerbaijan. America likes Karabakh, so Armenia gets some credit for supporting it, but America likes Azerbaijan’s oil even more. Azerbaijan is likely to get stronger, and Armenia is likely to have very little power. How would secession help here?

The ideal solution: everyone has land rent
The problems arise from the desire to grab oil and land. Global land rent would make this fair, so there is no advantage in gaining it by force. But what if nobody else adopted land rent, and this led to desires for secession? What if Armenia did it alone? Would Armenia just break up and be absorbed by its stronger neighbours?

Secession is safe
Land rent based secession contains its own safeguards. If Armenia was the only country to adopt secession, there would be great potential costs in secession. The seceding states would be liable for these costs, and could be treated as criminals if they did not pay. So succession could only happen slowly and cautiously. However, if other countries had already adopted secession, the costs would be lower because there would be instant allies to help, and they would be allies because the advantages (see next point) are greater.

Secession brings wealth
The main reason for land rent is to create wealth (see the main web site). It allows the most efficient possible use of resources, the greatest possible rewards for entrepreneurs, and the removal of fear because everyone has a fair chance. This wealth alone would give Armenia greater choices, and give it a stronger position when trading with Russia.

Secession would improve relations Azerbaijan
Secession would solve the problem of Karabakh. America would still be a friend, because Karabakh would have even greater freedom. Azerbaijan would be a greater ally, because Karabakh would have to absorb any refugees that had previously been driven out. (The refugee problem is a major reason for Azerbaijan’s opposition – when Karabakh declared independence, it drove out many of the non-Armenians.) Karabakh could not complain because if it wants secession, it cannot deny secession to others.

Secession would improve relations with Turkey
The Armenian government cannot become friends with Turkey because of pressure from nationalistic factions in Armenia. secession would solve this problem. The Armenian government could adopt a friendlier stance, and if the nationalists didn’t like it they could secede.

Conclusion: secession makes things better
None of these things would be easy, but they are definitely better than the alternative. At present, Armenia has little future. land rent, even if it led to secession, secession would give it a better future.

Iran's nuclear program

Iran wants nuclear power. Does that make them dangerous? America has nuclear power, and America is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another nation (60 years ago this week). And America has the world's largest collection of nuclear weapons, so nobody dares oppose them. And America just invaded Iraq, even though Iraq had zero weapons of mass destruction. So maybe nuclear power does make a nation dangerous. But how can we be sure in a particular case?

Let 's talk causality. What objective evidence do we have that nation A is likely to do bad stuff to nation B? Obviously we have none - bad stuff is always planned in secret. All we have is judgment based on imperfect evidence. So how do we improve our national judgment? Answer: by letting citizens choose their own government.

1. We would quickly see how many people REALLY think that nation A is a threat.
2. People would think more seriously, knowing that their opinions would be acted on. (In contrast, in a nation of numerous conflicting opinions, it doesn't matter much what each person thinks.)
3. If they decided to act, they would see the results of their own opinions.
4. Others have more examples to learn from.

So land rent improves our decision making. Don't you think we should make better decisions?

simplifying the land rent message

Land rent is a simple idea (you own the wealth you create, and society owns the wealth that it creates). But I think it may still be too complicated. I want a simple slogan, something that everyone can see is obviously right. Maybe I should emphasize property = causality instead. Once we accept that property = causality, land rent naturally follows.As a slogan, the idea that property = causality has a number of advantages over land rent:

1. It is very simple idea
2. The equation is immediately obvious
3. For most people, property is a positive image. For most people, rent is a negative image.
4. The other word, causality, suggests a scientific approach. I differ from other Georgists in my emphasis on a cold, calculating foundation (most Georgists rely on "self evident" ideas of sharing)
5. It clearly defines my relationship with Libertarians. I agree with everything they say, except their apparent vagueness on the central topic: what is property?
6. It opens up new possibilities for how to promote land rent: the key idea of property = causality helps to simplify and improve all laws. First, it defines justice. Second, it implies the need for both transparency (so we can work out who caused what) and competition (preventing others from competing is a negative form of causality.)
7. It is truly objective. It does not assume that some causes are "good" and some are "bad." It just allows us to decide what causes stuff, and thereby gives us greater freedom to choice the world we want.
8. I find it easier to relate to the news, and easier to explain to others.

I won't change the site title just yet, I'll mull over the idea for a bit longer. The word "causality" might need tweaking. But I am minded to change...

property: even Microsoft understand it

This morning I used Windows Update as usual, and Microsoft decided to check if the software on my computer is legitimate. It is - I haven't used pirate stuff in years (and even then it was when the alternative was far worse). But I bought my computer from a major UK shopping catalog (I think it was Littlewoods Index - a VERY big company here). My supplier got it from an obscure company called Qtech. Qtech don't even have a web site, and they don't show up on any list of approved suppliers. So Microsoft gave me a message that suggests they don't trust me. They didn't say so, but the implication was clear ("problems... problems in the future"). If this causes problems and I am sufficiently irritated, I may finally join the side of righteousness and install Linux.

Why does this matter? It illustrates why land rent is inevitable. Because everyone has a natural understanding that property means causality. Legally, according to current laws, Microsoft is wrong to hassle me. I bought my computer from a legitimate source, I use legitimate software (unless you include using shareware products way too long, but that's nothing to do with Bill Gates). "Legally" I am safe. But really the case is simple. Microsoft created Windows, and so they can do what they like with it. If my case went to court, they would probably win. And not just because they have a ton of money and lawyers. Deep down, regardless of what the paperwork says, everyone knows that if you create something you own it. You can sell it, in which case you have caused or created the idea of ownership, but in this case Microsoft have made abundantly clear that they never sell Windows - they just give people permission to use it for a while. That's their choice. If I don't like it, I can go elsewhere.

I am not saying that Microsoft are right in everything they do, or even very nice. I will never forget what they did to boot sectors (they used their power to make sure that computer retailers made dual-boot computers as difficult as possible). They have their share of sins. But the bottom line is that creation equals causality. Everyone knows it. Eventually, as communications increase and theft becomes harder to justify, the legal framework will catch up. And then we will have land rent.

I want to be a policeman!

Police are cool. If I had my life to live again, I would be a policeman. You make good money, you have instant backup wherever you go and whatever you do, you often get to carry a gun, everyone treats you like a hero, and the government is always looking for ways to give you more power. But it gets better!

Want to drive your car at 159 miles per hour? No problem! You don't need to think up an excuse before you do it - if someone asks afterwards, just say you were testing the car. Want to beat them up? And handcuff them first just to be safe? Don't worry if somebody videos you doing it. Videos only count against people below the law. If you are above the law, there is always "insufficient evidence."

Do you want the right to demand whatever information you want from people? But you don't have to tell anyone anything that you do? And if you don't like someone, you can accuse them of something bad, but you don't have to tell them what it is, and they can be tried in private. Nice and neat.

What a cool job! Being a policeman is like being the Genie in Disney's Aladdin. "Absolute Power!" Only better, because the genie was not allowed to kill anyone. I want to be a policeman!

why land rent is inevitable

Just added a new page to the main site: why land rent is inevitable. I've also revised and tidied up the proposals page. They still need some work, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but it's getting there. Slowly.

about this blog

Some old topics, summarized:

Site traffic: This may sound odd, but I don't really want more blog traffic at this stage. I'm not happy with the blog yet. It still isn't right. I don't want to encourage others to visit until it is right. This is my sandbox where I explore ideas. When I get ideas that seem to work, they go onto the main site.

The main site: the main site isn't finished yet. When it is, it won't need promotion, it should promote itself. I want to make land rent so easy to understand that everyone says "well of course I believe that!" - I still have a long way to go.

The next few years: the main site is based on ideas that took many years to develop. I expect that this site will take many years to evolve as well. I can be patient. Thank you for being patient as well.

The title, "land rent will save the world": This makes some people uncomfortable. It is meant to - I am arrogant enough to challenge all other political and philosophical ideas. So far, the site is weak, and when I challenge people to a duel of ideas, I lose. But I have very big dreams.

copyrights should last twenty years

Some abstract reasoning on the subject of copyrights...

Patents typically last around twenty years. I think copyrights should as well. Even a genius needs inspiration and infrastructure. Society provides this. In addition, copyrighted works (such as books and movies) quickly look old fashioned. This is proof that their quality relies heavily on the society of a particular time. So society has created much of that wealth, and therefore owns that part. Both artist and society help to cause a creation, so both own it in part. It's a simple question of ownership. If you extend a copyright much beyond 20 years, many of the adults who who helped create the society will be dead. They will be denied the profit from their creation.

Please note that ending copyright does not end a creator’s profits. A 20 year copyright gives time for a creator to create a reputation, and they can use that reputation to make derivative products. And please also note that the present infinite copyright law (where big business can extend copyright forever) results in the destruction of irreplaceable work.

I was going to add a ton of notes about the details, but I like short blogs. So I'll simply say "if it's good enough for patents, on which businesses and lives depend, then it's good enough for copyright."

our governments are good

From the BBC yesterday: "The prime minister said he was prepared to amend human rights laws" to deport people who "visit particular bookshops and websites."

Yesterday, on PM, a government minister said that "free speech" will have limits. She said it on the radio, but it was so uncontroversial that it wasn't printed anywhere.

It's the same in America. Peaceful protest makes you a potential terrorist. And you know how our governments treat people they link with "terrorism" - lock them up without charging and without any trial and torture them.

I used to think "this could never happen to me" but I now know from personal experience (I can't give details) that it can happen to anyone.

And that is why I say our governments are good. Whatever they say and do is fair and just. If they tell us to hate Al Qaeda, I will hate Al Qaeda. If they say we should bomb our enemies in Iraq, then we should bomb them. I agree with everything they say and do. It is dangerous not to.

Tony Blair's secret identity

I was going to write about Tony Blair and human rights, but it was very depressing. So instead, may I draw you attention to a little known fact: Tony Blair looks exactly like a Marvel Comics villain called The Puppet Master.

(The Puppet Master, as his name suggests, controls people as if they were puppets. The picture is his first appearance, from the cover of Fantastic Four issue 8, 1962.)

what we call "democracy"

The last American election was won by just a couple of percentage points. Key marginal districts used Diebold voting machines, which have a ten percent error rate. This is just one way that our "democratic" system is fatally flawed. Other ways are gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, and the way that the powerful can manipulate public opinion. For more examples, see "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" or "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

Until the time when we can each choose our own government, the idea of democracy and freedom and justice will be empty words.

competition creates stability

Here's a typical, everyday business headline: Rupert Murdoch Becomes NY Post Publisher. Nothing special here, he already owns it, so what's the big deal? The big deal is the reminder that foreign businesses (Murdoch was Australian) choose America, and other highly regulated states. Of course they want their personal regulation to be minimized - News International famously pays almost no taxes - but they place their headquarters and most of their investment in countries that have MORE regulation, not less.

Imagine a world where people could chose their own nation. Would this create chaos? Would we lose all our rights and privileges? Quite the opposite. Businesses choose well regulated, stable nations that pay their people well. Sure, they also like cheap labor, but they place their headquarters in the regulated nations. If we could all choose our own nation, stability and good regulation would be rewarded with investment.

There is really no excuse for today's fixed borders. They serve no purpose other than to allow corruption, and to trap people as slaves inside failed states.

why torture is wrong

In today's news, more American torture. Or rather, creating conditions that make torture likely, then looking the other way. America is not unusual in using torture, but the level of hypocrisy here is exceptional. So it is worth remembering why torture is always, without exception, wrong. For details, see the answers web site.

Torture allows one person to force another to cooperate. However, it destroys your reputation, so persuades millions of others not to cooperate. So torture, even if it occasionally produces useful information, always does more harm than good.

Torture is an inefficient means of gaining information, because frightened people will say what they think you want to hear, regardless of whether that information is accurate or useful.

As evidence, look at the countries that use more torture, and the countries that use less. The countries that use less torture are stronger and more successful that those who use it more. If torture was an efficient strategy, we would expect the opposite to be the case.

So why do we use torture if it does not work? The reason is easily explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. We have used it in the past, and we do not want to believe that we were just stupid (and evil). So we look for examples where it seemed to work. In the same way, a gambler will look for examples where gambling made them money. Or a believer in UFOs will look for strange shapes in the sky. It is easy to find anecdotal evidence. But torture always takes place in secret, so the beliefs can never be objectively refuted. So the anecdotes are repeated, exaggerated, and the belief in torture continues.

choose your own jail (continued)

Earlier I argued that prisoners should choose their own judge (and by implication, choose their jail). This is an implication of land rent (borders have costs, costs can only be defined in a free market; a jail is just another form of border) but it also makes sense on its own. Today's news, kangaroos courts in Guantanamo, illustrates the reason why.

If criminals can choose their own judge and jail, this forces us to have a fair system. But if they have no choice, then we have no pressure to be fair. Indeed, all the pressure is to be unfair. If a government and justice system are seen to capture dangerous criminals, they are rewarded with more money, more votes, more prestige, etc. So there is great pressure to believe that the people they capture are guilty. There is no pressure to believe they are innocent. So the system is inherently unfair. If we allow criminals to choose their own judge and jail, this forces us to be fair.

Or maybe we don't think that fairness matters?

multiculturalism

Today, a senior politician attacks multiculturalism. His prefers a one-culture state. There are many advantages of a one culture state: everyone understands each other and agrees with their leaders, leading to peace and harmony. But what gives one culture the right to tell another culture what to do? In other words, what gives one group the right to control land? Every question comes back to land rent eventually.

competition creates kindness (continued)

Just a short post today.

Wealthy businesses, wealthy nations and wealthy people always go together. Is this a coincidence? If competition creates ruthless inhuman conditions, why don't the richest nations have the worst conditions for their people?

Japan and land rent

Short thoughts on Japan (Why Japan? The reason is long and boring, but news related.)

1. The Japanese economy was transformed by land rent in the nineteenth century - changing it from a medieval backwater into a modern economy. However, their version of land rent was flawed, and was soon overturned by land owners. It's a long story.

2. The recent economic troubles could have been prevented by land rent. Everyone agrees that a major cause was inflated speculative land prices. Land rent is designed (among other things) to reward work, not land hoarding.

3. The Japanese system of big companies and cradle-to-grave employment shows that businesses can be just as stable and look after you just as well as a government can.