Geoists argue that we ought to shift taxes from labor and savings onto the rental value of land. While geoists agree concerning this proposed policy, there is significant disagreement among geoists concerning the main motivation for this view. While some geoists advocate for it on an economic consequentialist basis, others do so from deontic rights to land. While this disagreement might be seen as an inconsistency in the geoist view, this paper argues that it is one of its major advantages. The paper is divided into two major parts.
In the first part, I will argue that we have good reason to favor policies that are not only supported by one particular principle but that can be independently justified on several different views. There are at least two major reasons for doing so. First, if we accept some form of moral pluralism, we would want to pursue policies that are not only desirable on one principle but rather those that are desirable on balance, given several competing values. Secondly, even if we reject moral pluralism, focusing on broadly justifiable policies enables us to hedge our bets in response to moral uncertainty. Rather than merely acting on our favorite theory, we ought to distribute our credence among theories in proportion to the evidence supporting them. Under these conditions, we ought not necessarily always act on the theory in which we have the highest credence but rather choose the action that is most choice-worthy given all the different theories that we have credence in. Hence, if a policy receives support from many independent theories, this will increase its general choice-worthiness.
In the second part of the paper, I will strive to show that geoism can be robustly justified on several different moral views, namely, consequentialism, liberal egalitarianism, and libertarianism. It is broadly accepted among economists that land value taxation is a uniquely expedient form of taxation. Since the supply of land is perfectly inelastic, land taxes do not cause the deadweight costs associated with other taxes. Furthermore, land tends to be concentrated among the wealthy and is a paradigmatic case of revenue that arises independently of effort, providing a liberal egalitarian argument in favor of geoism. Finally, while libertarians often reject taxes, there is a left-libertarian version of the view that sees taxes on land as uniquely justified. And even for right-libertarians, it seems reasonable to believe that land value taxes are less invasive on libertarian rights to self-ownership compared to taxes on labor.
In the concluding part of the paper, I discuss some of the broader implications of this argument. In particular, I reflect on the possibilities this may open for geoist coalition building, but also on the fact that this policy has failed to be implemented despite these converging lines of support.
Martin Jacobson is a political theorist and Research Fellow at the Norwegian Nobel Institute. His research is focused on the economic and normative theory of geoism, also known as left-libertarianism. According to this view, everyone has equal rights to those natural resources and opportunities that have not been created by anyone. He obtained his Ph.D. from the Department of Government at Uppsala University in 2024, with a thesis exploring the relationship between geoism and anarchism. In 2025, he will start a three-year postdoctoral research project on geoism and political equality, based at Virginia Tech, the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and Uppsala University.