Many libertarians overlook the fact that a landlord is a form of local government. The more territory a landlord controls, the more obvious it is that a landlord is a form of government (in fact, that is the origin of the word "landlord").

Within the territory he controls, a landlord collects taxes (which he calls by the euphemism of "rent"), makes laws (which he calls by the euphemism of "lease conditions"); and restricts immigration (by choosing which "tenants" he will allow to live or work within his territory).

In addition, some landlords have their own security guards to defend their territory, just as city and state levels of government have their own police, or a national level of government has its own military. Some landlords also have their own arbitration process, just as other levels of government have their own court systems.

Some libertarians would even allow each landlord to choose his own police or protection agency, to enforce his laws ("lease conditions").

 
There is no difference in principle between a landlord and a local government. However, some libertarians try to argue that a landlord is different because a tenant voluntarily moves onto a landlord's property, and agrees to the lease.

The problem with their argument is that it's like saying: if a person voluntarily moves into the territory of Philadelphia, then that means he has "agreed" to obey its city charter ("lease"), abide by all its laws (lease conditions), and pay all its taxes ("rent") - and therefore Philadelphia supposedly has a moral right to collect high taxes and impose arbitrary laws.

But clearly, the city government of Philadelphia does not have a moral right to impose high taxes or arbitrary laws. There is no difference in principle between "voluntarily" moving into a local government's territory, versus "voluntarily" moving into a landlord's territory.

 
Another argument that some libertarians make is that, if a landlord paid for his land, they believe that is enough to give him the right to govern that land, without any limits on his governing power over that territory.

But the problem with that argument is that it's like saying: the U.S. bought the Louisiana territory from France, so that supposedly gives the U.S. government the right to impose high taxes and arbitrary laws on the inhabitants of that territory.

Clearly, a government does not have the right to impose high taxes and arbitrary laws, including local governments that are called "landlords".

 
If a city government imposed immigration quotas, and claimed the right to decide which people could live or work in its territory, libertarians would recognize that the city government is violating liberty.

Yet, some libertarians then turn around and say it's somehow okay if a landowner or land management company controls more territory than some city governments, and restricts freedom of immigration, by claiming the right to decide which people could live or work in its territory, no matter how big that territory is.

Similarly, some libertarians claim it's okay if a large landowner charges a high immigration tax, which is what is really going on when a landowner charges a high price for selling land to someone.

But as shown above, there is no difference in principle between a city government violating freedom of immigration and a landowner violating freedom of immigration.

 
The Libertarian Alternative

Libertarians in the classical libertarian tradition, such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov, and various others, have long recognized that liberty requires limiting the power of landlords, just as it requires limiting the power of government at all levels - because landlords control territory, just as governments control territory.

So as a more libertarian alternative, most classical libertarians have advocated an approach to limiting the power of landowners, that can perhaps best be explained by showing how it protects freedom of immigration at all levels of government, including the landlord level of government.

 
No government has the right to violate freedom of immigration. Similarly, since a landowner is a form of local government, no landowner has the right to violate freedom of immigration, either.

So, any government or landowner that is restricting freedom of immigration into its territory, by claiming control over immigration into that territory, owes annual compensation to people whose freedom of immigration is thereby being restricted.

The annual compensation would be based on the market value of land in that landowner's territory - that is, based on the potential rental value of the land (location), not the buildings or improvements.

 
That policy has some similarity to a land tax, except that the annual revenue would not go to the government - instead, it would be used for direct compensation to people whose freedom of immigration is being restricted. So, a fine of this kind is different from a tax.

Libertarian economists have long known that requiring that annual fees or land taxes be paid by landowners cannot raise the cost of land to tenants or land purchasers - in fact, it would lower the cost of renting and buying land. A way to explain the effect is that, if you place a fine or tax on an activity, you get less of it. So, if you put a fine or tax on those landowners who restrict freedom of immigration, fewer landowners will violate freedom of immigration. As a result, with freedom of immigration, there will be more freedom of choice for land purchasers and land renters, so there will be a lower price for renting and buying land.

With freedom of immigration, people can more easily "vote with their feet" - so, freedom of immigration will lower how much landowners can charge for annual taxes ("rent"), or can charge for an immigration tax ("land price"). That means the price of renting and purchasing land will be lower.

 
With a lower price for land, it can more easily be bought by those who can use it more efficiently. If a person can use a large amount of land more efficiently than other people, he can just pay the annual compensation for owning that extra land, which would be the same as the market price for renting the land.

So, the result of this policy is a lower price for renting and buying land, more efficient land use, and more affordable land for housing and job creation.

And that is just what is found in the 20 or so cities in the U.S. that have been moving toward a somewhat similar policy, of gradually removing taxes on buildings and production, and replacing them with a land tax: it leads to more affordable housing and more job creation.

As a long-term goal, that policy would be even more libertarian if instead of a land tax, there were annual fines placed on those who restrict immigration, as described above - where the revenue from the fines, instead of being given to the government, would be used for direct compensation, as outlined above, and as advocated by Thomas Paine and various other classical libertarians.

 
If there is a better way to protect individual liberty and freedom of immigration at all levels of government, including the landlord level of government, then that alternative proposal for addressing the question should be compared with the proposal above. In any case, libertarians need to address the important point that a landlord is a form of local government.

For more information about classical libertarian views on land and liberty, the following are recommended: Harold Kyriazi's book, Libertarian Party At Sea On Land; Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to Reverend Madison"; Thomas Paine's essay on "Agrarian Justice" (1797); John Stuart Mill's Principles of Economics; and books by Albert Jay Nock or Frank Chodorov.

Most of those publications, as well as many others, including the most recent literature, are available from the Schalkenbach Foundation in New York City: 800-269-9555; .

Mike O'Mara
(5/11/2002)