Bravo to Elinor Ostrom, the first women to win the Nobel Prize in economics. Paul Romer offers these thoughts on her ideas – ideas that are very fitting to our discussions here.

Most economists think that they are building cranes that suspend important theoretical structures from a base that is firmly grounded in first principles. In fact, they almost always invoke a skyhook, some unexplained result without which the entire structure collapses. Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize in Economics because she works from the ground up, building a crane that can support the full range of economic behavior. [...]

Not only has it been a surprise to have such an extended lull on this blog, but it is even more surprising that no one here has brought up the most debated and controversial subject being addressed in the media today: health care.

Well, I’d like to play some catch up today. I’ve been dialoging/debating on a mass email with my wife’s family on this issue for the last month or so. The topic of health care reform has proven rich in bringing up all kinds of underlying presuppositions that I am ashamed we haven’t yet hashed out here.

The issue as I see it is that a type of reform is needed (few seem to argue that point), some are concerned that having a national option would increase the government’s role in our lives, and some think the current administration isn’t going far enough and should develop a single-payer plan.

So what say you?

There are two strains of our argument that often get intertwined and mixed.

One part is the discussion about the idea of owning land in the abstract: Is land fundamentally different from other forms of property and capital? Can you own land the way you own other things? This is a very difficult arena because we are very close to a dogmatic dispute about our first principles. I feel like I understand the other side’s view, but I remain unconvinced. I need to work on finding a way to approach this disagreement from a common ground that we can agree on.

The second part is the discussion about whether instituting the land tax would be a net gain or loss for society. Apart from the question of rights, would a land tax make us poorer or richer? What if it would make some people better off and others less well off? I think the internal dynamics of a land tax can be analyzed by treating it as if the government owned all land and rented the land to the citizens, according to certain customs. In those terms the normal perspectives and tools of economics can give us a fairly good picture of what to expect. This is the easier side of the discussion, no matter how convoluted it gets.

But maybe we’re missing the point. How relevant is that second argument? If I was convinced that the georgist land tax was a net gain for all members of society, I might still oppose it on the principles of private property and limited government. Maybe not, I’m not sure because I haven’t given it enough thought. And suppose I spend the next three years convincing Trevor that the land tax system will make us all slightly poorer. If he still thinks the georgist system is more just, I might have been wasting my time.

Is justice all that really matters?

Saturday night I had the joy of staying out way past my bed time. I was hanging with Jeremiah’s family and friends, Sage, and our mutual friend Daniel. And our other mutual friend, the Hookah. I took the opportunity to declare my intent of writing a serious of posts on libertarian inconsistencies. You see, I would very much like to call myself a libertarian (I sometimes still do) but I hesitate because the world, it seems, is filled with libertarians of a type I find troubling. I often hear these odd fellows speak of personal freedoms, small (or no) government, a hands off foreign policy, free markets, the value of personal property, and the evils of socialism. But just as often I read in their writings a defense of Wal-mart, support for Suburban sprawl, compassion for big business, hatred for mass transit, and disgust with any environmental regulation that might adversely affect some business.

Although I agree with so much of the base philosophy of libertarians I often find that the libertarian “on the street” is at odds with his own philosophy. This odd right leaning yuppie ideology we find on the street (and can be seen on Mises, Acton, and to a certain degree at Cato) is, I think, what most people have in mind when they hear the word “libertarian”. So I hesitate to connect myself with this vocal majority.

But, alas, the good often outweighs the bad so I persist with the group. I supported Ron Paul. But I must make clear exactly why I think he and other libertarians are often, I believe, quite inconsistent and, to steal an adjective from Kevin Carson, quite vulgar in their libertarianism. So in step with Kevin I hope to flesh out my thoughts through a serious of posts under the heading “Vulgar Libertarianism.”

I’ll start with a short essay by a libertarian I’ve had the pleasure of corresponding with for some time now, Dan Sullivan. I’m certain you will find this essay thought provoking and to the point. I believe it will lay down a solid foundation for future discussion.

Are you a Real Libertarian or a ROYAL Libertarian?
- By Dan Sullivan

We call ourselves the “party of principle,” and we base property rights on the principle that everyone is entitled to the fruits of his labor. [...]