Good blog. Our two families (the Jenkins & the Acorns) were acquainted when you were little, back in the ’80’s in Cheyenne, and we still see your folks occasionally when they visit here. We lost track of you when you all moved to Missouri.

Anyway, you have an interesting blog that touches on many of my own interests. I’ll be back to read and comment occasionally. Kinda busy today though.

R.J.

BTW, thanks again for those links to Philip Bess’ stuff. There was some great material for me to digest.
Christo

I wasn’t under the impression that industrial farmers invested more money per acre than small farmers but it looks like I may be wrong. I have not studied the issue extensively. I’ve been thinking about reading Wendell Berry on this topic, would he be a good resource? What books would you recommend?

You brought up a good question with respect to the industrial farmer depleting the soil. Most Land Value Tax advocates also include, what they call, a “resource extraction fee.” Basically this is a tax levied on those who extract resources from the ground as a compensation for the equal right of the entire community to those resources. Although I’ve never heard one apply this string of logic to industrial farmers, it would make perfect sense to do so. If a farmer is depleting the soil through his farming methods he should be required to compensate the community for their loss - just as miners would compensate the community for their loss of resources extracted from the earth.

In a letter to the editor of the St. Louis Post I wrote that the best tax structure would be one which taxed “bads” instead of “goods.” What I meant by that is that pollution, waste, sloppy land-use, land monopoly, etc. should be hit with the highest taxes and wages, income, sales, etc. should have the lowest taxes. This idea is still very much in line with LVT and Geo-libertarian thought in that pollution and waste directly effect man’s right to his own body (those who pollute, in effect, force us to breathe their pollution). Hence, a tax on pollution to compensate the community for the ills they have suffered is just. A tax on waste also makes sense because waste must be disposed of and this means some earth somewhere must be contaminated by it - hence, the community should be compensated for this intrusion into their equal right to the earth.

By-the-way, I completely understand why you might be afraid of the word “efficiency.” Hell, it scares me. In our modern world “efficiency” has resulted in all sorts of evils and ugliness. When I talk of it, however, I have in mind a market system which sees the true cost of hurting the environment and the true cost of pushing costs off to future generations on their bottom line. Only when this is true will “efficiency” in the market be our friend. It won’t mean “efficiency” to rape and plunder this good world. Instead, it will mean that, whatever land is used, will be used in the most efficient and best possible way for the long run. It will mean living and working sustainably.

OK, on to the discussion part, I just want to engage your last point regarding differneces between industrial and small farmers.

“The small farmer holds more money in tractors/barns/houses/organically-improved soil/etc. on his land as a per/acre amount than do the larger production (big business) farmers and therefore pays more taxes presently. Under a land tax system his payment would be the same per acre as the large industrial farmer.”

My first problem with this is that I think it’s a false statement. I do not think small farmers have more money tied up in their land per/acre. Industrial farming is based on pouring capital into equipment (tractors, irrigation, hog houses, etc) and my studies have showed me that industrial farming has invested WAY more $$ per/acre than the small farmer (usually for tax sheltering reasons). I think your system would end up rewarding efficiency (big business) and you would end up with the exact opposite effect you are going for. “unless they could make good use of it.” - a scary, efficient phrase.

Also, how does the market reward the organic or small farmer for renewing his soil, while the industrial farmer depletes it? The market wants cheap goods, which an industrial farmer provides while depleting the soil. An organic farmer’s costs per/acre are significantly more, plus he is making an investment (financially and with time,etc.) in the land, a risk that the industial farmer is not taking. You say that “value is set by the market” but I would fear that the market is a poor indicator of value when it comes to agricultural land.

Just a few thoughts. Thanks,
Christo (once again..a man)