However, I am unclear as to how you apply the notion of privilege to labor, in particular, what privilege has to do with taxes and labor.
Through privileges governments force some people to work for others and also force workers to work for less than they might otherwise.
Could you give an example?
... the combination of taxes on labor with little (or no) charges for privilege creates a downward pressure on wages. ... Without charges that neutralize the power of privilege labor will never benefit from "tax reductions".
What specific privilege are your juxtaposing to labor here? The privilege to employ labor?
Suppose I hire a web developer to build a website for me (or a salsa teacher to teach me how to dance, or a translator to translate a document for me, etc.) Per our agreement, the resulting website becomes my property, to which she has no claim. In return for her time and labor, I pay her a fee to which she agrees. We both come out "winners" in this relationship: I have a new website, she has more money.
It is not clear to me that one party has more "privilege" than the other in this picture: Do I have the privilege of hiring her to build a website for me, or does she have the privilege of receiving payment from me for her work? In this case, and probably many others, who the person having the "privilege" is must certainly be a matter of point of view and circumstance: I am grateful to the developer for her specialized skills and efforts (i.e. I am privileged to be able to have her work for me), while she is grateful to me for the opportunity to earn a living through her work (i.e. she is privileged to work for me).*
And in terms of "taxes on labor", I don't see how privilege comes into play at all. Which one of us is to be taxed for our privilege: me for the privilege of hiring the web developer, or the web developer for the privilege of working for me and getting paid for it? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Sure they can bargain with several privilege holders but the power arrangements are extraordinary unequal. Consider the effects of the passage of time on each party. Failure to reach a deal costs the privilege holder only his opportunity cost and in a growing city the increase in privilege value is probably even greater than any such loss. For the laborer failure to strike a deal will likely result in immediate personal hardship. Who has the stronger bargaining position? Throw in the possibility that there are several laborers bargaining against each other and there will be no mystery in the direction of wages.
But now let's re-run the film with the assumption that the privilege holder must pay annually for his privilege regardless of other circumstances. How eager will privilege holder be to strike a deal? Time is no longer his friend. Each party will be eager to strike a deal, with probably the privilege holder being slightly more eager. Which way do wages tend now?
The two bargaining environments outlined are the result of policy choices, not anything inherent to the situation.
While it is easy to imaginge the three-dimensional space of a city, the same sort of bargaining process plays out for minerals, pollution rights, driving rights, etc, althought they may be a bit more comlex to visualize.
Regarding your web-designer example, I don't see where privilege even comes into play as long as there are no un-due licensing laws preventing either of you from practicing your chosen occupations. The two of you are just a couple of people trading your labor. The only place privileges would come into play is that under a system of privilege taxation both of you would have a broader range of locations to choose from and so might work more efficiently, and did I mention that both of you would also be releived of taxes on your labor?
The issue of how privileges interplay with wage rates is a complex subject, which I am trying to answer compactly. Please accept my appologies if I have not been clear.
As opposed to? What would be the alternative - private ownership, public ownership, cooperative ownership - whether or not we call it ownership someone has control over the property or enterprise. If you want to find a place to live or work you need to get those people to let you live/work there. In other words, there is no doing away with these 'privileges', just the possibility of shifting who controls them. So if you want to argue against private land ownership, for example, you also need to explain how it will be controlled, and why such an alternate scheme would be better for your average individual.
First, the exclusive right to use and control a given piece of the earth, subject to not breaking other laws or harming anyone else. It is absolutely necessary to preserve these sorts of rights if we want people to use land intensively. Who would construct a building without being assured of rights of control?
Second, comes the right to collect the value created by the privilege. My theory of charging for privileges splits these two concepts apart. As the privilege charge is phased in the selling price of land (and other privileges) would fall to 0.
Of course, in the bargain we would phase out taxes that fall on specific activities carried out by the owner such as sales taxes, building taxes, income taxes from income generated on the property.
The tax shift I propose essentially strengthens property rights having to do with privacy, and production while eliminating private interest in profit from privilege directly. There would be no change to the core property structures although common practice and expectations would change considerably.
Referring to a property right as a privilege therefore sounds odd and suggests that it is apt to be revoked. This, of course, stimulates associations with nationalisation and classical socialism.
It may be that the ideas you describe can be expressed in different terms, or in a way that uses the term 'privilege', but minimises this problem. I can see the political attractiveness of building on the negative connotations of 'privilege', but I'm concerned about the net effect.
In advancing a political idea, it's important both to motivate a block of supporters and to reduce the motivation of potential opposition groups. The latter becomes more important later in the game, and I'd think expect that an emphasis on cutting (present) taxes and fostering economic growth would be a strength. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
