.

DR. STIG ROSENLUND, the author of this controversial article, published a book in Sweden 15 years ago which attempted a synthesis of evolutionary theory, ecology, economics and politics. Entitled The New Method (and only available in Swedish), the book adopted a social Darwinistic perspective. The author is pictured (above) in Stockholm. Rosenlund, now aged 41, undertook research in mathematical statistics for his Ph.D. His work is published in Technometrics and Naval Research Logistics Quarterly. He says: "I started delving into economic history, and I came across Henry George's ideas. I soon realised that land value taxation was the only sensible tax. It is historically based, and I would prefer it to be the only tax." But Rosenlund rejects the welfare state. "Land value taxation," he claims, "cannot finance all of what is now financed by the State. I believe in collective arrangements, but these should be more of a voluntary association between individuals to take care of their needs."

THE GOAL of the nation state is to create conditions as favourable as possible for the biological-cultural selection of individuals and groups of individuals, while simultaneously maintaining an adequate capacity for military defence.

This is my basic premise, which implies a rejection of the welfare state. It does not imply a rejection of collective arrangements for social security, but the basis for such arrangements must be cost accountability for recipients of benefits, in some form or another.

The superiority of land value taxation as a fiscal policy is well known, but it should not be used to finance social welfare costs. Such costs should be left for collectives to which individuals choose to belong.

The basis for the conception of land value taxation (LVT) is the notion that all land (in a wide sense including every natural resource) essentially belongs to the national State. The State lets out the right to use a unit of land on the basis of the ability of the tenant to contribute to the nation's military defence from production on the land.

In principle, every piece of land should go to the highest bidder, where the distribution of a bid over time is discounted with the appropriate interest rate. Of such a bid only a minor proportion need actually be paid in rent (= LVT) in peace time.

In the implementation of the principle there must be sufficient margin of superiority of a new bidder over the old tenant in order to force a shift of lease right, because of errors in measuring the values of bids and because of the cost of a transfer of lease right.

In a state of biological equilibrium (a hypothetical construction like the equilibrium concept in economics, since there will always be a dynamic development) all surplus value of production available for the defence force can be extracted via a land value tax. In a state of non-equilibrium, where not only land but also labour and capital command surplus value of production over cost, all surplus value cannot be extracted via LVT.

In a case of military emergency, resources can be extracted through individual taxation, but it would be preferable to rely on borrowing if LVT is not sufficient. All revenues from LVT go to defence and to activities to enhance land values in general not feasible for individuals or unions of individuals due to external effects (the classical example being the holding of bees for the pollination of large areas of neighbouring land; another example is basic research not easily covered by patent rights).

The remainder of government expenditures are covered by user fees on a strict cost accountability basis.

LAND TAXES are coordinated with fees on external environmental effects (pollution). These envirormental effects can be thought of a the use of land (natural resources) originally defined as belonging to some other unit of land.

Insofar as these effects are concerned with the health of people and animals, regard should be taken to the ability of organisms to adapt genetically through natural selection; this will lead to a lower estimation of damages compared to what on would arrive at if only the short run perspective were considered. The damage today is what it is, but it is compensated for by the longer-run advantages of the natural selection it induces. In general, external environmental effects must be rationally evaluated. There is a lot of emotionalism in the environmental movement.

In this ideal system, no social transfer payments from the national government exist. Social safety nets, medical care, education, etc., are left entirely to individuals and groups of individuals (families, tribes, corporations, etc.). This is essential from a social Darwinist viewpoint. A multitude of forms for cooperation between individuals in groups must to allowed. The most efficient ones will be favoured in the long run by the process of biological-cultural selection. Also, forms which bond individuals strongly in a formal way must be allowed, since such forms will admit investment in human capital or an equal basis with investment in machinery.

This is a broad outline of a social Darwinist conception of society in general, and the tax system in particular. These principles are in fact those which, historically have governed nations. The basic goal is to create maximal incentives for as fast as possible development of society under the unavoidable restriction of a hostile world.

In the long run, LVT as a single tax will be reinstated everywhere. This will be effected through selection between nations; unavoidably, less efficiently governed nations will be vanquished by more efficiently governed nations.