.

Suppose some people were issued licenses to steal. Each person who owned one of these licenses to steal was allowed to rob any of the people within the territory the license covered. Each license owner would decide how much she could rob the people in that territory, before they might get fed up and move to the territory of a slightly less oppressive robber. Suppose the owner of any license to steal was also allowed to sell the license to another robber.

If such licenses to steal existed, they should be outlawed, shouldn't they? Well, they do exist. They're called "deeds" to land. Our current type of deed to land allows a "landlord" to collect as much "rent" as she can get away with, from the tenants within the territory covered by the deed -- even if the landlord provides no product or service at all.

If the landlord does provide a product, such as renting some people a house, or does provide a service, such as building maintenance, then that part of the rent rightfully belongs to the landlord. But the deed also allows the landlord to demand additional money from people, based on the location value of the land, even though the landlord did not produce that land (no person produced the land). That part of the rent -- the land rent -- is merely the collection of a payment by a person who has provided no product or service. It is a type of robbery, and is no different than a license to steal.

Some might reply that the landlord has a right to collect that part of the rent, because she paid for the deed, fair and square. But if someone pays for a license to steal, stealing is still wrong, and should be illegal. We need to abolish these licenses to steal. A change should be made in our deed laws, forbidding any person from collecting land rent, based on the location value of the land, because that involves no production of any product or service, and is merely a form of robbery.

This deed reform could be accomplished by Thomas Paine's proposal, which prevents any person from receiving income derived from the location of land. Each deed holder would pay the community a land rent (a site value tax), based on the location value of the land (not the buildings on it). The revenue from the community land rent would then be divided among the members of the community, as a land dividend, or used for a fund to buy or rent land for those who do not own land, or who own land of less than average land value.

Note that any landlord who owns land of average land value would not pay any net community land rent, since the community land rent paid would be equal to the land dividend received by that person. Only those holding deeds to land of more than average land value would pay a net amount of community land rent.

The part of the rent that is based on providing a house, or providing building maintenance, would rightfully 'belong to the landlord. But the part of the rent that is based on the value of the location would not go to the landlord, since the landlord would be required to transfer that part of the rent, in the form of community land rent. This way, a deed to land would no longer be a license to steal.