But IMHO a minarchy's legitimate concern is to provide a communal defense without free-riders. Since this protects land, billing per hectare seems like the logical way to pay for the defense services and equipment. That's really all I meant to say.
Not for other purposes; I think you're absolutely right.
>The problem with evenly apportioned taxes like this is that it is
>anti-environmental and anti-rural, unless specific exemptions are
>written in for farmland and wilderness property.
Aren't defense costs are real costs of maintaining property? It seems to me that profitable enterprises have to pass these costs along, or else somehow the value has to be coerced from other people that then don't control the expenditure.
If one did permit such exemptions, it would pay people to plant wild plant species in their yards and roofs, to better care for small birds and native animals.
Exemptions could also pay developers to route greenbelts between local biopreserves, so that the biopreserves would not be genetically isolated.
In Huntington Beach CA, the central park is remarkable, because it's based on native species, with water and mowing added to keep the grass green and short. One of my teachers was a field biologist that consulted on the choice of species. The park is lovely, and they can turn off the water in droughts without killing the plants. My teacher said that the native insects, insectivores, herbivores and small predatores were all settling in nicely, in plausible ratios. I've seen hawks there.
A good system of exemptions could thus probably pay for parks to serve as regional biopreserves.
I'd love to have exemption to a property tax system, becaus ethey could pay for biopreservation, something that I value. But, It's not clear to me that my values are shared.
I'd love to hear your ideas.