“[T]he power system continues only as long as individuals try to get something for nothing. The day when a majority of individuals declares or acts as if it wants nothing from the government … then on that day the power elites are doomed.”
—Anthony Sutton
Recently, I had the opportunity to moderate a debate between four Republican candidates running for District 4 County Commissioner in Tallapoosa County. As expected, discussion of road maintenance surfaced repeatedly. But the debate’s real focal point was the newly completed Agricultural Center.
The Ag Center – a $4.3 million project, not including additional work performed by county crews – was funded almost entirely by the county commission, with little to no outside support. Candidate opinions ranged from enthusiastic endorsement to outright criticism, with some calling it an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.
As moderator, I asked a broader question: Should county government actively guide economic development, or should it take a hands-off approach and allow the free market to decide?
Some candidates argued that government must actively recruit and support business – after all, “You want your kids to have good jobs nearby.” Others favored preserving the small-town character of places like Dadeville, with its population of roughly 3,000, and expressed caution about overdevelopment. But what was largely missing was a firm defense of allowing the free market to operate without government interference.
How Local Governments “Promote” Business
At the county level, economic development often takes the form of tax abatements – temporary reductions or eliminations of property taxes granted to select businesses. These are frequently administered through entities such as Industrial Development Boards (IDBs).
IDBs are quasi-public authorities that allow counties to issue bonds, acquire property, and lease it to private companies – often structuring deals in ways that effectively eliminate property taxes for years or even decades. While this is framed as “economic development,” it creates a system where certain businesses receive preferential treatment under the law.
Stripped of political language, this is not wealth creation – it is wealth redistribution. Either taxpayers subsidize the incentives directly, or the favored business avoids paying taxes that others must pay.
In both cases, the burden shifts to someone else, resulting in a system where government chooses winners and losers.
The Problem with Central Planning
This kind of targeted intervention is a form of central planning – however localized or well-intentioned it may be. "What is politically defined as economic planning is the forcible superseding of other people's plans by Government officials," Thomas Sowell said. When government steers capital, land use, and opportunity toward preferred outcomes, it inevitably displaces organic market decisions made by individuals and businesses. And importantly, it does so using money taken from the public.
The Property Tax Question
During the debate, the issue of property tax elimination also arose. One of the strongest proponents of active government planning described property tax as a “necessary evil” – a required source of revenue to fund county projects.
I disagree, for three reasons.
First, property tax is fundamentally immoral and at odds with true ownership. If failure to pay results in the loss of your land, then your ownership is conditional. It is difficult to reconcile perpetual taxation with the concept of property rights.
Second, the scope of county government has expanded beyond its core responsibilities. Roads, law enforcement, and record-keeping are essential functions. Multi-million-dollar development projects are not.
Third, if government were limited to those essential functions, the funding required would be significantly lower – and alternative revenue structures could be considered without relying on a perpetual tax on ownership.
A Turning Point for Local Government
Local government matters now more than ever. As national divisions deepen, more Americans are seeking communities that reflect their values. That shift will place increasing importance on county-level governance.
This presents a choice. We must either expand government’s role in shaping economic outcomes, or return to a model where government protects rights and provides basic services, nothing more.
If we believe in free markets, then we must be willing to let them operate even when the outcomes are uncertain. If we believe in property rights, then we must confront whether those rights can truly exist alongside perpetual taxation on ownership.
Conclusion
Property rights and property taxes exist in tension. One asserts ownership; the other conditions it.
If we are serious about liberty – about the idea that individuals, not institutions, are the rightful stewards of their lives and property – then we must be willing to rethink the systems we have accepted as “necessary.”
That includes property tax. And it includes the broader assumption that government must guide economic development rather than simply allow it to occur.
The future of our communities will depend not on how much government does – but on how much it is willing to stop doing.
Dr. James Kring is a homeschool father, homesteader, farmer, and resident of Tallapoosa County.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
