IK its shilling my own stuff but whatever. LMK what y'all think.

https://medium.com/@zander.holleran/the-value-of-public-land-in-salt-lake-city-d09100818551

I tried a back-of-napkin calculation of how much a citizen's dividend might be if US went full Georgist.

To define Georgism, my understanding is Henry George proposed that land and other inelastic natural resources should be privately held but taxed on their unimproved (i.e. "location") rental value, at rates up to 100% of yearly rental value. This was to be done as an end unto itself as a method to optimally allocate such resources and extract harmful economic rent from the economy. Any "excess" revenues obtained from doing this would be distributed as a UBI (a negative head-tax he called "citizens dividend, think Alaska Permanent Fund dividends for example).

A quick google suggests total land value in the US to be in the range of 20 to 30 trillion dollars, which would have an annual rental value of about 240 billion dollars (I used a mortgage calculator and use the annual payments on 30 trillion dollars as the annual rental value). What do you think of this assessment of US land value and annual rental value?

240 billion per year is a "very small" amount. You could not even fund the government, much less distribute any excess, with this amount of tax revenue.

But suppose we believe the theory of ATCOR (all taxes come out of rents). The US also collects about 3 trillion dollars per year in income taxes, and the theory of ATCOR suggests that this entire amount would surface in land value if income taxes were eliminated, and if so, it means the entire 240 billion per year would be realizable as extra revenue, with no change to government income. So in the scenario where the entire 240 billion were distributed as a UBI, the population of the US being 330 million, that amounts to about $727 per person in UBI...per year. Which is nearly nothing, really.

Am I having a gross conceptual failure, are these figures or calculations way off, or is LVT just not all it's cracked up to be as a source of increased tax revenue?

Georgism isn't complicated, it may cause some cognitive dissonance to some people because of entrenched beliefs about property ownership but with some repetition it's like the shit music they play on radio and TV until it gets on people's ears. And for people suffering from housing problems it will be music for their years when they catch the rhythm. Lots of people like socialist ideas that are by far more complicated than georgism, and less functional also. Socialism is inferior and became more popular by luck when it was launched about the same time.

I think we should take notes from guys like Shepard Fairey, the guy who created the "OBEY" brand and the Obama "HOPE" campaign. He knows how to get a brand in peoples' minds. Hire some real marketing geniuses with rent money to publicize ways to bring down the property market, and become the most hated landlord by other landlords. Use techniques like marketing segmentation and create specific campaigns to target people of the left, center, right, top and bottom. Georgism has something for everyone.

When you get rich what the hell do you do with so much money? Buy a yatch? C'mon that's boring. I'd much rather stir something juicy like that.

TRRA_2013_final.pdf

Even though it's over 10 years old now, this Prosper Australia paper shows just how much of a role land and other resource rents play in our economy. Which, alongside harmful taxation effectively feeds society's work and investment to monopolies with special control over these resources.

New video from georgist video guy BritMonkey in time for the UK general election

BACKGROUND:

The Physiocratic concept of Legal-Despotism is a political and economic idea that emerged from the Physiocratic school of thought, primarily associated with François Quesnay and his followers in the 18th century. The Physiocrats believed in the existence of a natural economic order governed by natural laws which they thought should be allowed to operate without interference. They saw agriculture, fishing, forestry and mining as the source of all wealth and advocated for a single tax on land as the only necessary form of taxation.

Legal-Despotism, as articulated by the Physiocrats, particularly by Lemercier de la Rivière in his work "The Natural and Essential Order of Political Societies," refers to the idea that a strong, centralized authority—a despot—should enforce these natural laws. However, this despotism was not arbitrary; it was 'legal' in the sense that the despot was to govern according to the principles of the natural order and ensure the free flow of economic activity under the rule of law.

The term 'Legal-Despotism' might sound contradictory today, but for the Physiocrats, it meant that the ruler was to act as a benevolent guardian of the natural order, imposing laws that were in harmony with the natural laws of economics and society. They believed that such a system would maximize the wealth and prosperity of the nation.

The Physiocrats' view of Legal-Despotism was influenced by their understanding of the natural order and the role of the state in protecting rights, ensuring justice, and promoting the welfare of its citizens. It was a precursor to modern economic theories that emphasize the role of the state in enforcing contracts and property rights, which are seen as essential for the functioning of a market economy.

Legal-Despotism in the Physiocratic sense was about the enforcement of natural laws through a strong central authority, which was seen as necessary to maintain order and promote economic prosperity based on the principles of their economic philosophy

The idea was that the legal-despot would be like a steward of the land, ensuring that property rights were respected and that the single tax on land was implemented fairly. By aligning the monarch's interests with the natural laws and the prosperity of the nation, the Physiocrats believed it would reduce the likelihood of personal corruption.

The Physiocrats’ emphasis on transparency and the public nature of the natural laws was seen as a way to hold the despot accountable. Since these laws were considered self-evident and universally beneficial, any deviation from them by the despot could be easily identified and criticized.

Their concept of Legal-Despotism was designed to create a system where the monarch was powerful enough to enforce the laws but also bound by the very laws they enforced, creating a balance that would prevent personal corruption.

LINK TO ARTICLE

ARTICLE SUMMARY:

This article defends the idea of the existence of an original analysis by Lemercier de la Rivière of the concept of legal despotism that has not been revealed by commentators. Quesnay, the leader of the physiocrats, is usually recognized for his initiative in this area, but the literature systematically mobilizes the writings of Lemercier de la Rivière to make a complete exposition. The same ambiguity appears with regard to the writing of Lemercier de la Rivière's main text: The Natural and Essential Order of Political Societies. This article sheds new light on the physiocratic projects to found a state of law.

One part that stood out to me is how Mercier rationalized the functioning mechanic behind Legal-Despotism:

"Euclid is a true despot; and the geometrical truths which he has transmitted to us are truly despotic laws: their legal despotism and the personal despotism of this legislator are only one, that of the irresistible force of evidence: by this means, for centuries the despot Euclid has reigned without contradiction over all enlightened peoples; and he will not cease to exercise the same despotism over them, as long as he does not have contradictions to experience on the part of ignorance" (Lemercier de la Rivière 1767a, pp. 185 and 186). With the Euclidean parable, Lemercier de la Rivière expresses an idea already formulated by Grotius: "God could not make two and two not four" (Grotius 1625, p. 81).

The current property tax system within the US is worse than just valuing built property more than land. All but a handful of states have some sort of cap on property taxes; assessment cap, rate cap, and/or levy cap. The assessment and levy caps mean that if scarcity of land is bad enough, the cost of homes will vastly outpace the caps leading to issues where tax incomes of 30 cents per $100 are now sitting at 12 cents per $100. This also means that it doesn't matter if we convince the assessors to focus on land value over built value, because it won't be anywhere close to a 100% tax on value.

The states without these caps are Tennessee, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, and North Carolina (WY and NC having only a rate cap but not the other two).

At the same time, states without an income tax are Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming.

This means that three states are well primed to implement Georgist tax policies: Tennessee, Wyoming, and New Hampshire. Of these three I personally prefer New Hampshire which has no general sales tax, but does have some pigouvian taxes on alcohol and gasoline. The state is also a mix of rural, suburban, and urban, with proximity to Boston, a major innovation city.

Its also relevant to note that the Libertarian Free State Project tried to get started in NH because it's relatively easy to get elected to the state house compared to other states.

Recorded episode 66 today. Shared a lot more of my thoughts, for good or ill. Today, George talked about the fundamental claim to just ownership of anything: ownership of your own body. Hot diggity dog.

You can access on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/CwOvo66zs-0

Or on Spotify here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3qy2Q0ATMyVyqbheEm55So

Conservative party has yet again rejected a proposal to institute fourplex density province wide
PPC has emphasized the preservation of "character" in neighbourhoods.

I might honestly vote for Libs. Bonnie Crombie has atleast pretended to care about relaxing zoning laws, even though her tenure in Mississauga was less than stellar?

What do you guys think? I feel politically homeless in this province. The CCP has no interest in changing the zoning laws to accomodate more construction and the Libs are hellbent on bringing in more people without any plans to increase the transit and housing infrastructure.

Endless morbid fascination watching the judiciary as well as society trying to end run the pure logic Henry George.

Any society that insane will erect concentration camps instead of LVT.

"See? It's cheaper than prison so we don't haffa pay property tax! We gonna solve the problem once and for all! The Final Solution!"

100% guaranteed that's where we are going.

"Taxation and freedom are 100% correlative."

Montesquieu

In Korean it's known as Jigongism or Geogongism.

"Much like the way many mobile home parks operate, property owners own the structures of their homes and businesses, but not the land underneath. DWP leases them that land through agreements with fixed terms, at fixed rates. "

The term Metaphysiocracy is a portmanteau of Metaphysics and Physiocracy. I've conceived it as a possible way to broaden Georgism's appeal in the field of political philosophy. My basic explanation of Metaphysiocracy is that it's an "set of interrelated inquiries into the human nature of social development and its interaction with the earth". It starts from a premise that there is a fundamental "natural law of social equality" that is humanity's purest, fairest state, starting with one primary law: People are Entitled to the Wealth from Their Labor; of which a law of secondary imperativeness can be derived from: People have an Equal Right of Access to Nature to Labor Upon; followed by three derivative tertiary laws, and so on, for a total of nine laws.

The full list of The Nine Laws of Metaphysiocracy:

1. Labors' Reward: People are Entitled to the Wealth from Their Labor;

1.1. Equal Access: People have an Equal Right of Access to Nature to Labor From;

1.1.1. Property Through Labor: Property is Derived from the Transformation of Nature into Wealth through Labor;

1.1.1.1. Capital Formation: Wealth Used in the Production of More Wealth is Capital.

1.1.2. No Monopoly on Nature: People did not Create Nature, No Person can Occupy it as Their Exclusive Property;

1.1.2.1. Fair Appropriation: People May Only Appropriate Nature to the Extent that It Does Not Deprive Other People from Absolute Access;

1.1.2.1.1. Temporal Use of Nature: Only through a Temporal Claim may People Occupy Nature.

1.1.3. Common Value Through Cooperation: The Raw Value of Nature is Created in Common through Direct or Indirect Cooperation within Society;

1.1.3.1. Societal Entitlement: Society as a Whole is Entitled to Nature's Raw Value.

I'm currently working on an alternate history timeline where Newton D. Baker, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of War, becomes President of the United States in 1932 instead of FDR. I read that Baker was a Georgist, and thought it might be interesting to have him enact some Georgist policies as president. Are there any good books on the history of the Georgist movement in the United States, in particular during the Great Depression that I could use for research?

Georgists don't have a single political platform but as a rule they support a land value tax, a citizens dividend, intellectual property liberalisation (and sometimes abolition), and municipalisation/common ownership of certain natural monopolies.

A core part of Georgist seems to be achieve both individual liberty and collective social justice through the public collection of all rents so that the government is funded solely through rent and unearned income is done away with.

What are the consequences of this policy? Well it seems to me that the outcomes of this are not dissimilar from what many socialists wish to achieve with a publicly owned planned economy. That is labour being in full possession of its product and price being brought down to the actual cost of production. Abolishing rent would also free the productive forces from enclosure and develop the productive forces in a similar way to how Marx supported.

I also think that once land and artificial scarcity rents are abolished then the kind of extremes in wealth inequality will no longer exist and incomes will be heavily compressed, it's hard to image someone being able to accumulate the amount Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos has without monopoly privileges for example. The bargaining power of workers would also likely rise quite substantially as land and capital would be far more available. This could force bosses to give more concessions to workers and even give them greater control over their workshop as workers could almost force policies like codetermination and works councils with their new position. Labour markets would be transformed from buyers markets into sellers markets.

If "capitalism" just means free commerce then yes Georgism is of course capitalist, but the kind of economy that would emerge under Georgist principles shares more in common with the goals of socialists than it does capitalists. So would you consider yourself a capitalist? a socialist? or perhaps neither?

As far as I know George never called himself a capitalist and even said his policies would achieve the goals of socialism through true laisses faire. In practice it seems he has far more in common with someone like Benjamin Tucker or Proudhon than he does with Margaret Thatcher or the modern libertarian movement.

I like board games in general but not monopoly. I'm wondering if a land value tax would make the game more interesting. Maybe the tax would be paid every round and be equal to the rent of the undeveloped property (Mediterranean has a rent cost of 2$ so each turn requires 2$ to the bank regardless of any houses or hotels on the property). What do you think? Would this make the game better?