4 ms·

This breaks down on many different fronts: 1) What about IP? Companies that do not work with land, but tech, science and ideas. This scheme would not be a barr

by stjo 6y ago

This breaks down on many different fronts: 1) What about IP? Companies that do not work with land, but tech, science and ideas. This scheme would not be a barrier for Apple for example to appear. 2) This (as well as the parent comment's) idea is similar to tariffs and trade wars. "Yeah, you are smart and efficient, but you work 200km from here? Fuck off." 3) It confines businesses to think small. Big projects would have to be handled by governments and entities that are exempt from locality laws. Sometimes there are good reasons to own large swaths of land in multiple locations, without being a trillion dollar company. I feel like you are merely trying to make capitalism less efficient and hope that this would make it magically nicer to participate in. What was the main problem again?

Miner49er 6y ago
> 1) What about IP? Companies that do not work with land, but tech, science and ideas. This scheme would not be a barrier for Apple for example to appear. What about it? Apple still needs factories to build their products, wants offices, and needs datacenters. For any of these their workers need to get a (fair) share of Apple. Apple could respond by having workers work remotely, but I doubt many workers would take that deal if they could go somewhere else and be a co-owner. > 2) This (as well as the parent comment's) idea is similar to tariffs and trade wars. "Yeah, you are smart and efficient, but you work 200km from here? Fuck off." Yeah pretty much, for land use. How can you possible use land if you live 200km away? > 3) It confines businesses to think small. Big projects would have to be handled by governments and entities that are exempt from locality laws. Sometimes there are good reasons to own large swaths of land in multiple locations, without being a trillion dollar company. Maybe somewhat, but it's still possible for companies to do this. They just have to have workers own a (fair) share of the business. Say there is a Walmart, and they want to open a new store in another town. Sure, they can do that, if all of the employees at that new store get a fair share of Walmart ownership.

by stjo 6y ago

Miner49er 6y ago

> 1) What about IP? Companies that do not work with land, but tech, science and ideas. This scheme would not be a barrier for Apple for example to appear. What about it? Apple still needs factories to build their products, wants offices, and needs datacenters. For any of these their workers need to get a (fair) share of Apple. Apple could respond by having workers work remotely, but I doubt many workers would take that deal if they could go somewhere else and be a co-owner. > 2) This (as well as the parent comment's) idea is similar to tariffs and trade wars. "Yeah, you are smart and efficient, but you work 200km from here? Fuck off." Yeah pretty much, for land use. How can you possible use land if you live 200km away? > 3) It confines businesses to think small. Big projects would have to be handled by governments and entities that are exempt from locality laws. Sometimes there are good reasons to own large swaths of land in multiple locations, without being a trillion dollar company. Maybe somewhat, but it's still possible for companies to do this. They just have to have workers own a (fair) share of the business. Say there is a Walmart, and they want to open a new store in another town. Sure, they can do that, if all of the employees at that new store get a fair share of Walmart ownership.