4 ms·

The logic of LVT isn't to force all of the factors of production to their highest and best use. It is to share the value of the Earth, which no human created, a

by nwah1 4y ago

The logic of LVT isn't to force all of the factors of production to their highest and best use. It is to share the value of the Earth, which no human created, and thus georgists believe it should be shared equally. That this particular solution to that moral view also happens to put land to its highest use is a nice bonus. Henry George was a classical liberal, and thus did not believe anyone had a right to the labor of others, or that they should have any say in what kind of labor others should perform.

rufus_foreman 4y ago
Did some human create my ability to work in a factory stacking boxes or to work as a software developer, both things that I have done? Which human created that? And suppose no human did that, to talk about sharing that value equally? That sounds really creepy to me.
- nwah1 4y ago
  I was not clear enough, apologies. Naturalness is not the reason that things should be owned in common. Rather, the reason that land ought to belong equally to all is because unchecked exclusive ownership reduces the freedom of non-landowners. It is thus incompatible with a classical liberal view that celebrates individual freedom. If I build a fence and claim everything inside of it, you might find that reasonable. If I build a fence and then successfully claim everything outside of it, then I have in effect made everyone else prisoners inside of the fence. And if a subset of humanity claims the entire Earth, then the rest become like trespassers to be dealt with however the landowners saw fit. The rents they demand could be unlimited, since everyone requires access to land. Every parcel claimed reduces the amount of freedom of everyone else, and eventually all land becomes claimed and rents begin rising in tandem with the progress of civilization, putting people into a position of serfdom. And that is why no amount of technological progress will ever eliminate poverty.

by nwah1 4y ago

rufus_foreman 4y ago

Did some human create my ability to work in a factory stacking boxes or to work as a software developer, both things that I have done? Which human created that? And suppose no human did that, to talk about sharing that value equally? That sounds really creepy to me.

nwah1 4y ago
I was not clear enough, apologies. Naturalness is not the reason that things should be owned in common. Rather, the reason that land ought to belong equally to all is because unchecked exclusive ownership reduces the freedom of non-landowners. It is thus incompatible with a classical liberal view that celebrates individual freedom. If I build a fence and claim everything inside of it, you might find that reasonable. If I build a fence and then successfully claim everything outside of it, then I have in effect made everyone else prisoners inside of the fence. And if a subset of humanity claims the entire Earth, then the rest become like trespassers to be dealt with however the landowners saw fit. The rents they demand could be unlimited, since everyone requires access to land. Every parcel claimed reduces the amount of freedom of everyone else, and eventually all land becomes claimed and rents begin rising in tandem with the progress of civilization, putting people into a position of serfdom. And that is why no amount of technological progress will ever eliminate poverty.