3 ms·

Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyon

Many of these examples might be more specifically seen as a variety of Georgism [1]. There are a bunch of variants, but the general idea is a claim that everyone has a right to their share of proceeds from economic rent, especially land rent and mineral wealth, in some forms also proceeds from utility-like infrastructure. Since everyone is held to own an equal share of these by right, the revenues should be either distributed equally to everyone as "shareholders" (as in the Alaska dividend), or used to finance public goods. There are some overlaps with socialism, especially social-democratic models of government. But clearly the full social-democratic program is nowhere near popular in conservative areas of the US. If you look at why only these specific ideas are popular in those areas, one commonality is that they have a Georgist feel to them. Or at least, I'll propose that as a hypothesis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

nickff 11y ago
We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often simply against increased (discretionary) government spending, and believe that distributing the funds to the people will have cause less market distortion and malinvestment.
- _delirium 11y ago
  I agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these cases also prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing the TVA is an example. And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)
trentmb 11y ago
What are the impacts on immigration policy under Georgism? What are the impacts of Georgism on immigration policy?
rayiner 11y ago
Should all land be publicly owned and rented out? I don't see why that's unreasonable.

nickff 11y ago

We must also take into account what the alternative is. If the alternative presented to Gerogism is that the natural resources would be taxed, and these proceeds will be spent by the government, many conservatives and libertarians will side with the Georgists. The conservatives and libertarians are not necessarily supporters of basic incomes or similar schemes, they are often simply against increased (discretionary) government spending, and believe that distributing the funds to the people will have cause less market distortion and malinvestment.

_delirium 11y ago
I agree that's probably a factor. But I think many conservatives in these cases also prefer a nonprofit or dividend-type model to a more libertarian-style private-ownership model. The Tennessee-valley opposition to privatizing the TVA is an example. And in Alaska, the choice isn't only between paying out a dividend and letting the government keep the money. Alaska could simply abolish the severance tax entirely, and just let private mineral-rights owners reap the full profits. But that's not popular at all, even among people who identify as conservative. My suspicion, besides people voting their interests (probably a significant factor) is that unlike in the case where someone creates a product through their own labor, in the case of oil extraction, there is doubt that private land or rights owners really "deserve" the full profits from exploiting a resource they didn't create, but for various historical reasons happen to now own. Rather it seems to be more popular to allow them a profit on their extraction effort, but recapture some of the underlying value of the mineral asset for the people in general. (Texas also has a severance tax based on this kind of rationale, in its case used to fund government in partial lieu of an income tax.)

trentmb 11y ago

What are the impacts on immigration policy under Georgism? What are the impacts of Georgism on immigration policy?

rayiner 11y ago

Should all land be publicly owned and rented out? I don't see why that's unreasonable.