There is a difference between sovereignty, and land ownership as defined by each country's domestic laws. There is practically no usable land not administered by any country, but there is plenty of land owned by governments. There is an interesting question what governments should do with it: let people homestead it, sell it for a one-ti…
There is a difference between sovereignty, and land ownership as defined by each country's domestic laws. There is practically no usable land not administered by any country, but there is plenty of land owned by governments. There is an interesting question what governments should do with it: let people homestead it, sell it for a one-time payment, rent it out, hand it out with the expectation of a land value tax payment (similar to renting it out under a perpetual contract)?
I'd perhaps support taxing away existing private land ownership (based on its value as unimproved, agricultural land) if it had been widely accepted for a long time that Georgism were right, or at least more generally that land ownership is less legitimate than ownership of man-made property. The main reasons I oppose it derive from the fact that, historically, in many places, land ownership has been considered as legitimate as any other property ownership, for centuries if not millennia. If Georgists managed to convince people to de facto expropriate land value, it would reduce people's confidence that people won't make up some excuse to confiscate some other asset classes as well, where such worry would be highly distortionary; at the same time, a Georgist land tax (if assessed on the agricultural value of land) would yield too little revenue to be worth that cost. And even from an angle of fairness, it doesn't feel fair to leave someone who invested his savings in land much worse off than someone who invested in other property, when in our existing societies he had no reason to expect that land was likely to be expropriated.
As for your points about initial ownership: one possible position is that natural resources are initially considered owned by society, as represented by the government. Government can, then, give, sell, or rent it out. Perhaps with an expectation that it must take everyone's interests into account equitably when doing so; so people who get them must properly compensate those who are excluded.
You seem to be asking “what is just?”, rather than “is it owned?”.
If one argues that natural resources are initially considered owned by society, one should explain how they gained ownership. If it is just by decree, why is my decree not as good as yours or anyone else's? It makes sense to say that a group could decide to treat things that way among themselves, but not that this would justify them confiscating or taxing someone who did not agree.
Somehow when I follow the link it boots me out to my browser and asks me to log in again. So I will respond here.
You said it's not one or the other. Then you described something indistinguishable from the other as if demonstrating your point.
For the government to own the land is no different from the latecomer owning it. The government is or represents the latecomer. Why is their claim more valid according to the Georgist?
The government represents both the firstcomer and the latecomers, and distributes the eventual tax revenue to all.
As for why it's more valid: likely many people's intuition is that it's more fair for everyone to benefit from the value of a natural resource equally than for the first user of any given resource to get all the benefit.
That is not what representation means. You are saying the others are justified in forcing the firstcomer to go along with the scheme. What is their justification? Why isn’t the firstcomer similarly justified in making them go along with his?
There is a difference between sovereignty, and land ownership as defined by each country's domestic laws. There is practically no usable land not administered by any country, but there is plenty of land owned by governments. There is an interesting question what governments should do with it: let people homestead it, sell it for a one-time payment, rent it out, hand it out with the expectation of a land value tax payment (similar to renting it out under a perpetual contract)?
I'd perhaps support taxing away existing private land ownership (based on its value as unimproved, agricultural land) if it had been widely accepted for a long time that Georgism were right, or at least more generally that land ownership is less legitimate than ownership of man-made property. The main reasons I oppose it derive from the fact that, historically, in many places, land ownership has been considered as legitimate as any other property ownership, for centuries if not millennia. If Georgists managed to convince people to de facto expropriate land value, it would reduce people's confidence that people won't make up some excuse to confiscate some other asset classes as well, where such worry would be highly distortionary; at the same time, a Georgist land tax (if assessed on the agricultural value of land) would yield too little revenue to be worth that cost. And even from an angle of fairness, it doesn't feel fair to leave someone who invested his savings in land much worse off than someone who invested in other property, when in our existing societies he had no reason to expect that land was likely to be expropriated.
As for your points about initial ownership: one possible position is that natural resources are initially considered owned by society, as represented by the government. Government can, then, give, sell, or rent it out. Perhaps with an expectation that it must take everyone's interests into account equitably when doing so; so people who get them must properly compensate those who are excluded.
You seem to be asking “what is just?”, rather than “is it owned?”.
If one argues that natural resources are initially considered owned by society, one should explain how they gained ownership. If it is just by decree, why is my decree not as good as yours or anyone else's? It makes sense to say that a group could decide to treat things that way among themselves, but not that this would justify them confiscating or taxing someone who did not agree.
See my comment here: https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/georgist-thoughts/comment/55132221
Somehow when I follow the link it boots me out to my browser and asks me to log in again. So I will respond here.
You said it's not one or the other. Then you described something indistinguishable from the other as if demonstrating your point.
For the government to own the land is no different from the latecomer owning it. The government is or represents the latecomer. Why is their claim more valid according to the Georgist?
The government represents both the firstcomer and the latecomers, and distributes the eventual tax revenue to all.
As for why it's more valid: likely many people's intuition is that it's more fair for everyone to benefit from the value of a natural resource equally than for the first user of any given resource to get all the benefit.
That is not what representation means. You are saying the others are justified in forcing the firstcomer to go along with the scheme. What is their justification? Why isn’t the firstcomer similarly justified in making them go along with his?