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 th…
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?
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?