1 Comment
⭠ Return to thread

Yes, I understand. Perhaps you found some clever argument that defeats the idea even after stipulating one-sided assumptions. I am challenging the assumptions. I want to explore a broader question. If this seems like an unwelcome digression, I apologize.

Why is it interesting to simply assume a framework, as opposed to comparing rivals? The objection is that ordinary property excludes those who have rights under the commons assumption. Why can’t the opposition simply assume ordinary property rights, and object to Georgist taxation? For the argument to reach common ground, we have to find common premises. One side can’t just beg the question and declare checkmate.

Perhaps the answer is that’s Georgists find their assumptions very intuitive, and do not,feel a need to argue for them. They seem confused by the idea that this might be necessary to persuade someone with different intuitions.

Expand full comment