▲ 7 ▼ The Power of Land: Georgism 101 (mastodon.social) submitted 2 years ago by jlou@mastodon.social to c/leftism@lemmy.world 32 comments fedilink hide all child comments The Power of Land: Georgism 101 https://youtu.be/smi_iIoKybg Discusses importance of common ownership of land and natural resources @leftism
[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Not every policy is implemented to solve every problem. So listing all the things georgism doesn't solve is a moot point. No matter what, the state needs a source of income. And georgism is to my knowledge the least bad of all options, all of which are bad. The rules on who can own what land for what purpose, private or personal is independent of the rules on how tax is collected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Georgism tends not to augment leftist theory or objectives, if it even offers compatibility. Georgians want landlords and business owners to be taxed such that their profits from control over land is offset by the ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Leftists want to abolish profit, and to restore control of housing and enterprise directly to the public, to be managed cooperatively. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Georgism tends not to augment leftist theory or objectives And like I already said, not every policy is implemented to solve every problem. Georgians want landlords and business owners to be taxed such that ... And this is a sweeping generalization. Not all georgians agree on every aspect of georgism. There are georgians that want to keep a pure "free market" capitalism, there are those that want a mixed economy, and those that want socialism or communism in addition to georgism. It's not a one size fits all camp. ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? Leftists want to abolish profit This is also just a sweeping generalization. Just as with georgism, leftism isn't something that can be defined by a simplified, sweeping generalization. Leftists are a diverse group. You're not talking about policy, which is where the actual conversation is at. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) The generalizations were not intended as asserting rules for association with a label, as much as for questioning the meaningful overlap of principles. Leftism engages class struggle. Georgism seeks codification to moderate the class antagonism, without addressing how it would be achieved against the power of the ruling class, or why it should he resolved as a final objective for the working class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) There is an overlap of principles though. A Georgist basis for common ownership of land and natural resources is a negative application of the labor theory of property. A positive application of the labor theory of property provides an argument for workers' self-management. See: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies Georgism is 1 policy. Georgism itself leaves doesn't specify what the rest of the economy looks like permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The pivotal question is, supposing I lived in a society in which workers had achieved self management, cooperatives housing, and participatory systems for land allocation, then what additional valuable objective, yet unknown and unrealized, might I discover from Georgism, that I reasonably might wish for my society further to achieve? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah land value taxation. Even if land is cooperatively managed, it is still useful to charge for the usage of land to ensure efficient usage and prevent mismanagement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you're not going to answer my questions that I don't see the need to respond to your statements. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency. I feel the general subject is not bound to my personal feelings or preferences. Certainly, my characterization is that any movements or values are credibly leftist only if they at least express skepticism over any particular assets or resources, including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I'm referring to this one: ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency The goal of leftism is to create a better, more progressive society. With that means that the "end goal" of the state must be determined, which means the income, whether monetary/resource based/etc must be determined as well. You can't have a state that doesn't have a defined input/output. So if you want to meaningfully contribute to an ideal leftist society/government, one such meaningful contribution is solving the government's input/output problem. Taxing land is one such solution to this problem. including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. Under georgism, all land gets taxed regardless of who owns the land, how they own the land, whether it is private or personal, and regardless of whether or not private property still exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) Georgism tends not to augment leftist theory or objectives, if it even offers compatibility. Georgians want landlords and business owners to be taxed such that their profits from control over land is offset by the ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Leftists want to abolish profit, and to restore control of housing and enterprise directly to the public, to be managed cooperatively. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Georgism tends not to augment leftist theory or objectives And like I already said, not every policy is implemented to solve every problem. Georgians want landlords and business owners to be taxed such that ... And this is a sweeping generalization. Not all georgians agree on every aspect of georgism. There are georgians that want to keep a pure "free market" capitalism, there are those that want a mixed economy, and those that want socialism or communism in addition to georgism. It's not a one size fits all camp. ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? Leftists want to abolish profit This is also just a sweeping generalization. Just as with georgism, leftism isn't something that can be defined by a simplified, sweeping generalization. Leftists are a diverse group. You're not talking about policy, which is where the actual conversation is at. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) The generalizations were not intended as asserting rules for association with a label, as much as for questioning the meaningful overlap of principles. Leftism engages class struggle. Georgism seeks codification to moderate the class antagonism, without addressing how it would be achieved against the power of the ruling class, or why it should he resolved as a final objective for the working class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) There is an overlap of principles though. A Georgist basis for common ownership of land and natural resources is a negative application of the labor theory of property. A positive application of the labor theory of property provides an argument for workers' self-management. See: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies Georgism is 1 policy. Georgism itself leaves doesn't specify what the rest of the economy looks like permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The pivotal question is, supposing I lived in a society in which workers had achieved self management, cooperatives housing, and participatory systems for land allocation, then what additional valuable objective, yet unknown and unrealized, might I discover from Georgism, that I reasonably might wish for my society further to achieve? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah land value taxation. Even if land is cooperatively managed, it is still useful to charge for the usage of land to ensure efficient usage and prevent mismanagement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you're not going to answer my questions that I don't see the need to respond to your statements. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency. I feel the general subject is not bound to my personal feelings or preferences. Certainly, my characterization is that any movements or values are credibly leftist only if they at least express skepticism over any particular assets or resources, including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I'm referring to this one: ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency The goal of leftism is to create a better, more progressive society. With that means that the "end goal" of the state must be determined, which means the income, whether monetary/resource based/etc must be determined as well. You can't have a state that doesn't have a defined input/output. So if you want to meaningfully contribute to an ideal leftist society/government, one such meaningful contribution is solving the government's input/output problem. Taxing land is one such solution to this problem. including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. Under georgism, all land gets taxed regardless of who owns the land, how they own the land, whether it is private or personal, and regardless of whether or not private property still exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Georgism tends not to augment leftist theory or objectives And like I already said, not every policy is implemented to solve every problem. Georgians want landlords and business owners to be taxed such that ... And this is a sweeping generalization. Not all georgians agree on every aspect of georgism. There are georgians that want to keep a pure "free market" capitalism, there are those that want a mixed economy, and those that want socialism or communism in addition to georgism. It's not a one size fits all camp. ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? Leftists want to abolish profit This is also just a sweeping generalization. Just as with georgism, leftism isn't something that can be defined by a simplified, sweeping generalization. Leftists are a diverse group. You're not talking about policy, which is where the actual conversation is at. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) The generalizations were not intended as asserting rules for association with a label, as much as for questioning the meaningful overlap of principles. Leftism engages class struggle. Georgism seeks codification to moderate the class antagonism, without addressing how it would be achieved against the power of the ruling class, or why it should he resolved as a final objective for the working class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) There is an overlap of principles though. A Georgist basis for common ownership of land and natural resources is a negative application of the labor theory of property. A positive application of the labor theory of property provides an argument for workers' self-management. See: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies Georgism is 1 policy. Georgism itself leaves doesn't specify what the rest of the economy looks like permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The pivotal question is, supposing I lived in a society in which workers had achieved self management, cooperatives housing, and participatory systems for land allocation, then what additional valuable objective, yet unknown and unrealized, might I discover from Georgism, that I reasonably might wish for my society further to achieve? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah land value taxation. Even if land is cooperatively managed, it is still useful to charge for the usage of land to ensure efficient usage and prevent mismanagement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you're not going to answer my questions that I don't see the need to respond to your statements. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency. I feel the general subject is not bound to my personal feelings or preferences. Certainly, my characterization is that any movements or values are credibly leftist only if they at least express skepticism over any particular assets or resources, including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I'm referring to this one: ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency The goal of leftism is to create a better, more progressive society. With that means that the "end goal" of the state must be determined, which means the income, whether monetary/resource based/etc must be determined as well. You can't have a state that doesn't have a defined input/output. So if you want to meaningfully contribute to an ideal leftist society/government, one such meaningful contribution is solving the government's input/output problem. Taxing land is one such solution to this problem. including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. Under georgism, all land gets taxed regardless of who owns the land, how they own the land, whether it is private or personal, and regardless of whether or not private property still exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) The generalizations were not intended as asserting rules for association with a label, as much as for questioning the meaningful overlap of principles. Leftism engages class struggle. Georgism seeks codification to moderate the class antagonism, without addressing how it would be achieved against the power of the ruling class, or why it should he resolved as a final objective for the working class. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) There is an overlap of principles though. A Georgist basis for common ownership of land and natural resources is a negative application of the labor theory of property. A positive application of the labor theory of property provides an argument for workers' self-management. See: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies Georgism is 1 policy. Georgism itself leaves doesn't specify what the rest of the economy looks like permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The pivotal question is, supposing I lived in a society in which workers had achieved self management, cooperatives housing, and participatory systems for land allocation, then what additional valuable objective, yet unknown and unrealized, might I discover from Georgism, that I reasonably might wish for my society further to achieve? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah land value taxation. Even if land is cooperatively managed, it is still useful to charge for the usage of land to ensure efficient usage and prevent mismanagement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you're not going to answer my questions that I don't see the need to respond to your statements. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency. I feel the general subject is not bound to my personal feelings or preferences. Certainly, my characterization is that any movements or values are credibly leftist only if they at least express skepticism over any particular assets or resources, including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I'm referring to this one: ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency The goal of leftism is to create a better, more progressive society. With that means that the "end goal" of the state must be determined, which means the income, whether monetary/resource based/etc must be determined as well. You can't have a state that doesn't have a defined input/output. So if you want to meaningfully contribute to an ideal leftist society/government, one such meaningful contribution is solving the government's input/output problem. Taxing land is one such solution to this problem. including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. Under georgism, all land gets taxed regardless of who owns the land, how they own the land, whether it is private or personal, and regardless of whether or not private property still exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) There is an overlap of principles though. A Georgist basis for common ownership of land and natural resources is a negative application of the labor theory of property. A positive application of the labor theory of property provides an argument for workers' self-management. See: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-the-case-for-employee-owned-companies Georgism is 1 policy. Georgism itself leaves doesn't specify what the rest of the economy looks like permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The pivotal question is, supposing I lived in a society in which workers had achieved self management, cooperatives housing, and participatory systems for land allocation, then what additional valuable objective, yet unknown and unrealized, might I discover from Georgism, that I reasonably might wish for my society further to achieve? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah land value taxation. Even if land is cooperatively managed, it is still useful to charge for the usage of land to ensure efficient usage and prevent mismanagement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child) The pivotal question is, supposing I lived in a society in which workers had achieved self management, cooperatives housing, and participatory systems for land allocation, then what additional valuable objective, yet unknown and unrealized, might I discover from Georgism, that I reasonably might wish for my society further to achieve? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah land value taxation. Even if land is cooperatively managed, it is still useful to charge for the usage of land to ensure efficient usage and prevent mismanagement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Yeah land value taxation. Even if land is cooperatively managed, it is still useful to charge for the usage of land to ensure efficient usage and prevent mismanagement permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Does Amazon manage warehouses, and if so, does it charge the warehouse to ensure efficient usage and to prevent mismanagement? Despite the differences that Amazon is private and hierarchical, should a different approach, respecting the question, be preferred for a system that is public and lateral? Is land tax a practice that was unknown before the emergence of Georgism, or that is supported exclusively by Georgists? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jlou@mastodon.social [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I meant to ensure socially efficient usage. Not usage that is efficient from the perspective of a private actor. These are not the same thing in many cases, but in particular, it is the case with land due to inelastic supply Land value tax is associated with Georgism. I don't see what the point would be of denying that or trying to avoid association with Georgism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago In both cases, oversight is not contingent on some formalized rule of value transfer. It is always possible to review the current circumstances, and simply to make a suitable decision. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) If you're not going to answer my questions that I don't see the need to respond to your statements. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency. I feel the general subject is not bound to my personal feelings or preferences. Certainly, my characterization is that any movements or values are credibly leftist only if they at least express skepticism over any particular assets or resources, including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I'm referring to this one: ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency The goal of leftism is to create a better, more progressive society. With that means that the "end goal" of the state must be determined, which means the income, whether monetary/resource based/etc must be determined as well. You can't have a state that doesn't have a defined input/output. So if you want to meaningfully contribute to an ideal leftist society/government, one such meaningful contribution is solving the government's input/output problem. Taxing land is one such solution to this problem. including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. Under georgism, all land gets taxed regardless of who owns the land, how they own the land, whether it is private or personal, and regardless of whether or not private property still exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency. I feel the general subject is not bound to my personal feelings or preferences. Certainly, my characterization is that any movements or values are credibly leftist only if they at least express skepticism over any particular assets or resources, including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I'm referring to this one: ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency The goal of leftism is to create a better, more progressive society. With that means that the "end goal" of the state must be determined, which means the income, whether monetary/resource based/etc must be determined as well. You can't have a state that doesn't have a defined input/output. So if you want to meaningfully contribute to an ideal leftist society/government, one such meaningful contribution is solving the government's input/output problem. Taxing land is one such solution to this problem. including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. Under georgism, all land gets taxed regardless of who owns the land, how they own the land, whether it is private or personal, and regardless of whether or not private property still exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Are you referring to your question about my ideals or values, respecting distribution of benefit from land usage? I'm referring to this one: ideal that land is natural and should benefit everyone equally. Do you disagree with this? I have framed the conversation around my skepticism that Georgism meaningfully contributes to leftism or functions as a leftist tendency The goal of leftism is to create a better, more progressive society. With that means that the "end goal" of the state must be determined, which means the income, whether monetary/resource based/etc must be determined as well. You can't have a state that doesn't have a defined input/output. So if you want to meaningfully contribute to an ideal leftist society/government, one such meaningful contribution is solving the government's input/output problem. Taxing land is one such solution to this problem. including lands, being utilized socially and also toward benefit that is private. Under georgism, all land gets taxed regardless of who owns the land, how they own the land, whether it is private or personal, and regardless of whether or not private property still exists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) It is meaningless to assert as an objective simply creating a society that is "better". Further, not all leftists defend land commodification. Not all leftists defend markets. Not all leftists defend money. Not all leftists defend the state. Final objectives are less valuable than criticism of structure and strategies for transformation. As I have suggested, by my own characterization at least, the entry point for leftism is criticism of the class structure of society, embodied in the social construct of private property, that is, particular resources or assets being utilized socially but controlled privately. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Can you answer my question or not? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* The topic of discussion is Georgism, and its relation to leftism. I did address the general sense of your question, in relation to such a context. Would you explain why such a contribution seems to you as inadequate? permalink fedilink source parent