Slashdot Mirror

As machines become faster and cheaper, automation progresses, why are we forced to work longer hours for less pay? After 9/11, Wall St. replaced our project managers with guys from the military, who acted like Terminators. They used public humiliation to make us more productive, evenings & weekends were mandatory, and one day anyone who had small children or was pregnant was fired. I now work for a large IT company, a competitor of IBM, that is doing very well, yet we were told that 'because of the economy' our bonuses would be 'sharply curtailed'. Now what is a bonus, besides a portion of my salary that is set aside while the company earns interest on it, then (optionally) paid to me a month after the quarter closes? All of this finagling has not helped them. Now they need a bailout from the taxpayer, hundreds of billions of dollars. Why? Here are some vital clues: http://henrygeorge.org/

Incorrect. Exclusive use of Land, spectrum, and other natural monpolies is not property, it's Privilege.

The government passes a law that says you and only you can broadcast in Detroit at 73.1 FM; that's a privilege. You should pay money to compensate everyone else for their loss of freedom.

The government passes a law that says you and only you can build stuff on, and keep people out of, parcel 32-1019141; that's a privilege. You should pay money to compensate others for their loss of freedom.

Your image is funny, but your point is right on. We're paying a staggering amount of Land Tax in the US, but it's all going to the landlords.

Land "ownership" is no more a natural right than intellectual "property." Both are artificial monopolies created by governments.

You can't develop software for $6.00/hr here! It's not possible. Because of private land ownership, the market for material goods and living quarters is distorted, and Americans can't work for less to compete internationally. It's all about the price inflation induced by the existing Land Tax. You're paying maybe 20% of your income directly, and much more indirectly, to the people who literally own this country.

Henry George and the single-taxers did the analysis more than 100 years ago, and concluded that only in Delaware would it be possible. Sadly, it proved impossible here as well, with George's supporters taking only 3% of the vote on election day.

Although George did not successfully take over Delaware, and many of his soldiers were arrested, three communities devoted to his principles survive today, and retain a unique flavor as well as an unusual legal climate created primarily by elaborate deed restrictions on properties.

Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft are all thriving communities today. And the Georgists have a web site.

Henry George and the single-taxers did the analysis more than 100 years ago, and concluded that only in Delaware would it be possible. Sadly, it proved impossible here as well, with George's supporters taking only 3% of the vote on election day.

Although George did not successfully take over Delaware, and many of his soldiers were arrested, three communities devoted to his principles survive today, and retain a unique flavor as well as an unusual legal climate created primarily by elaborate deed restrictions on properties.

Arden, Ardentown, and Ardencroft are all thriving communities today. And the Georgists have a web site.

Amen! Testify, brother!

IP threatens creativity like personal property (real estate) threatens mobility (i.e., trespassing forbidden)

That's correct. More correct than you seem to realize.

yet personal real estate exists and isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

Which is why land ownership is also a balance of rights. As it should be.

The difference, economically speaking, between Land and IP is that Land--by definition--exists independently of human effort. (If someone made it, economists don't consider it Land.)

The moral and Constitutional justification for copyright law and other forms of IP is the public interest in promoting the arts and useful sciences; in other words, we need some laws protecting intellectual property to encourage people to keep making it. But no such justification exists for laws protecting Land rights. It's not as though people will stop manufacturing Land.

This is classical economics, going back to the eighteenth-century writings of David Ricardo and Adam Smith and carried forward through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Henry George. Private property in Land is an artificial legal construct that in many cases interferes with the free market. Just like overbroad intellectual property protection, Land monopoly causes hoarding, speculation, and underuse.

Most people take Land monopoly for granted, because it's as old as monarchy. But it's just as overreaching and unnecessary as the most draconian intellectual property law, and it's just as much of a taking from the commons--but literally, not metaphorically.

You might be interested to know that many philosophers over the years have arrived at a system of morals with the following basis:

"Here are two simple principles, both of which are self-evident: I.--That all men have equal rights to the use and enjoyment of the elements provided by Nature. II.--That each man has an exclusive right to the use and enjoyment of what is produced by his own labor"

That's a quote from a guy called Henry George. Many other interesting figures have weighed in on this land question.

These ideas could potentially lead to a version of capitalism which is pure yet fair and prevents massive inequality. Unfortunately, the person in the street tends to be very wary of the ideas, due to a combination of misinformation, fear of change, and failure of the imagination. And the very wealthy have no motivation for change.

"To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it." -- Lloyd George

Treating spectrum locale as "land" is a perfect demonstration of the value of a Georgist single tax aka "taxation only of unimproved land value". The spectrum locale "land" would have zero value without someone around to enforce the property right -- so the "economic rent" on that property right should be, simply, the costs of defense of that property right. This would fall out of "warrior's insurance".

Besides, I'm not really being taxed on the land, I'm being taxed on the services the county renders to me by virtue of my land being in the county.

Ideally, you're being assessed a user fee for the privilege of excluding others from the land.