Geoism

Geoism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DCWoody -> Geoism (5/21/2010 10:53:20 AM)
Geoism, nee Georgism.....is a basic political position broadly separate from the liberal/authoritarian left/right spectrums, that suggests that naturally occuring resources should belong to humanity collectively, not individuals. Most commonly....and in my personal case, this applies to land, and the suggestion is to prevent hoarding of land by dint of a large land value tax. Without getting too technical, land value taxes are more efficient alternatives to (most) other taxes because they actively encourage development and investment, whereas (most) other taxes take potential investment cash out of the economy. I'm not just saying that because I support it, any sane economist would tell you the same. The argument pretty much makes itself when you consider that in 1950 the total land area was ~149millionkm(sq) and world population was ~2.5billion people, in 2000 land area 149milkmsq pop ~6bil, in 2050 149mil/~9bil. Some estimates put world population in 2100 at 25 billion (although it's much debated ofc), 9 extra people for every 1950er, all of whom need somewhere to live. I'd be interested to see how it goes down amongst americans, especially considering usa is the least crowded nation on earth taking terrain hospitability into account. although it does tend to pick up most support among environmentalists who tend to be lefties, and opposition from land owners who tend to be right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

eyesopened -> RE: Geoism (5/21/2010 11:32:02 AM)
It would be easy to share land around the globe equally if all people were clones and all had identical ideas, culture, history. In nature, animals (and to some extent plants) seek out territory as a drive akin to the drive to reproduce. Areas of land get the perimeters peed and pooped upon until that doesn't work and then they build fences to keep their stuff in and others' stuff out. So people need to be able to own land. If they can own nothing else, owning something they can make as their den, nest, or burrow. If land were owned collectively and taxed equally then taxes would not be equal. That would mean the people who were unskilled or mentally challenged, could not make things or as many things or as nice things as others but would bear the same tax while owning less. Why wouldn't a flat tax percentage make more sense? I would agree that certain things should belong to humankind equally. Food, energy, education, medicine, clean water and unpolluted air are basic things that all humans need and should have in equal measure.

vincentML -> RE: Geoism (5/21/2010 1:39:06 PM)
I am seriously a little confused by this philosophy. If naturally occuring resources belong to mankind collectively who will decide how much and in what manner these resources will be allocated for fabrication of homes, automobiles, condums, etc. will we have a Politburo to oversee planning and implementation? And this is different from Communism how? Again, seriously?

DCWoody -> RE: Geoism (5/21/2010 1:59:24 PM)
To be clear, the general point (certainly the way I argue it) is.....for exactly the sort of reasons you point out, actually trying to divide up land between people is a ridiculous idea...new people being born every second etc etc.....so the best way to encourage land being used for the benefit of humanity as a whole, is by a hefty land value tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Economic_effects

popeye1250 -> RE: Geoism (5/21/2010 2:21:43 PM)
They shared land in ancient Ireland. Look up "Brehon Laws."

DCWoody -> RE: Geoism (5/21/2010 2:27:32 PM)
AFAIK pre-English domination land in Ireland was owned in the standard celtic way, i.e by the leader of the local grouping, split between sons upon death...leading to smaller and smaller parcels, conflict, inefficiency. Looking it up, I don't see anything particularly shary about it, although apparently splitting between families was taken further than I thought.

vincentML -> RE: Geoism (5/21/2010 3:05:09 PM)
So, you are talking only about land; not about all natural resources? And in your scheme a large tax would be placed upon land usage. But isn't the purchase of land itself a taxing process? To the buyer at least. Thereafter, there are continued annual taxes paid to the State. Perhaps I fail to see the difference as well as the purpose.

DCWoody -> RE: Geoism (5/21/2010 4:06:31 PM)
Upon land value, not usage. I suspect the annual taxes you mention are it.....erm...and fuck grammar. The difference would be having them much higher (eg in Hong Kong they make up more than 35% of govt income...the equivalent of a 75% cut in income tax in the usa), the purpose is to ensure land is used most efficiently....brown sites don't just get left to rot because the owners get big tax bills on them, they either develop them or sell them to someone who will.....etc etc.

Aneirin -> RE: Geoism (5/22/2010 4:53:40 AM)
Land has always been there, since before we were born and will be still there after our death, so in effect if we pay for the ownership of that land, we are in effect just renting it, because we cannot take it with us when we die. But to the question of paying for it, when it is no ones to own, that ultimately comes down to a greedy warring thug who through force of arms and the atrocity of killing lorded themselves over others that inhabit a piece of land. But we are an aggressive species, we need to believe we own something and are prepared to fight and kill others for that thing. But land to animal kind is all about life, we need land, or access to land to feed ourselves and to conserve what we have, we need to have land that we can count on, so seek to protect that land for ourselves. But as the land is not uniform, one piece of land is better than another piece of land, so the fighting continues, each small victory ensures tenure for a period of time until the next challenger comes around. There is plenty of uninhabited land in this world, it is just that it is seen as uninhabitable from a historical perspective, who knows what the future holds.

Musicmystery -> RE: Geoism (5/22/2010 7:30:50 AM)
quote: Geoism...suggests that naturally occurring resources should belong to humanity collectively, not individuals. quote: I'd be interested to see how it goes down amongst americans 1) It will never come up. 2) If it did, it would be labeled communism. For what it's worth. Strong property rights are deeply imbedded here.

vincentML -> RE: Geoism (5/22/2010 7:44:32 AM)
Ah, a tax on land use. I understand. Despite the evident truth in Aneirin's comments about land grabbing thugs, I easily agree with MusicMystery. It would be seen as confiscatory in America. Especially since we see ourselves as a nation liberated from the old feudal system of Kings and Lords and Barons who confiscated the lands in Europe. I know, you need not remind me, the land on the american continent was confiscated by europeans. But in our current state we would see any such move by Govt as a call to arms and rebellion. So, not likely to happen here. Confiscation by oligarchies okay, by Govt not so good.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125