,

[Doctor Cringelord]

,

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Geolibertarians want the money from mineral rights to be equally shared among the population. So, we would need the government to take all the money and divide it up and give it to everyone. Is that right?

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

If you are unable to grasp or understand the geolibertarian approach to land ownership and land value, then you're probably going to mistake this philosophy for big scary boogeyman communism.

However, no one in such a system would be deprived the fruits of their labor. No tax on income, no sales taxes, etc. I thought free market right wingers could get on board with this, I mean shit, if Milton Friedman of all people favored a single tax system (in this case, land value tax)...



Any bit of property or money you own (aside from land) is yours to keep in the geolibertarian model.

meanwhile the lefties still win because we could easily fund shit like UBI/"negative income taxes" in such a system, but in a way that also keeps the free marketers happy, due to the absence of taxes that otherwise burden consumers and businesses, not to mention essentially ending the severest forms of gentrification.

Yeah, I'm having trouble with it. lol. I read the first few sentences and immediately lumped it into the same category as "socialist libertarianism," which always makes me laugh. And then I laughed thinking about that. Then I was like, "I'm tired. What is this?"

But anyways, so you're saying that if the government takes all the mineral rights as revenue, that would fund the government, and nobody would tax me?

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

You were more succinct than the article you posted. I reckon someone had to write a paper with so many words, so we get an article with too many words. lol.

It sounds like a workable idea. If your local government gave you the option of signing away your mineral rights for them not taxing you, some people would take it. Those drilling machines might be noisy (don't know), and safety for families with children might be an issue, due to machinery and strangers on your property.

 

[Virtual ghost]

If you are unable to grasp or understand the geolibertarian approach to land ownership and land value, then you're probably going to mistake this philosophy for big scary boogeyman communism.

I am actually curious how you would defend this system from threats such as communism ?

 

[Kephalos]

Classification of goods according to rivalry in consumption and excludability:

1. Rival and Excludable: Pure private goods.
2. Non-Rival and Excludable: "Club" goods.
3. Rival and Non-Excludable: A commons (as in the tragedy of the commons).
4. Non-Rival and Non-Excludable: Pure public goods.

I don't know what to say, "geolibertarianism" seems to be incoherent nonsense. It should be perfectly clear that "equal access" to a rivalrous good leads to congestion, and, in fact, to rent dissipation (of econoomic rent).

Second is the confusion (not an uncommon one, even among economists unfortunately) between economic rents (a reward above opportunity cost) with the payments for the use of a durable factor of production. This is especially important, and it connects to the last point, because the maximisation of economic rent leads precisely to an efficient use of the resource in question, i.e. that price = marginal benefit = marginal cost.

Finally, there is scarcely a meaningful distinction to be made between "land" and "capital". Anyway, it's easy to fall for crackpot economic theories like this and others, just like it's extremely easy for non-experts to fall for crackpot theories about just as in any other field.

 

[Vendrah]

If you are unable to grasp or understand the geolibertarian approach to land ownership and land value, then you're probably going to mistake this philosophy for big scary boogeyman communism.

However, no one in such a system would be deprived the fruits of their labor. No tax on income, no sales taxes, etc. I thought free market right wingers could get on board with this, I mean shit, if Milton Friedman of all people favored a single tax system (in this case, land value tax)...



Any bit of property or money you own (aside from land) is yours to keep in the geolibertarian model.

meanwhile the lefties still win because we could easily fund shit like UBI/"negative income taxes" in such a system, but in a way that also keeps the free marketers happy, due to the absence of taxes that otherwise burden consumers and businesses, not to mention essentially ending the severest forms of gentrification.

I find it quite interesting. I did agreed on the notion of equal property for minerals, petrol, etc... I agree with the Ethics part that nobody produces oil/petrol and nobody can ever produce land with their own work, so in fact exchanging land and capital and leaving people without any land because they "didn't work" doesn't make much sense.

There is also the city building game I used to play. MODs that somewhat simulated (these were rare, though) some income coming from petrol, mines, etc... (they generally put a generic building instead, but we can pretend it is a mine) were rare and unfeatured on the stock game because they would make everything quite easy, you can get the income from them and alleviate the taxes while still keeping the services a good quality, boosting the city growth (since you get good quality services and low taxes, which makes quite convenient for business). And this is one of the reasons I believe the government or some public entity should own things such as gold-mine, petrols, etc... although for this century these are becoming weak and weak... While for 20th century in the end most privatization of these resources ends up making life easy for just a few instead of having an easy common income.

It doesn't look like a bad idea, but this is one of these alternative systems where the neolibs wants to put on trash and label as communist and leftists are more likely to ignore, such as was with Meritocracy Party ideas, so I highly doubt we will see any of this anytime soon. I would love and think it would be healthy world-wide to have such alternatives in some few countries rather than everybody running the same type of capitalism and everyone fighting for the same kind of capitalism globally.