I need to read more of George and I’m curious to what degree he incorporates scale/localism within his philosophy? Would he have expected that someone on one side of the world benefit from the natural resources on the other side? LVT inherently can be applied with consent at more granular scales - city, county, country - which is appealing and I think gets political support from both a libertarian right and socialist/anarchist left direction.
I would also like to know if George ever touched on scale. He doesn’t in PnP.
I think there are advantages to applying Georgism locally. A region could implement LVT, collect rents from its territory, and redistribute those rents to its population. If people in another region want to receive their share of the first region’s rents, then they must enact LVT themselves so rents can be captured and redistributed across the territory and population of the combined region. This provides an incentive for people to enact LVT locally and join the greater rent-sharing agglomeration. Eventually everyone would receive an equal share of all of the Earth’s resource rents.
In a chapter of his book "Social Problems" (this one https://cooperative-individualism.org/george-henry_social-problems-1883-17.pdf) , George said there was a need for more thinking on these jurisdictional matters. We know that he both believed in the importance of local government but also looked forward to an eventual world federation of countries.
I'm currently working on notes for an eventual article for this Substack on how Georgism should guide relationships between governmental jurisdictions and their functions.
A bit beyond Georgism, but I suspect this is where the concept of Subsidiarity comes into play. Basically, the idea that if a lower, more local level of government can do something, they should be the ones doing it, with the stuff they can't do (or do effectively) being sent up the chain to higher levels of government.
Towns probably can't manage armies or space programs or universal health insurance systems, which means those should be handed to higher levels of government. But stuff they can do, like local planning or protection, they absolutely should, without relying on the higher levels at all. Thus higher levels still have their place, but more in terms of providing support to lowers levels, rather than ruling over them and telling them what to do.
People have said my writings lean towards Georgist at times. Not sure, I am in favour of fairplay so probably.
However I seek systems that can tollerate and sideline interference from special groups and having a per capita system of some sort seems fair. I would like all of natures bounty to be stpread evenly across all the citizens of a region who have accepted the social contract of the region as determined by the citizens of the region, a mutually beneficial contract like citizenship is supposed to be.
All that said I want a system that will defuse fear mongering as a tool to manipulate people, north and south to enrich globalists.
I am not convinced that humans have much effect on climate and am even less inclined to think that while we are on the planet that we have any real way to change things. I however would love to have a way that humans could portion the one time bounty of nature to last as many generations as possible and this is why a Adult Resident Citizens Dividend could work. All natural income is divided FAIRLY amongst the adult citizens, cost of running the country is taxed FAIRLY from the citizens and corporations at a flat rate adequate for the work at hand. To lower taxes citizens would have to streamline government, reduce weapons development and warmongering, to increase the dividend people would have to develop ways to make natural resource extraction more efficient and increase the pool of national patents that can be licences and hydro potential and state forest growth while limiting NEW MONEY that also goes to the people first because they have to 'service the debt' (until such time as central banks can be permanently weeded out and replaced with citizens banks).
A delightful member on Linked-In posts occasionally some very credible data that would make any logical person question the fact that it is not mentioned in any climate change propaganda. I will mention a point here with poorly recollected numbers. Basically some simple sums on the amount of heat from geothermal and solar inputs is X, the changes in this amount is the noise in climate over recorded time was about 1% that causes the detectable shifts in climate. This 1% was 40 times greater than what humans can achieve at the best of times, so it is rather grandiose to think that were are the problem when we are only one part in 4000 of the climate inputs.
The other thing I have issue with is the dog whistle term climate change denialist. It labels basically EVERYONE as an when required. Look at the definition on wikipedia, unless you are in 100% agreement with the CURRENT models predicting the rate of whatever, having doubts about anything makes you a denialist. This is not a scientific position so should no be used to set policy.
"Climate change denial refers to denial, dismissal, or doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part."
very interesting. you suggest determining co2 emissions per capita on a per country basis, so then would then companies that perform carbon capture be rewarded at a national level?
Practically speaking, what is the mechanism that would monitor and restrict my carbon emissions relative to my permitted allotment? I emit CO2 every time I start my car or even flip on a light switch.
I need to read more of George and I’m curious to what degree he incorporates scale/localism within his philosophy? Would he have expected that someone on one side of the world benefit from the natural resources on the other side? LVT inherently can be applied with consent at more granular scales - city, county, country - which is appealing and I think gets political support from both a libertarian right and socialist/anarchist left direction.
I would also like to know if George ever touched on scale. He doesn’t in PnP.
I think there are advantages to applying Georgism locally. A region could implement LVT, collect rents from its territory, and redistribute those rents to its population. If people in another region want to receive their share of the first region’s rents, then they must enact LVT themselves so rents can be captured and redistributed across the territory and population of the combined region. This provides an incentive for people to enact LVT locally and join the greater rent-sharing agglomeration. Eventually everyone would receive an equal share of all of the Earth’s resource rents.
In a chapter of his book "Social Problems" (this one https://cooperative-individualism.org/george-henry_social-problems-1883-17.pdf) , George said there was a need for more thinking on these jurisdictional matters. We know that he both believed in the importance of local government but also looked forward to an eventual world federation of countries.
I'm currently working on notes for an eventual article for this Substack on how Georgism should guide relationships between governmental jurisdictions and their functions.
A bit beyond Georgism, but I suspect this is where the concept of Subsidiarity comes into play. Basically, the idea that if a lower, more local level of government can do something, they should be the ones doing it, with the stuff they can't do (or do effectively) being sent up the chain to higher levels of government.
Towns probably can't manage armies or space programs or universal health insurance systems, which means those should be handed to higher levels of government. But stuff they can do, like local planning or protection, they absolutely should, without relying on the higher levels at all. Thus higher levels still have their place, but more in terms of providing support to lowers levels, rather than ruling over them and telling them what to do.
Nice exposition of the philosophical arguments! Great to see content on this topic on P&P.
A more politically viable approach would be to make removal of excess carbon from the atmosphere profitable in itself. https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2023/04/10/climate-tech-checklist/
People have said my writings lean towards Georgist at times. Not sure, I am in favour of fairplay so probably.
However I seek systems that can tollerate and sideline interference from special groups and having a per capita system of some sort seems fair. I would like all of natures bounty to be stpread evenly across all the citizens of a region who have accepted the social contract of the region as determined by the citizens of the region, a mutually beneficial contract like citizenship is supposed to be.
All that said I want a system that will defuse fear mongering as a tool to manipulate people, north and south to enrich globalists.
I am not convinced that humans have much effect on climate and am even less inclined to think that while we are on the planet that we have any real way to change things. I however would love to have a way that humans could portion the one time bounty of nature to last as many generations as possible and this is why a Adult Resident Citizens Dividend could work. All natural income is divided FAIRLY amongst the adult citizens, cost of running the country is taxed FAIRLY from the citizens and corporations at a flat rate adequate for the work at hand. To lower taxes citizens would have to streamline government, reduce weapons development and warmongering, to increase the dividend people would have to develop ways to make natural resource extraction more efficient and increase the pool of national patents that can be licences and hydro potential and state forest growth while limiting NEW MONEY that also goes to the people first because they have to 'service the debt' (until such time as central banks can be permanently weeded out and replaced with citizens banks).
A delightful member on Linked-In posts occasionally some very credible data that would make any logical person question the fact that it is not mentioned in any climate change propaganda. I will mention a point here with poorly recollected numbers. Basically some simple sums on the amount of heat from geothermal and solar inputs is X, the changes in this amount is the noise in climate over recorded time was about 1% that causes the detectable shifts in climate. This 1% was 40 times greater than what humans can achieve at the best of times, so it is rather grandiose to think that were are the problem when we are only one part in 4000 of the climate inputs.
The other thing I have issue with is the dog whistle term climate change denialist. It labels basically EVERYONE as an when required. Look at the definition on wikipedia, unless you are in 100% agreement with the CURRENT models predicting the rate of whatever, having doubts about anything makes you a denialist. This is not a scientific position so should no be used to set policy.
"Climate change denial refers to denial, dismissal, or doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part."
very interesting. you suggest determining co2 emissions per capita on a per country basis, so then would then companies that perform carbon capture be rewarded at a national level?
Practically speaking, what is the mechanism that would monitor and restrict my carbon emissions relative to my permitted allotment? I emit CO2 every time I start my car or even flip on a light switch.