I’m glad you at least recognize that there are different audiences for Georgism. I conceive as Georgist policies as useful, which leads more quickly to a just society.
If you start talking about Georgist policy as inherently just, you immediately lose me as a supporter. Georgism is first and foremost a way of critiquing and improving economic policy. It is not a framework for ethics or social justice.
I’m sure I live in my own bubble, but this view is representative of every Georgist that I personally interact with.
I would consider classical Georgism to necessarily reflect an ethical framework; in its essence it is a property ethic that defines what can justly be owned and how that ownership is to be treated within society. "As no man made the land, so no man may claim a right of ownership in the land" is the most concise statement of this ethic. Henry George, for example, considered his theory to be an exposition of the natural law.
Now, I don't begrudge extending the label of Georgist to those that appreciate it for utilitarian reasons. It is very useful! But the tradition itself is fundamentally based on a theory of justice defined by natural law.
Traditions grow from a number of sources; Newton did some weird theology BS but this doesn't mean that math or physics that come from him are fundamentally theological; or take Ramanujan and his visions. I would still think that people have vastly more different perceptions of what is just than of what is useful; and throwing numbers in favor of the latter is rather easier than in favor of the former. Exactly why is it just to deny claims of ownership on something one didn't make? I'm not saying it is impossible to answer that question but I am saying that the answer is likely to hinge on some specific conception of justice that excludes, for instance, "justice of status quo".
Thanks for writing about this subject. Personally, I tend to think what's useful and what's just are less distinct than you seem to, but I also think people are generally more persuaded my moral arguments, and a potential strength of Georgism is that it can appeal to a variety of moral inclinations.
Working at a large company, my observation is that “bullshit” jobs are due to the natural tendency of bureaucracies to perpetuate and self-justify.
I don’t think my job is bullshit, but I have to put up with a lot of bullshit (and bullshitters) as I grind through the corporate processes for authorizing, tracking and approving the work that I do. My assessment is that corporate leadership is aware of the problems but has made the determination that the cost and disruption required to uproot the bureaucrats outweighs the benefits.
Perhaps a silver lining to bureaucratic bullshit inevitability is that it serves as natural check on the dominance of large companies as they trip over themselves trying to respond to smaller, leaner competitors.
I am all for LVT, but I am not sure how it would fix this problem. Would the lure of a UBI encourage people to walk away from cushy, but dull, corporate jobs? Would LVT revenue leave much for UBI after paying all the current expenses of government?
I do think there is a dearth of analysis around the causes for BS jobs- often motivated, as you said, by bureaucrats protecting their own interests, status hires by managers, etc. The goal, though of Georgist policy in this regard is to make it possible at least for people to leave those jobs which they find meaningless and damaging (in this article the tool advocated is the Citizen's Dividend) and to increase competitive pressures by reducing rentseeking. Of course not all BS jobs will be eliminated, and some of them aren't harmful so much as cushy sinecures, but we can improve things significantly I imagine.
I vaguely see some interactions with Martha Nussbaum's "Capabilities Approach" applied ethical system, most famously used in Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom".
The Capabilities Approach is about empowering people to have choices, which means providing healthcare, education, housing, a safety net, public order, and more.
I like the idea of people getting to make choices for themselves, something which is missing from other ethical systems, which all strike me as paternalist or authoritarian or both.
Thanks - an interesting take on UBI. Also good to hear that brief update from UBI studies.
Where is the best place I can read about how Georgism could be implemented given that houses are a majority of middleclass wealth in many countries?
Fred Foldvary wrote a pretty good introduction to strategies for implementation: https://www.progress.org/articles/the-implementation-of-land-value-taxation
Thanks, touched on how to value land.
Doesn’t talk about how to transition from a point where much middle class wealth is in housing.
I’m glad you at least recognize that there are different audiences for Georgism. I conceive as Georgist policies as useful, which leads more quickly to a just society.
If you start talking about Georgist policy as inherently just, you immediately lose me as a supporter. Georgism is first and foremost a way of critiquing and improving economic policy. It is not a framework for ethics or social justice.
I’m sure I live in my own bubble, but this view is representative of every Georgist that I personally interact with.
I would consider classical Georgism to necessarily reflect an ethical framework; in its essence it is a property ethic that defines what can justly be owned and how that ownership is to be treated within society. "As no man made the land, so no man may claim a right of ownership in the land" is the most concise statement of this ethic. Henry George, for example, considered his theory to be an exposition of the natural law.
Now, I don't begrudge extending the label of Georgist to those that appreciate it for utilitarian reasons. It is very useful! But the tradition itself is fundamentally based on a theory of justice defined by natural law.
Traditions grow from a number of sources; Newton did some weird theology BS but this doesn't mean that math or physics that come from him are fundamentally theological; or take Ramanujan and his visions. I would still think that people have vastly more different perceptions of what is just than of what is useful; and throwing numbers in favor of the latter is rather easier than in favor of the former. Exactly why is it just to deny claims of ownership on something one didn't make? I'm not saying it is impossible to answer that question but I am saying that the answer is likely to hinge on some specific conception of justice that excludes, for instance, "justice of status quo".
Thanks for writing about this subject. Personally, I tend to think what's useful and what's just are less distinct than you seem to, but I also think people are generally more persuaded my moral arguments, and a potential strength of Georgism is that it can appeal to a variety of moral inclinations.
Working at a large company, my observation is that “bullshit” jobs are due to the natural tendency of bureaucracies to perpetuate and self-justify.
I don’t think my job is bullshit, but I have to put up with a lot of bullshit (and bullshitters) as I grind through the corporate processes for authorizing, tracking and approving the work that I do. My assessment is that corporate leadership is aware of the problems but has made the determination that the cost and disruption required to uproot the bureaucrats outweighs the benefits.
Perhaps a silver lining to bureaucratic bullshit inevitability is that it serves as natural check on the dominance of large companies as they trip over themselves trying to respond to smaller, leaner competitors.
I am all for LVT, but I am not sure how it would fix this problem. Would the lure of a UBI encourage people to walk away from cushy, but dull, corporate jobs? Would LVT revenue leave much for UBI after paying all the current expenses of government?
I do think there is a dearth of analysis around the causes for BS jobs- often motivated, as you said, by bureaucrats protecting their own interests, status hires by managers, etc. The goal, though of Georgist policy in this regard is to make it possible at least for people to leave those jobs which they find meaningless and damaging (in this article the tool advocated is the Citizen's Dividend) and to increase competitive pressures by reducing rentseeking. Of course not all BS jobs will be eliminated, and some of them aren't harmful so much as cushy sinecures, but we can improve things significantly I imagine.
I vaguely see some interactions with Martha Nussbaum's "Capabilities Approach" applied ethical system, most famously used in Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom".
The Capabilities Approach is about empowering people to have choices, which means providing healthcare, education, housing, a safety net, public order, and more.
I like the idea of people getting to make choices for themselves, something which is missing from other ethical systems, which all strike me as paternalist or authoritarian or both.