Georgism is different from government ownership because Georgists still support private possession of land, while opposing private ownership of land. Private possession is necessary to solve the Tragedy of the Commons, and it’s also necessarily to incentivize the titleholders to use their land effectively. Georgists also believe that titleholders should own all of the improvements that they make to their land. The land value tax only applies to the unimproved value of land.
If a titleholder loses his/her land because he/she can’t use the land effectively enough to pay the land value tax, then that’s actually a good thing. Confiscating land from people who are using it unproductively is necessarily in order to ensure that all land is being used to its maximum efficiency and increase economic wealth. That’s a feature, not a bug.
I can answer your other questions if you want me to.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I was just trying to describe how Georgism controls land rights. Ownership and possession both have very different definitions in most legal systems.
The distinction between “possession” and “ownership” is just “renting” or “borrowing”. Virtually everyone has rented or borrowed something before—an apartment, a car, a pencil from their schoolmate. I don’t see why cleaving this distinction would not be a “winnable battle” given that everyone has first-hand understanding of it.
Georgism is different from government ownership because Georgists still support private possession of land, while opposing private ownership of land. Private possession is necessary to solve the Tragedy of the Commons, and it’s also necessarily to incentivize the titleholders to use their land effectively. Georgists also believe that titleholders should own all of the improvements that they make to their land. The land value tax only applies to the unimproved value of land.
If a titleholder loses his/her land because he/she can’t use the land effectively enough to pay the land value tax, then that’s actually a good thing. Confiscating land from people who are using it unproductively is necessarily in order to ensure that all land is being used to its maximum efficiency and increase economic wealth. That’s a feature, not a bug.
I can answer your other questions if you want me to.
I’m not sure that cleaving a distinction between the meanings of “possession” and “ownership” is a winnable battle.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. I was just trying to describe how Georgism controls land rights. Ownership and possession both have very different definitions in most legal systems.
The distinction between “possession” and “ownership” is just “renting” or “borrowing”. Virtually everyone has rented or borrowed something before—an apartment, a car, a pencil from their schoolmate. I don’t see why cleaving this distinction would not be a “winnable battle” given that everyone has first-hand understanding of it.