Capital earns its own income

There is a difference between 'farming' and other types of work... with farming we must only maintain the status quo and we will be fed and wealthy. With other types of work (such as being employed on a farm) we must continue to work otherwise we will starve. The farmer must only maintain their property for a harvest to be assured... the work is driven by the environment... when the seasons change the crop is sown... when it grows it is harvested. Provided the farmer is able to keep up with these demands then they will be rich. For workers of the other type it is not enough to keep up with events... even by doing so we have no guarantee of being rich. We have no capital which will earn an income.

Only farmers can be self-employed

Only (subsistence) farmers are self-employed... anyone who has a job or even someone who has a business with customers is not self-employed. They rely on their boss (or customers) for an income. We can only be self-employed if we can sustain ourselves directly from what we produce. If there is a transaction before we get what we want then we are not independent of the economy.

There is nothing magical about land

The advantage of land over other assets is that with land we can grow our own food and survive independently. But that is all (it does not give us access to any other part of the economy... food is not necessarily that valuable). Subsistence farmers are often poor.

All other types of sustenance rely on employment... either by a boss (or manager) directly or if we have a business by our customers. In either case we can be replaced by technology. Technology is a threat to every employee and business owner and so only if we have our own land can we be immune from (replacement by) technology. (We can be self-employed if we have our own land.) But that doesn't mean there is anything to celebrate in the ownership of land... we might not be rich. All that is guaranteed by land is a basic level of sustenance. It doesn't mean that we will be able to afford anything which is happening outside of our local farming economy. The subsistence farmer does not have much to offer the wider economy apart from excess food.

There is nothing to particularly celebrate in having our own land... it is an insurance option against unemployability but not much more than that.

Definition of the Georgian threshold

The Georgian threshold is the point at which a person is able to derive a greater income from their rental assets than their cost of living. At this point they no longer have a need to work in the sense of attaining an income from other sources. At this point they are able to live without doing anything other than to collect the rent. They are economically inactive as a producer apart from their being able to lease assets.

If the Georgian threshold for an individual is positive they are able to live without working in the traditional sense. They are able to survive on their rental income alone.

The only job safe from technology is farming

Farming is the only job safe from technology because we are able to produce our own food. If we can produce our own food we can survive without external employment. If we are not a farmer we are vulnerable to technology.

A definition of land slavery

Definition of land slavery: A person is a land slave if they do not have sufficient land to produce their own food.

Georgism is a conservative philosophy

Georgism (or even geolibertarianism) is a political philosophy which is entirely consistent with conservatism. Georgism is concerned with extracting the best possible use from natural resources which is a conservative idea. If Georgism is not conservative then conservatism is not concerned with the best use of the land and is therefore wasteful and negligent. Conservatives are Georgists even if they do not realise it.

The tragedy of the commons applies everywhere

‘The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.’

All resources are limited... the whole world is common so the tragedy of the commons applies everywhere.

If individual people are greedy and take too much this will always be to the detriment of the group. Whilst it cannot be consumed or depleted... land is a shared limited resource which must be used (claimed) with reservation and with deference to the group. Just because a resource is not given freely (common) and instead is owned privately doesn’t mean the tragedy of the commons doesn’t apply. The tragedy exists for all assets. We must be considerate of our neighbours both in the private market and the public market.

The tragedy of the commons applies not only to the commons.

Imposing a tax on buildings makes no sense

The mansion tax is a tax on an asset rather than labour so in that respect it is similar to a land tax. However the important difference is that land ownership is equally inconvenient to us whether or not there is a house on it. We are penalising something which has no negative impact on other people.

A land value tax on the other hand makes more sense because we are indifferent to whether there is a house on the land... in either case we have no right of access. Land ownership is a cost to everyone but the property owner. For this reason it makes sense to impose a tax on land not on buildings.

The land value ceiling: an explanation of how it works

The land value ceiling is a limit imposed by the government on personal land ownership. Under this rule no individual is able to own an amount of land in excess of the land value ceiling. Anyone violating this rule by owning an excess of land will be asked to either give it away or to sell the land. If they do not do so measures will be taken to bring them into line including the possibility of the land being confiscated.

It is a quantity of land measured in market value not the physical area of the land.

There is nothing wrong with a land value ceiling

There is nothing wrong with a land value ceiling because land is finite.