"Environmentalists also often embrace the ideas of Georgism as it appeals to those who believe the land belongs to all in common any way. Without an incentive to own massive tracts of land to exploit personally, Georgism could lead to better stewarding of land. Additionally, since Georgism includes all other natural resources, such as timber, oil, coal, and fisheries, these resources would also become a common. In many ways, the implementation of Georgism would appear to solve the Tragedy of the Commons, in which individuals acting for their own benefit end up damaging the larger resource pool" https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/935DAAF1-2FBB-8FCD-7ECC-098B3CC890BE Are you a Georgist environmentalist?
Yes, there are many good points to the Henry George perspective, both practical economic and moral. (But one potential problem seldom considered anymore is the diminishing of local economic autonomy; anytime a large distant government is taxing the land there is the potential for abuse and taking too much control, i.e. since it is a direct tax on a person's property, so I suppose I would be more supportive of this type of tax if it could be implemented more locally) One a slightly different subject, one of the problems with personal ownership is that it takes a tree 100 or 400 years to grow to a great size, but during all that time it only takes one property owner to chop it down. I don't know the best solution for how to deal with this. Maybe leave narrow buffers of common-owned land between private property tracts for large trees to grow? Certainly would end up making a much more aesthetic landscape after a hundred years time. We can't just have all the nature in vast tracts of unmodified pristine wilderness areas. We need to bring some of that nature (and space) to where people live too, and come up with ways for nature and people to share the same space.
Is there any need for private ownership? Traditionally you'd refer to incentives (e.g. the need to maximise agricultural yields). However, given technical progress has eliminated productivity as an issue (except in terms of how the individual search for profit magnifies environmental deterioration), is there any need for anything but the 'commons'?
Don't be silly, you as a lay economist should know the answer to that one. Of course private ownership is more important for some industries and endeavors than others, as Lenin made mention to in his "commanding heights" speech.
You made zero reference to land, nor reference to my application of productivity. Try again! I'm not a fan of vacuous replies
For agricultural commodities, government running the operation probably wouldn't be different from the corporate sector (theoretically, though politics often tends to get involved). For other more diversified and specialty agricultural products, government bureaucrats probably wouldn't do a good a job and would be less efficient. It's the same reason why governments in Communist countries could run steel mills fairly efficiently but couldn't turn all that steel into the spectrum of different consumer appliances very well. Anyway now we're deviating from the original discussion of Georgism & the environment.
But the point is that 'efficiency' can be deeply damaging: Mad cow; potential impact of pesticides on bee populations; destruction of the value of antibiotics; nitrates in the water; lack of eco-diversity etc. There is a clear switch from the old days of collectivisation. Then we focused on lack of productivity (and the negative effects for well-being). Now productivity is the problem, given the divorce of profitable behaviour and sustainable outcome
Do you think bringing all those people into England is sustainable? (rhetorical question, no need to answer here) But it is relevant if we're having a discussion on Georgism.
Your question doesn't make much sense. Malthus was wrong over food, given productivity gains from the agricultural revolution. He could be right, mind you, once we factor in environmentalism. Now we can't change that big picture. We can, however, maximise the quality of our local lands. Does ownership achieve that? Best I've seen is "we plant trees we do because we're not just focusing on crops. We also want id'juts to pay us to blow pheasants out of the air"
The perpensi The general trend of humans to lean toward often dishonest and unethical action to gain access to resources make Georgian ideals difficult at best.
Ideals? I wouldn't see the Georgists as idealists. They gave that up when they agreed the 'single tax' stuff from our Henry was no longer relevant.
