Georgism

[KenHigg]

Just read this and was wondering what the opinions are for and against this line of thinking...

Pass Go
So I recently played Monopoly. It'd been maybe 15-20 years since I had played (heck, when was the last time you played?) I don't remember what I usually was (probably the car), but this time around I was the boot.


The origins of the game can be traced to a Quaker from Virginia named Lizzie Magie who patented a game named The Landlord's Game in 1904. Lizzie actually made the game to illustrate the evils of oppressive land owners. She was a Georgist, which means that she adhered to Georgism - a philosophy and economic ideology that basically says if you create it, you own it, but if it's natural, then everyone owns it. Which explains why Lizzie would make a game about the evils of owning something and then patent it so she could exclusively own it. Other notable Georgists include Winston Churchill and Mark Twain.

So - about my game: it lasted about an hour (it was a short one) and ended with bankruptcy at the hands of a five year old, first-time Monopoly mogul that, truth be told, was not that interested in the game to begin with...

 

[pbaldy]

Opinions on Georgism? I'd be interested to hear what could be "created" without the use of something natural. If you can't own the land, why would you build a house on it? Come to think of it, since you can't own the tree you can't cut it down for the lumber to build the house anyway. I can't harvest an apple to eat or shoot a deer for meat, since they belong to "everybody". How does such a philosophy work in real life?

Funny that while Lizzy and Twain may have had creative ideas, they could not share them with others (or make money on them) without using natural products (paper, etc). Thus they violated their own philosophy.

 

[KenHigg]

Opinions on Georgism? I'd be interested to hear what could be "created" without the use of something natural. If you can't own the land, why would you build a house on it? Come to think of it, since you can't own the tree you can't cut it down for the lumber to build the house anyway. I can't harvest an apple to eat or shoot a deer for meat, since they belong to "everybody". How does such a philosophy work in real life?

Funny that while Lizzy and Twain may have had creative ideas, they could not share them with others (or make money on them) without using natural products (paper, etc). Thus they violated their own philosophy.

This is kinda along the same line of thinking; If you own a pc of land in with a creek on it, the water belongs to the state as do the fish etc.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Opinions on Georgism? I'd be interested to hear what could be "created" without the use of something natural.

Intersting one, this.

Yes, strictly speaking, the only things that would 'count' as your own would be songs, poems, ideas, etc. sharing them verbally would make them yours, but then only until such time as you wrote them down. At which point, you'd have to use something that originated wholly or partially in nature, making them all public property. What would hapen if someone you openly sang something to wrote down the lyrics? Would it cease to belong to you?

I suppose a lot depends on whether something like paper would be classified as natural, or just the wood itself, prior to processing? Maybe Gerogists view the actuall processing of an item or substance as removing it's claim to being natural. In which case, you'd be okay writing ideas down. Actually creating the paper may be okay, since the tree is as much yours as anyone else's.