When people first hear that Silvio Gesell proposed the elimination of private land ownership, their first reaction is to conclude that he was a communist. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. What Silvio Gesell proposed is actually the purest expression of the free-market system ever known to man. Because private ownership of land is a violation of the core principles of the free-market system. You cannot have free markets AND privately owned land. They are mutually exclusive.
Very clever on land ownership ....The same should be true of land. The true owner of land is whoever created it — God or nature or the universe. And unless someone can provide proof of lawful transfer from that original owner, any subsequent claims to ownership of land are illegitimate.
Josh do you have a paper on your proposal or model for implementing Gesell's mechanism?
"Designation of use rights" does not have to be, nor should it be, "land ownership," which is what George and Gesell were both talking about. Of course none of this can work without a public monopoly on money creation because it is private money creation monopoly that keeps public policy out of the hands of the public so no chance of changing anything until that is fixed. Indeed, capitalism and the free-market system are often and wrongly conflated. Capitalism = (capital = money) + (ism = system) = money system. The central feature and source of awesome power for the capitalists is their debt based private global monetary system issuing all money as interest-bearing debt, a form of slavery. Capitalism assures there can be no free market, it is a parasite on the back of free enterprise, the two are often and wrongly conflated. Every household, business and government in this world is in debt to and dependent on the private commercial banking system. It is the driver of destructive economic growth and wars. It needs to be reversed. monetaryalliance.org
Oh yes you can! Private land ownership as designation of use rights is altogether different than the private appropriation of the land rent which is unearned income / surplus value created by the community as a whole. I thought Giselle had a better understanding of Georgist economics but apparently not! I am for non-profit land tenure and non-profit banking and I thought Geselle had a handle on both so I am disappointed with this article.
Very clever on land ownership ....The same should be true of land. The true owner of land is whoever created it — God or nature or the universe. And unless someone can provide proof of lawful transfer from that original owner, any subsequent claims to ownership of land are illegitimate.
Josh do you have a paper on your proposal or model for implementing Gesell's mechanism?
I have been enjoying your HGSSS series
Joe Polito
"Designation of use rights" does not have to be, nor should it be, "land ownership," which is what George and Gesell were both talking about. Of course none of this can work without a public monopoly on money creation because it is private money creation monopoly that keeps public policy out of the hands of the public so no chance of changing anything until that is fixed. Indeed, capitalism and the free-market system are often and wrongly conflated. Capitalism = (capital = money) + (ism = system) = money system. The central feature and source of awesome power for the capitalists is their debt based private global monetary system issuing all money as interest-bearing debt, a form of slavery. Capitalism assures there can be no free market, it is a parasite on the back of free enterprise, the two are often and wrongly conflated. Every household, business and government in this world is in debt to and dependent on the private commercial banking system. It is the driver of destructive economic growth and wars. It needs to be reversed. monetaryalliance.org
Oh yes you can! Private land ownership as designation of use rights is altogether different than the private appropriation of the land rent which is unearned income / surplus value created by the community as a whole. I thought Giselle had a better understanding of Georgist economics but apparently not! I am for non-profit land tenure and non-profit banking and I thought Geselle had a handle on both so I am disappointed with this article.