> The owner paid to have the building constructed.

Much of the rent paid in big cities is not for the construction or maintenance costs, but the land value. Did the owner construct the land?

> Did the owner construct the land?

The land itself had to be acquired somehow. The very first owner paid for an army to take the land from the indigenous population that "owned" it, and that "cost" is a chain that is linked all the way to today (and at every step of the transaction, somebody profits by increasing the price a bit).

So either you raise another army today (at an even greater cost) to acquire the land, or you pay the asking price from the current owners.

It’s not just the acquisition of the land but also the investment in the economy that surrounds the land. All land starts out near worthless and in the middle of no where. Generations of sacrifice and investment are what turns it into a highly valuable property. That process can also reverse if the owner ceases to improve the property and invest in the community.

>All land starts out near worthless and in the middle of no where. //

No. People don't raise armies to steal land that's worthless. If you're going back to pre-history then the land near a nice river that has plenty of game, isn't predated by larger animals, and has nice fruit trees is worth way more to a person than some section of desert.

If right to live on land also goes with rights to exploit resources beneath the land then disparities in value as you approach the industrial era become massive.

How much of that intrinsic value is still there once everything is paved?

There is a concept called "path dependence". Something may be important to get you from point A to point B, even if at point B you perhaps don't use it at all.

You start with a place with nice fruit trees near the river, then a few people build their houses there, then someone builds roads and a port, then someone builds larger houses, then someone builds factories... and at some moment in the future, there is a huge city, but the river is poluted and the trees were cut down.

There is another place with no trees and no river. Hundred years later, there is no city.

That's what Georgism is about: fully separating those two concepts. The land is valuable because of the community; the property is valuable because of its owner. So under Georgism, all land is held under common ownership, with the land's value being entirely taxed away from its occupier, allowing you to profit personally only by improving the property and supplying value to others thereby.

No thanks.

A shot in the dark here, but I assume you own land? ;)

I do and I also respect others property rights. Communal ownership and responsibility should only cover those things for which there are no other options, even then they are hard enough to deal with.

Under Georgism, you have the right to all the property you want. It just classes land as (I think?) the only thing which is "not property".

Your initial claim was about the situation being just. This argument explains why and what situation we have, but you've done nothing to explain why it's just. "Raise another army or pay the price" is hardly a ringing endorsement of the fairness of the system.

The key thing to note is that this isn't the only model of land ownership possible. There are other that are more fair (land value taxes and community land trusts for example).

To be clear, I don't really have anything against individual landowners; it's the system that's unjust.

No but he bought it when others did not. Envy is rarely going to yield better results

> Why is it inherently unjust?

Heh, I wasn't taking a position on renting versus ownership. I said there are pros and cons of both.

What is unjust is to advocate for renting, if that rent will go to an owner/landlord. After all, why should owners/landlords exist at all, if renting is apparently so good?

Social housing avoids this hypocrisy, since the "owner" is not a person (or person-surrogate, like a corporation).

> Social housing avoids this hypocrisy, since the "owner" is not a person (or person-surrogate, like a corporation).

Like the housing projects in the inner cities?

> Like the housing projects in the inner cities?

The problem with US housing projects isn’t that they are social housing but that they are deliberate concentration of the poor (and therefore also marginalized, as those are correlated), with the same consequences that always has, whether or not it involves social housing.

Based on my (very limited) understanding of inner city housing projects in the USA, then yes.

AFAIK those planning such projects did not themselves live in social housing (unlike, say, many soviet officials), hence there's still an element of hypocrisy there (note that I never claimed otherwise; I specifically chose the word "this" in the sentence you've quoted. I'll also re-re-state that I've not made any argument for or against home ownership or renting)

The problem is, the housing projects ended up being a major contributor to gangs in the cities. Growing up, "the projects" was a common euphemism for gang-infested ghettos, even though that likely was only true for a small portion of the projects.

See here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_Unit...

Yes, there are pros and cons; hence why I haven't argued for or against any approach to housing (although I have been arguing against the hypocricy of someone advocating for an approach that they don't themselves follow, like non-renting landlords having renters)