The logic of LVT isn't to force all of the factors of production to their highest and best use. It is to share the value of the Earth, which no human created, and thus georgists believe it should be shared equally.

That this particular solution to that moral view also happens to put land to its highest use is a nice bonus.

Henry George was a classical liberal, and thus did not believe anyone had a right to the labor of others, or that they should have any say in what kind of labor others should perform.

Did some human create my ability to work in a factory stacking boxes or to work as a software developer, both things that I have done? Which human created that?

And suppose no human did that, to talk about sharing that value equally? That sounds really creepy to me.

I was not clear enough, apologies. Naturalness is not the reason that things should be owned in common. Rather, the reason that land ought to belong equally to all is because unchecked exclusive ownership reduces the freedom of non-landowners. It is thus incompatible with a classical liberal view that celebrates individual freedom.

If I build a fence and claim everything inside of it, you might find that reasonable. If I build a fence and then successfully claim everything outside of it, then I have in effect made everyone else prisoners inside of the fence. And if a subset of humanity claims the entire Earth, then the rest become like trespassers to be dealt with however the landowners saw fit. The rents they demand could be unlimited, since everyone requires access to land.

Every parcel claimed reduces the amount of freedom of everyone else, and eventually all land becomes claimed and rents begin rising in tandem with the progress of civilization, putting people into a position of serfdom. And that is why no amount of technological progress will ever eliminate poverty.

Georgists get around this issue by abolishing income taxes entirely.

Regardless, I think there are fundamental differences between the two cases. Most notably land doesn’t have freedom of choice the way people do.

We also currently tax land based on its market value which corresponds to the most productive use of the land so LVT doesn’t change this.

>> land doesn’t have freedom of choice the way people do

I mean that's your best argument, but it's not as clear cut as that to me. What I do with my property and what I do with my labor are both matters of freedom of choice. But yeah, I get you. I don't want to be told what to do with my labor. But I don't want to be told what to do with my land either.

>> We also currently tax land based on its market value which corresponds to the most productive use of the land

No, don't agree. If tore down the house I live in and built a 12 story apartment building on the same piece of land, it would be worth more and be taxed more. We currently tax property on its market value, not land on its market value. At least where I live.

The portion of property taxes that tax the land tax it at its market price though. And we know from economics that the market price is set based on the best economic use. So the entirety of your disagreement seems to be “we also tax buildings” not that the portion of the tax on land doesn’t work the way I said.

What you do with your labour is a strong right that is deeply connected to bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy rights come from nature and shouldn’t be violated by society.

What you do with your land is a weak right that is socially constructed and depends on the society that defined the rules under which land acquisition made sense.

There is a stronger moral basis for taxing land than there is for taxing labour. There is also a stronger moral basis for restricting land use than for restricting labour. Despite your efforts to paint them as the same, these two things are in fact very different.

>> What you do with your labour is a strong right that is deeply connected to bodily autonomy

Taxing people at different rates based on the decisions they make is not taking away bodily autonomy. Taxing someone at a higher rate if they choose not to have children does not force them to have children. The teacher isn't forced to become a software developer. There are just tax implications for the decisions one makes, as there are already now.

And I don't agree that property rights are weak rights. Property rights are at the very core of a free society.

By weak right I mean that they are socially constructed and thus depend on society. By strong right I mean they come from nature and don’t depend on society.

Many of the classical philosophers have made strong arguments for the right of bodily autonomy extending to ownership of your labour both in the sense of owning your choice of what to do and owning the fruits of your labours. Income tax is government interfering with your ownership of your own labour which violates this sense of bodily autonomy. You might argue for a weaker notion of bodily autonomy but doing so requires some substantial moral argumentation rather than mere assertion.

As to the idea that property rights are at the core to a free society, can you provide me with an example? Since we are discussing the idea that taxation would be a violation of a property right what I’d like to see is a society where having untaxed land is core to the freeness of society.

1. Theoretically a tax against potential earnings is actually good, but it's much more difficult to estimate than land prices.

2. LVT is mostly about redistributing rents, with the land use efficiency bonus as a big second order benefit.

3. Professions aren't exclusionary. A person doesn't squat on their teacher gig for 20 years in order to see how their claim on being 1 of finite-X allowed software developers might rise in price. Other people would just become software developers.