I think it is important not to take a moralistic lens to these topics but rather a more systemic approach.

Sure, but when people propose a land value tax it's because morally, they've come to the conclusion that the current system is unjust. Systemic changes need to originate somewhere, right?

> Systemic changes need to originate somewhere, right?

Yes, but that does not need to be morals, values, ethics or ideology.

Instead I prefer Kant´s idea of the categorical imperative whereby the question only is if a society following specific rules would satisfy its members long term. It is more pragmatic as it shifts the question from should/shouldn't to does it work out.

LVT satisfies the categorical imperative. If I didn't know whether I'd be born as a landless serf (very high chance) or born to inherit wealth (low chance), then I should prefer to be born into a society with an LVT, since the LVT distributes the land rent to everyone.

> they've come to the conclusion that the current system is unjust

you want a dictatorship? that's how you get a dictatorship.

I am not going to speak for others, but one can argue for LVT as a more functional system

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-is-land-...

Life is uneven like that. Try to make the best of it.

I am completely healthy while some are born into wheelchairs. I did not earn any of it.

Your health isn't a limited, shared resource

No, but this matters how? It’s just an example of life being unfair.

It's completely different: land is a limited resource, so one person inheriting it prevents another person from having it.

Useless then, because it's not analogous

> Please explain how I have earned this?

You didn't answer the question.

Just saying that’s life. Earning is a useless question.

"Earning" something is not a useless question. As someone who's had things stolen from me before, a large part of the anger comes from feeling like someone took something that you earned through hard work. It's a big reason we criminalise and punish things the way we do as a society.

I know the feeling, yet you did not earn shit. You were on the right side of lucky and we tell ourselves stories of justice.

I didn’t feel lucky when I walked out the college doors and saw my bike was fucking gone.

how did you get the cash to pay said property manager? How did your ancestor get to own the property in the first place?

Nothing is unearned, except perhaps gov't welfare.

Nothing is earned, except perhaps the fruits of one's labor.

> how did you get the cash to pay said property manager?

He said he'd give them a cut of the rent.

> How did your ancestor get to own the property in the first place?

So his parents earned it, not him.

Or they took it by force, or stole it.

Doing genealogy, one of the most interesting ancestors I have actually got mentioned in a discussion in parliament for his real estate shenanigans. His wife had inherited some small but vaguely defined land from her first husband. He then became mayor and land assessor, and drew up ridiculously generous borders (and low tax assessments) for that land. No one thought to stop him. At one point during a sale, some officials had commented that they couldn't find that he had title to this land, but they didn't follow up. By the time they complained about it in parliament, it was two generations and many land transfers ago so they didn't think it was worth it to try to unwind it.

His parents worked hard and earned it so they could do with it what they like - such as benefiting their children. Nothing wrong with that.

The trouble with this is it's a playbook for huge inequality. If there is very little cost to holding onto land, then as soon as someone accrues some, it never leaves their family tree. For example, do you believe that the Duke of Westminster should be the beneficiary of his aristocratic ancestors? He is literally living off of land accrued hundreds of years ago.

>So his parents earned it, not him.

Doesn't this mean that the problem is inheritance, not (only) land ownership? But I imagine taximg inheritance is very unpopular with everyone.

You haven't earned it, your ancestors did. But your inheritance of this property is only a small fraction of your unearned benefits. Ask a dung beetle how fair life is.

Didn't the previous owners want you to to inherit their properties? As long as they did, you must have done something to have earned this inheritance, with or without you being aware (e.g. being born to or adopted by them).

If they didn't want you to inherit them, presumably they would have done something about that.

>you must have done something to have earned this inheritance

Just admit that the world isn't fair and that some people are lucky and you don't live in a meritocracy, please.

then live to your own standards and give it away. This all just virtue signaling until you actually so something with your (not very strongly held) values.

Luck is part of part -- in economics we call it risk. And without risk there is no economic development.

Somebody in your past took a risk and passed profits from that risk down to you. Trying to take the ability to pass that down is both immoral and bad economics.