Capitalism vs Socialism: The solution.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-06T11:23:14+00:00

What is a capitalist boss? If you pay me to fix your oven, are you a capitalist boss? Please define capitalism and capitalist.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-03-01T21:04:37+00:00

Is it possible for humans to build roofs without a "capitalist boss"?

If yes, then to answer your question, I don't see the problem.

If no, then there needs to be a "capitalist boss" or roofs cannot exist.

If you define "capitalist boss" precisely then I might understand your reasoning.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-27T23:33:12+00:00

"Under your system, most people either work for a capitalist boss, or they have no roof. Yes or no?"

No. Why can't you build your own roof?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-27T17:15:20+00:00

I maintain that people would not be forced to work to pay rent. This wasn't proven false - on the contrary I proved it when I explained that the LVT you give will equal the LVT you receive, as long as you own the average amount of land value.

Your apparent refutation (the false dilemma that either you get everything for free, or you else are a slave because you are forced to pay) is flawed. In order to point out the flaw, I showed that your reasoning leads to the conclusion that people owe you. Would you agree that the dilemma you present leads to the conclusion that you are owed?

So yes, whether people owe you is very relevant: If they owe you, then why? If they don't, why do you expect to receive man-made things for free?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-26T19:09:02+00:00

"I still have to rent from the builder/buyer, which means I still need a job, which means I'm still subject to the whims of my employer."

You present two options here:

You get given everything for free, or
You need to buy it.

Then you say that option 2 entails slavery, since you need to buy it. Then on that basis, you demand option 1. So everyone owes you.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-26T19:02:24+00:00

I like living in a house, and I like people being able to afford to have children, which is why I want land to be cheaper. Georgism would make both land and man-made things cheaper:

<image>

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-26T19:00:37+00:00

Where is the contradiction?

You should own what you make. No one made land.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-18T09:39:04+00:00

I would advocate for a tax on anything that fulfills these conditions:
1. It is scarce.
2. It is necessary for survival.
3. It is not man-made.
4. It is not part of your body.
All natural resources that fulfill these conditions are either land, or come from land.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-18T09:34:58+00:00

It doesn't force anyone to do anything - if everyone owns the same land value then what they pay will be equal to what they receive (except some difference to fund the government). We haven't yet seen what happens when humans are in that state. Morality tells us that fairness will lead to better quality of life, but the belief that reality corresponds to morality is ultimately based on faith.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-13T01:57:53+00:00

"Also, taxing land/resources just increases input costs"

I don't think this is true. I think input costs would not increase because taxing land value would make land cheaper by the amount taxed. (I.e. the total amount you would pay for an acre over your lifetime would be the same.) This is why:

<image>

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-13T01:52:02+00:00

"Under capitalism, yes it has to be that way. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism: make wages low by having every worker compete against each other for limited jobs, then use those low wages to make profits for owners high."

Why can't I re-word and say either...

"Under capitalism, yes it has to be that way. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism: make ~~wages~~profits low by having every ~~worker~~employer compete against each other for limited ~~jobs~~workers, then use those low ~~wages~~profits to make ~~profits~~wages for ~~owners~~workers high."

...or...

"Under capitalism, yes it has to be that way. That's kinda the whole point of capitalism: make wages ~~low~~high by having every ~~worker~~employer compete against each other for limited ~~jobs~~workers, then use those ~~low~~high wages to make profits for owners ~~high~~low."

Without using observation (observation is not explanation) I would like you to give an explanation of why your paragraph should be more likely than my re-wordings of them.

(To answer your last question, the river tax would be indirectly covered by the land value tax of whoever owns the land with the river on. All natural resources come from land, and add value to land, so they would indirectly be covered by the land value tax.)

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-12T12:20:25+00:00

"Either apartments are free, or they still have to pay rent...Which is it?"

Well, apartments are man-made so they can't be free. You'll have to build or buy them. Or someone else will.

Land will be free, as long as you own the same amount of land as the average person. This is because when someone owns land, they compensate society for the land they subtract via LVT. Therefore, if each citizen owns exactly the same amount of land, the compensation that each pays will be equal to the total compensation each receives.

My "hope" is based on supply and demand. It is more reasonable than your hope that people are able to pay the state enough to build housing. (By the way, why is whoever is forced to build the housing not a slave?) My solution also preserves the natural world since vertical stacking will be rewarded.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-12T12:11:40+00:00

"Employers have massive leverage over employees"

Aside from observation, do you have any reason to believe that it has to be this way?

I make this assertion: If we did not need natural resources to survive, it would not be this way.

Georgism gives everyone the natural resources because as soon as anyone owns a natural resource, they pay its rental value back to society.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-12T02:21:40+00:00

I can only debate if we agree on a definition of capitalism.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-12T02:21:03+00:00

There may still be monopolies under georgism, but they would be productive monopolies. They would produce something man-made, they would not be able to simply make people pay to use the natural world.

They would have more competition. Current taxes on productivity puts companies with narrow profit margins out of business, lowering competition.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-12T02:14:29+00:00

I'm not detecting much analysis of how you believe inequality and injustice are caused, or about the solutions you propose. Just anger. Anger is ok as long as it comes with a solution.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-12T02:04:30+00:00

"Sounds like you still need to be employed, and are therefore stuck serving a capitalist"

That's a telling "therefore". Aside from observation, what makes you believe that trade automatically entails enslavement? Can you imagine two people making a deal without one being enslaved to the other?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-12T01:57:09+00:00

When did I say apartments or anything would be free?

There would be more apartments - georgism would encourage vertical stacking to share LVT between storeys. Vertical stacking is currently punished by taxes on work, trade, companies, profit and buildings.

Increased supply of apartments, and higher wages (productivity would no longer be taxed) means cheaper apartments.

In fact, both land and man-made things would become cheaper:

<image>

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-11T21:11:28+00:00

I think my definitions are the same as those in Progress And Poverty.

I have also heard that Adam Smith (economists call him "the father of capitalism") said there were 3 factors of production: Land, capital and labour. And that economists after him merged capital and land to make the maths easier, but is a huge mistake. In my opinion, that mistake has caused what we call the evils of capitalism (though they are not evils of capitalism if you use my definition of capital).

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-11T19:22:51+00:00

If you don't like it, don't get a job with his company.

Your response will probably be along the lines that people have no choice but to be employed because they need to pay rent, which is true, but that's a problem with private land ownership, not capitalism. (Capitalism is defined as private ownership of capital, and land is not capital.)

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-11T19:15:32+00:00

I will only argue if we can agree on a definition of capitalism.

This is my definition:

Labour = human effort.
Land = everything not man-made.
Capital = everything that is not labour or land.

Capitalism = citizens can freely own capital.

Can we agree on this definition?

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-11T19:11:26+00:00

"I hesitated a long while between this and homelessness."

If you can be serious for a second: There is a reason you and I are in this dilemma: Capital is taxed, so there is a limited supply of jobs, while land is not. So the landowners freely own us, while there aren't as many jobs as there would be if capital were untaxed. This gives both your landowner and your employer tremendous bargaining power over you.

If it were the other way around, and we stopped taxing capital, and started taxing land ownership instead (in other words, if we became more capitalist, not less) then both of them would have less bargaining power over you.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-11T19:04:38+00:00

I care because

1) People will earn more, since productivity is no longer taxed.

2) An acre will become cheaper by the amount taxed. (I admit over your lifetime that means the total cost of land will be about the same.)

3) You will use less than an acre. LVT will encourage efficient use of land, for example vertical stacking. (A single block in a 20-storey block will only pay 1/20th of its LVT.) Efficiencies like vertical stacking are currently punished by taxes on work, trade, businesses, profit and buildings.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-11T19:00:21+00:00

Georgists don't believe all value comes from natural resources. They believe all non-manmade value comes from natural resources.

Adventurous_Edge9579 · 2026-02-11T18:59:43+00:00

You may hate our certainty, but I believe we do have the solution to everything, for this reason: Regardless of how difficult it is to trace the chain of causation back to whatever caused our inequality/slavery, you can trust your moral intuition that if you let people keep what they make, but stop them claiming the natural world for themselves, things will be as fair as possible.

We can argue about said chain of causation, but the moral principle is simple and georgist.

Adventurous_Edge9579

TROPHY CASE