Ask HN: Anyone else feels the commoditization of real estate is unethical?

Georgism is the idea that, although the improvements built on land can be owned by a private person, land itself cannot, being a part of the natural world which is by right the common property of all humankind. By this idea, anyone claiming exclusive use of a piece of land owes to the community a rent equal to the value of the unimproved land. This idea extends to all that is (or ought to be) the commons: natural resources, pollution, the EM spectrum, etc.

If you think about it this makes perfect sense: why is a small lot in a city (say central Paris) worth millions while a 10ha estate in the Australian outback worth a few thousand? Because of the community that throughout the generations built the city into a place with value where people want to live. It is therefore to the community that this economic value belongs.

Beyond the moral dimension of this proposal, there is also a surprising economic depth: this rent/"tax" would discourage unproductive use of land, as speculators cannot afford to sit in a property, wait for its value to go up, and collect the income from the hard work of the community around it.

I'll leave you with some quotes:

The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive. It is the takingby the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is thecreation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses. When all rent is taken by taxation for the needs of thecommunity, then will the equality ordained by Nature be attained. No citizen will have an advantage over any other citizen save as is given by his industry, skill, and intelligence; and each will obtain what he fairly earns. Then, but not till then, will labor get its full reward, and capital its natural return.

—Henry George

Landlords grow rich in their sleep without working, risking or economizing. The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title.

—John Stuart Mill

The underlying problem is the whole structure of our economy which has become more oriented at increasing rents than increasing productivity and real economic growth that would be widely shared in our society... but a tax on land rents would actually address some of the underlying problems. This is an idea that Henry George had more than 100 years ago but the analysis that I have done says it would actually go one step beyond Henry George. Henry George argued for a land tax because it was non-distortionary but this analysis says that a land tax actually improves the productivity of the economy because you encourage people to invest in productive capital rather than into rent generating wealth and the result of that shift in the composition of savings toward more productive investment leads to a more productive economy and leads to a more equal society.

—Milton Friedman (and believe me, I don't often quote Milton Friedman!)

But that’s the problem. The housing market is becoming what the food production market would be without the pressure and government involvement.

Right now the supply of those two good and their general dynamics are totally different. Landlords can effectively extract maximum profit from a property without doing anything to improve it or remain competitive thanks to zoning restrictions and other things that make increasing supply difficult. Thanks to this set up, landlords effectively wind up capturing the capital gains that arise out of public improvements (like adding a new neighborhood park) as well since it makes the area more desirable without increasing supply.

In the most desirable areas you can literally do nothing as a landlord and raise rents almost perpetually.

Worse once these landlords raise rents it causes negative effects downstream. Producers of other goods that rent their land need to start charging more to pay the landlords.

The number of people that try to justify some kind of late pseudo-feudalist system like this is legitimately insane.

The implication of the ancient Roman theatre is that the person is trying to make a public space (theatre) private (their own use / enjoyment).

The implication being that the only rent seeker will be the state i assume

Nothing wrong with renting, economies of scale make it cheaper than owning unless the government decides to ruin everything. (London vs Paris is a great example of this)

It should. The slow erosion of diversity of food production has put the nation at risk.

How much grain is watered with depleted groundwater? How much produce is dependent on the Colorado river?