Seeing like a state, progress and poverty, and owning land

The value you put on living around your family and friends in this scenario is zero.

That's not how normal people value those things.

Several dozen generations of nations of native peoples may like a word on that. Yes. When you are somewhere, what you bring to it is the value of that place. Newcomers grow it and may increase the value, maybe even drive the residents off as they have, but it was the stewardship of the residents that made it inhabitable in the first place.

It's a lot like founder and startup equity in a way. Is it more fair for people who arrived with money and grew something to reap more benefits, or the people with time and sweat equity who took way more relative individual risk?

I think the modern view of Georgism is based on there being no taxes but rather we move in the direction of stock markets; i.e. we tax people by diluting the stock (printing more) or giving worse exchange rates. One form of tax is decided internally while the other one is enforced externally. Now rather than all value deriving from land (as is the Georgist view) we would say that all value derives from bureaucracy (as is the Artificial Intelligence view), since we believe that with better data we can make better decisions. Therefore we need to assess which data is a worthwhile contribution to our model (i.e. we need to solve tragedy of the commons w.r.t. bureaucracy) but who can be trusted to assess such a thing?

The answer is no one, everyone, trust yourself and all of the above. I am almost certain that no algorithms are needed to do "proof of _" (just look at free software) emergent human behaviour can be codified gradually. Currently I think this is basically a UX problem - we need a way to pay the people who maintain the digital commons.

The game of printing more currency can be decided by a balance of the internal and external factors w.r.t. version control (where you are trying to decide relative value of contributions). You negotiate the best situation for yourself, the problem is symmetric and disputes cost too much attention so people lose interest and this thread of the project goes off-track so the exchange rates get worse or the supply of money dries up with no new versions... Basically, truthful stuff will probably win if we are careful about how we organize information since most people are quite pragmatic about stuff they aren't that interested in and money as a social construct only has meaning if we can reach approximate consensus on its distribution. This external pressure is what gets gradually explored and codified into (semi-)automated strategies for what is essentially investing.

The key idea though is that in a p2p system no one has oversight so everyone is in a situation of not knowing what to trust, my argument is that these social constructs are emergent because humans use them to communicate (to exchange assessments and make decisions on how to behave in the "real world"). Things that are taken seriously are considered legitimate and therefore the currency associated with producing that thing should be worth something but exactly how much is only decided when you find someone to trade with. One motivation for trade is if you depend on something, then you can buy insurance by lending legitimacy to the version you depend on (investing in that stock in some sense), that increases the legitimacy of the space of versions which means there is more to gain from making legitimate improvements to it - since there is someone who values them. Finding a bug in the most legitimate version means that you can print money at a very good exchange rate.

Such a system can be terribly inconsistent and still work good enough to be worth more than cryptocurrencies "secured" with various consensus mechanisms. Consistency is actually not incredibly important in the economic system I think. The more important thing is to avoid people prioritizing the measurement game over the reality and if the rules of the measurement game are too well defined then that is hard to avoid. Of course there is some balance here, I guess I am playing devils advocate by leaning a bit hard into the inconsistent economics. Probably some people would choose to maintain absolute consistency in order to obtain legitimacy.

This is becoming a ramble but was ment to be a compact braindump of what I am working towards with http://datalisp.is.

> Your issue is "what if someone owns huge chunks of land and doesn't try to make any money off it?"

That really has nothing to do with my issue.

My issue is that, under the proposed system, two people who each own half of Los Angeles will pay a lot of property taxes, because the other half of Los Angeles adds taxable value to their half, even if their half is unimproved.

But one person who owns the entirety of Los Angeles will pay no property taxes, because the unimproved land is worthless. This system guarantees that there will be a small number of people who own vast quantities of land, because that ownership structure minimizes the total tax burden. Sale of land would vanish to nearly nothing, because not only would the land have a very low cost of ownership - selling some of your land would raise the taxes you have to pay on the rest of it, the part that you keep!

The total amount of tax owed is different depending on the structure of who owns the land. Why does that make sense?

People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely.

Logically, this doesn't even work. Lets say everyone in LA wants to live there with their children and their children's children and so on forever. Extrapolate this a few generations and eventually you will have a solid mass of humans 1000 ft tall. (This is a hyperbolic joke, you get the point)