Tax the Land

Another thing to consider here is if instead of putting skyscrapers into Central Park, what would happen if it was instead paved over into a single massive parking lot? I think one way to handle this is to treat each 'scope'(local, state, federal) of government as its own land value tax, and your taxes would go to your local community, but a piece of which would then need to pay the state tax, etc... It would be in the interests of NYC to use their land to the best use that they determine. If they choose poorly and paved over Central Park, this would meaningfully impact their finances.

And what of the privately owned Bryant Park, would they need to pay the Land Value Tax despite the fact that they are just as positive externality driving as Central Park? Grand Central Station was another case of this, where the city disallowed the company that owned it to knock it down and build a skyscraper, as renting out the skyscraper would earn the company more money.

Georgists care very deeply about tracking the capturing of positive externalities, but this is the opposite. This is attempting to value the release of positive externalities. I don't have a perfect answer for this, but it's clear there are 'privately-owned' places that act as publicly-owned, and thus if we exempt from taxes public, they deserve to as well. I don't like exemption, - it will surely breed corruption - but I see no real way to find out what that value really is.

The percentage of income invested fluctuates, based on factors that include security of property rights and expected return on investment.

Creating a reliable regulatory and tax regime would mean greater annual inflow of money into investments.

>>historically, disenfranchised masses revolt, violently.

All the better then to remove the obstacles to the enfranchisement of the masses, by offering compensation to the current beneficiaries of rent-extracting institutions in exchange for recruiting them in the drive to abolish these institutions.

Violent revolutions that overturn power structures are actually quite rare and far more common is persistence of structural forces of rent-extraction for decades or centuries, and thus the threat of revolution is not an effective motivator for those in power to relinquish their privileges. The pragmatic reality is that we are more likely to get to a more just and efficient economy without these structures if we reach a settlement that removes the opposition of these structures' beneficiaries from the drive to eliminate them.

>>bonus point: a more equitable distribution of wealth would lead to smarter investment overall and a more productive economy.

Another bonus of eliminating rent-seeking institutions is that it reduces wealth inequality. Compensation to expedite the removal of a structural force that contributes to wealth inequality would likely be a net-gain for equity in the distribution of wealth, because the former is a one-time action while the latter has a recurring impact.

Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft.

> I don't know if you mean aspirationally, as in, there shouldn't be racist classist assholes out there so we shouldn't need positive rights to protect the dignity we all deserve

I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished.

> I wouldn't be the first to argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom

You don't need to take from others to be free. That is, in fact, the opposite of freedom.

> you can just google search "criticisms of the virtue of selfishness" if you want; People write proper papers and thesis on this stuff, not internet comments.

This isn't about selfishness. Well, kind of. Selfishness on the part of people demanding the positive rights, which _forces_ others under threat of violence to make their lives easier, regardless of whatever efforts they make on their own.

> So I still won't comment on whether positive rights should or should not exist

I maintain they should not.

> and instead say it is undignified to have to live in fear

So don't.

> and that a lack of equity fosters fear

Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom. It's not equitable that one person should be lame and another not: it only becomes equitable when we break the other person's legs.

> and ideologically I don't care how we do it

Neither did Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

> so I believe it ethical to support things like traffic laws, minimum-wage laws, health-and-safety laws especially in farms, restaurants and hotels, and maybe even a commuter-premium

None of those things are rights.

> to prevent companies from exploiting another way humans are willing to degrade themselves.

If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so?

But irrelevant: Things have already taken from others and they want it back.

> Equity is impossible without violence and restrictions on freedom.

Agreed, so because violence was used to obtain an UN-equitable position, they want it back.

(I feel a little bit like I'm repeating myself; what's another way to say this?)

People the color of your skin used violence to take people with different skin-colors freedoms and property, and they used it to finance schools and police forces that resulting in you opportunities or advantages that other people with other skin-colors no longer had the possibility of as a result. You don't deserve that advantage, and so they want it back.

> I mean positive rights cannot be established without evil. They should never exist, and any you can think of should be abolished.

If "positive rights" can also be established in response to evil, then I don't see why they cannot be used to correct for equity. Property-rights are enforced by taxes, so on some level, if these are "positive rights" then they're just like a minimum-wage law designed to correct previous evils. Maybe one day they will not be necessary and can be abolished, but in the meantime, I think we need them and I support them in that aim.

> It's not equitable that one person should be lame and another not: it only becomes equitable when we break the other person's legs.

I think that's fair. Your parents poison them which makes it more likely for them to be born lame, so I think it's perfectly fair to break your legs if you can't find another way to make that right.

I'd like to think I'm just trying to find another way that doesn't involve more violence; surely an expansion of minimum-wage is less violent than breaking your legs?

> If someone is willing to 'degrade themselves', why are you preventing them from doing so?

Why do I tell a slave that they do not need to be a slave? Gosh, again, people write papers on this stuff. We tell people they don't need to be slaves because that's how we stop slavery -- by making it so nobody believes they need to be a slave in order to survive. The only rights we have are the ones we can convince other people we have. I already said this, but you chose to narrowly interpret rights which will make it hard to understand why I can't help myself: I don't want to be a slave, I don't know what kinds of torture I would be able to refuse, but I don't think that would be a life worth living, so I tell anyone who will listing they don't need to be a slave.

> Well, and the opinion of people that don't like slavery and theft.

And yet here is someone who does not like slavery or theft, who does not have that opinion because I'm not a racist asshole.

See how that works? Don't characterize me. I don't deserve to have my supporting of taxation to be equated with supporting theft just because you don't like to pay taxes, any more than you deserve to be equated with other racist assholes just because you're quoting racist assholes. You want me to take you seriously? You have to do the same.