Georgism (breaking the power of the last reminder of feudalism, landlords) is the most important contact and agreement between far, far right and centrist liberals throughout the world. Such an agreement is key to the transition to a new global economic system.
H.G. Wells, in the “Form of Things”, seems to have been correct (if adhered to for several decades) when it comes to predicting the taxation of land values, which is the fundamental cornerstone of a more reasonable future world system. Whether landowners are private or public in the form of government, unearned rentals that are collected will be redistributed to everyone living on the land. This allows the majority of private corporations and individual capitalists:
1) Redirect growing anger against them to a relatively small number of people (buying time).
2) Buy the poor without bringing in too much personal expense (buying time).
3) Eliminate critical inefficiencies left over from dark ages and more efficiently allocate capital in a world where capital accumulation slows / stagnates over decades (buying more time).
4) To send governments (which they always always control when they do not merge with them) of the key great powers in the northern hemisphere to reinvent themselves. This allows the European continent to take the torch from the United States to become a security fortress for capital through even more high-tech welfare states (buying time again, providing lifelong scholarships for the elderly and those displaced by machines).
Although it is very popular today to focus on financial cartels or the inefficiency of the public sector, it’s simply absurdity, inefficiency and the tyranny of landlords that are often ignored. This is too much of the background landscape. However, the immediate solution of land and land ownership must be addressed directly, since this is an old structural problem from the pre-capitalist world system. As we approach the completion of the global debt supercycle (with the governments of key military powers that need to restore social order in order to continue functioning), it should be emphasized that landowner tenure is the main cause of the crisis. This would create a convenient (and very necessary!) Scapegoat and allow many corporations, oligarchs, trade unions and governments to save face during the transition to a new world system. Obviously, this is one of many reasons, but its selection has been criticized critically for mankind in terms of economy of political energy in this century.
A few words about the global transition. It will be either officially (Bretton Woods 2.0) or indiscriminate (trade breakdowns and the corresponding political violence associated with hunger, mainly in the southern hemisphere).
To be more streamlined, states need resources. Resources will be scarce (the closure of factories, the balance sheets of governments and corporations in disarray, etc.). Pressing private landowners around the world and forcing them to pay rent will free up resources to minimize these conditions of chaos. Because the new land cannot be created readily, because it cannot be hidden, and since private landowners control most of the surface of the earth, it will be easy to find what we need and redirect the rent that these people usually collect into infrastructure / welfare of the new world. system.
Although not all landowners have the same parasitic attraction, the argument "about mammon and pop landowners" is a lot like the argument of the 19th century about "mother owners and pop slaves", who only had 1-3 slaves, not hundreds large plantations (large corporate equivalent of the day). Having said this, small landlords, of course, will not be physically affected and will become the beneficiaries of the new system, which they are now helping. Some countries have already introduced a partial system of taxation of land values in great favor. Taiwan is the best example today. We hope that the future merger of China and Taiwan will “infect” a large model of a planetary role with a more futuristic tax code.
The problem of governments as landowners
Writing in 1976 by Arthur Selvin Miller in The Modern Corporate State, in 1937, the growth and disintegration of the FDRist social democratic system in the United States was formulated. What began as a gross coalition coalition of large trade unions, large corporations, large universities, and large government welfare (with particular attention to creating workforce for the military) has worsened. Forty years after writing the book, we still have large military, large corporations (private governments), large universities subordinate to these private governments, and ousted the central “public” government subordinated to these private governments. In combination with the constantly existing institutionalized landlord premises, this headdress can only be called neo-feudalism (especially with the 20th century moratorium / stagnation of a more dynamic progressive industrial capitalist system).
Richard Nixon, the last strong relatively autonomous American president, tried to prevent it and wanted to develop some kind of executive government (as the first among equals) authoritarian authoritarian development. Franco in Spain in the 1950s recalls. Nixon was shown a lesson, and now we have a serious problem in our hands. How do we prevent the current, mostly privately-connected, neo-feudal agreement from moving to a very unpublished neo-feudal agreement? As we move forward, not backward (only now with a more glossy, high-tech patina).
Pressing and fighting only private landlord space will concentrate so many resources in the hands of the state that the likelihood of mismanagement and confusion (see Soviet and modern Chinese examples) becomes almost certain. It will still be a better, more robust and more comfortable social order, but one that quickly decides otherwise that people in state governments are also seen as rather (potentially parasitic) landlords as private landowners. This is especially important to keep in mind, given that most of the states in the world effectively merge with large corporations in varying degrees. Reducing the potential for corruption should be associated with the increasing complexity of civilization, because the prevention of social unrest is as difficult as in such a densely populated world.
A more proactive humane decision will only take place in a legitimate, unswervingly institutionalized basis that links the benefits of productive resources derived from the earth to each individual living directly on the ground. This means that governments can no longer act as self-expanding “representatives” with the final authority on how to allocate scholarships in the 21st century. This means that structurally and legally binding governments, these entities with a monopoly on violence in this field, act only as mediators and providers of justice. For example, individuals of a privately owned privately owned corporation and a democratically controlled corporation will in the future pay a legally sanctioned “rent” (be it money, electricity, resources, etc.) to the State land “lord” (people who actually own land through airplanes, guns and rockets), which, in turn, will be legally obligated to transfer these resources to all people on earth. Thanks to advanced communication and transport infrastructure, the line between decentralized and centralized management will be increasingly blurred.
Does it sound straight and surprisingly libertarian in the American sense? Yes, this leads us to the previous article on left-libertarianism in the United States as a glue for the opposition. North America will be hardest hit by the global transition, as people on this continent use the latest technology to exhaust the current system first. It also means that first the most modern and new experiments will be conducted to create a new social order. The tax on land tax is a seemingly sensitive, but ridiculously radical point of view on the fundamental platform of the political coalitions of the future.
The planetary transition (whether orderly or disorderly) to a new international social order will span several decades, and at first the leadership in its construction and development will be transferred to elites in the eastern hemisphere (Berlin-Moscow-Beijing-Tokyo, etc.), However as soon as the United States begins (hopefully) to recover economically in the late 2020s and again becomes a role model for South America (the continent with the worst land tenure problem in the world), management should return to the land where it began as And the global crisis.
