Posted by: graemebird | March 24, 2009

The Third Paradigm And Arcology

We might say then that the third paradigm never amounts to any tax being paid for alleged externalities. And it is better that this be the case. For these are matters of judgement. And where the need for cash is concerned the pigouvian advocates will turn feral and make a mockery out of proceedings.

Now we can see that arm-twisting people to lock up their funds and earmark them to mitigate alleged externalities is compulsion and abuse. And one can imagine how many ways such a thing might be applied unjustly. One hopes that there is at least the POTENTIAL for good local judgement in this regard if this is the ruling paradigm.

We will assume that this is the case. That only wise measures along these lines are taken. And extrapolating forward we find that the congestion tax would be the last tax prior to anarcho-capitalism, under this dispensation.

We also find that Arcology comes forth naturally as a result of this setup. Here we say that the landowner must never pay taxes or rates or anything of this sort. But rather he recognises that he has roped off land. And that in so doing, if 1000 of his type likewise rope off land and use it less intensively than otherwise….. that they create a distance between others and the capital goods which make those others productive. Let me not rehash the various paradoxes of land here. Its not for this thread to re-explain the many ways that land fails to resemble some other product, in terms of its supply and demand and the consequences of taking ownership of more, rather than less of it.

We say that all the roping off of land requires, is not one dollar of tax, but rather a committment to produce disproportionately more land substitutes in the local area over time.

Now supposing you buy a block of land and start practicing market gardening in the area. And you have just enough to invest in a lockable shed. Supposing this land is well-situated and therefore is rather more expensive than your average agricultural land. Well it may, under this dispensation, come with an obligation to set money aside to build both up and down in the local area.

So at first thats no pressure. Because you then start building basements and then a super-structure over those basements and you have your own mansion and you’ve claimed your own money up until that point. But then the money you are setting aside continues to accumulate.

Looking around you find that many landowners in your area are in the same position. They can only claim their money if they build up or down. And the ultimate point of it all is to effectively create an oversupply of land by creating an even more massive oversupply of lands substitutes.

Sooner or later the opportunity comes forth for you and the locals to put up some pretty righteous structure.

Now bear in mind that if you buy land with obligations attached to it the selling price of that land is reduced. And were we to implement this dispensation we might want to make it up to the current holders and only obligate the land after those current holders sell.

The idea is to go for justice at all stages of the process. So its alright to accept Georgist economic analysis and reject his solution.

I’m not advocating anything going ahead that is not the best judgement of what constitutes justice and what reinforces the sanctity of property rights.

But we can see that once the new dispensation has been phased in the move towards arcology is an obvious one. And not something you need fantasize to your great-great-grandchildren about.

I don’t quite share the same emphasis as a lot of the videos I see on this subject. They don’t emphasise enough the big structures we need for super-efficient production. They tend to focus on absolutely huge residential places in the most populous of cities.

But I could imagine, with the right social contract, medium-sized buggers going up near the middle of small towns that could serve as business parks as well as very cheap apartments. I could imagine a lot of fairly humble-sized buildings going up that straddle the roads. But we simply don’t have the right property rights for this sort of thing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: