As a Georgist, I actually agree that the typical framing of the desert argument doesn't quite work. If people gain but that gain doesn't harm anyone else, we don't mind. The real problem is that private ownership of land allows you to take from others by gatekeeping access. If land was produced this would be fine bc that gatekeeping is compensation for the costs of production. But land is non-produced. So you don't deserve to appropriate the value of it for yourself.
(I'm typing this up quickly so it's not fully nuanced but this is the gist)
I would argue that it less about "deserving" (though I have made this argument as well) and more about efficiency. As far as taxes go, LVT offers unparalleled advantages over other kinds of taxation: https://www.lianeon.org/p/just-tax-the-land
As for the specific argument about natural advantages (such as beauty, athleticism) this has come up frequently in the literature regarding 'earned' vs. 'unearned' but arguments about natural talents simply begin with the ethic of self-ownership. Self-ownership does not extend to land, but it does extend to the value of one's labor.
"The earnings of opera singers and star athletes are stock examples used by economists to demonstrate "Paretian rent." But these examples show the weakness of the idea. Even the best opera singers and basketball players require years of sustained practice and training, which shows that the returns to "natural" talent cannot be divorced from hard work."
...
"Special and rare talents (opera singers, baseball stars, doctors, lawyers). The objection to calling these surplus incomes is that, to the extent they are due to barriers to competition, those barriers were better eliminated. In any case, as Smith (BK Ch. 10b, ^19-25) observed, such occupations exhibit uncertain prospects of success. Specialized occupations also demand much practice and human capital investment in training and substantial risks from injury (in sports) or loss of voice (in opera) (Ellickson 1966: 197-199). Finally, new talents are always being born to compete with established celebrities; new land, however, is not being created daily."
-government, which acquired it from other sovereigns and protects it from other powers and extends public works for the public's benefit;
and
-synergism, which is the increment to value that spills over from social and economic activity in the neighborhood of each parcel of land.
Georgists would generally distribute the rent as follows:
-nature to everyone
-public works to the providers of public works
-synergism to the local community (although some might suggest a broad distribution here, or distribute it to the providers of positive externalities)
But to your argument, the landowner isn't necessarily 7 feet tall, nor is the landowner capturing their -own- value. They're capturing the value of other people.
As a Georgist, I actually agree that the typical framing of the desert argument doesn't quite work. If people gain but that gain doesn't harm anyone else, we don't mind. The real problem is that private ownership of land allows you to take from others by gatekeeping access. If land was produced this would be fine bc that gatekeeping is compensation for the costs of production. But land is non-produced. So you don't deserve to appropriate the value of it for yourself.
(I'm typing this up quickly so it's not fully nuanced but this is the gist)
I would argue that it less about "deserving" (though I have made this argument as well) and more about efficiency. As far as taxes go, LVT offers unparalleled advantages over other kinds of taxation: https://www.lianeon.org/p/just-tax-the-land
As for the specific argument about natural advantages (such as beauty, athleticism) this has come up frequently in the literature regarding 'earned' vs. 'unearned' but arguments about natural talents simply begin with the ethic of self-ownership. Self-ownership does not extend to land, but it does extend to the value of one's labor.
"The earnings of opera singers and star athletes are stock examples used by economists to demonstrate "Paretian rent." But these examples show the weakness of the idea. Even the best opera singers and basketball players require years of sustained practice and training, which shows that the returns to "natural" talent cannot be divorced from hard work."
...
"Special and rare talents (opera singers, baseball stars, doctors, lawyers). The objection to calling these surplus incomes is that, to the extent they are due to barriers to competition, those barriers were better eliminated. In any case, as Smith (BK Ch. 10b, ^19-25) observed, such occupations exhibit uncertain prospects of success. Specialized occupations also demand much practice and human capital investment in training and substantial risks from injury (in sports) or loss of voice (in opera) (Ellickson 1966: 197-199). Finally, new talents are always being born to compete with established celebrities; new land, however, is not being created daily."
There are 3 sources of rent:
-nature, which created it;
-government, which acquired it from other sovereigns and protects it from other powers and extends public works for the public's benefit;
and
-synergism, which is the increment to value that spills over from social and economic activity in the neighborhood of each parcel of land.
Georgists would generally distribute the rent as follows:
-nature to everyone
-public works to the providers of public works
-synergism to the local community (although some might suggest a broad distribution here, or distribute it to the providers of positive externalities)
But to your argument, the landowner isn't necessarily 7 feet tall, nor is the landowner capturing their -own- value. They're capturing the value of other people.
If the owner of the land doesn't "deserve" increases in the value of that land, it doesn't follow that the government deserves them instead.