My apology

[reverendjeremiah]

There is a more sensible solution, it's called Georgism, the idea that no natural resources can be owned but one does own the value that they add to natural resources. In such a system society would own all resources, land, minerals etc, yet you could profit by adding value to the system, paying back the value that was not available to others because of your procurement of the goods and taking for yourself that which you contributed.

Say someone takes a section of land, landscapes it and builds a house, they would pay rent to the community which would be equally divided for the resources they are using that are unavailable to others, but they would be able to profit from the work they did when they transfer the lease on resources, the next person would either have to pay increased rent to them for the labour done or buy it outright.

It would be a bit of a nightmare to implement given how deeply engrained ownership of natural resources is, but in theory it's the single most fair and efficient type of "tax" possible, one that makes sure that people who use more natural resources pay a higher price and other people are fairly compensated for missing out.

Given that I believe as a classical liberal that people should be the sole beneficiary of their own productivity Georgism (Geolibertarianism) is a position I've taken great interest in recently.

I have studyied it. I find it still continuing the current problems we have today. Syndicalism advocates the abolishment of wage, and therefore the abolishment of taxes. Georgism still introducses the concept of profit into the system. As long as profit exists, corruption will flourish greatly. Creativity will flourish regardless of what economic system exists at the moment, and people will still introduce their creations. Elimination of wages will eliminate inequality, domination, societal leeches, and centralization. Creativity and the introduction of new products will still come about with or without a wage system, or regardless of free or planned economies. In fact, many scientists say that science could not have come into existence without leisure time. Syndicalism will increase leisure time for all, as opposed to the few rich who could afford it. It is well known that the cradle of science was brought about by mostly rich men who could afford the down time. Just imagine how much more we would be better off we would be if others during their time had the same capability?