Harry replied: > If you recall, I was referring to governmental monopolies such as the > distribution of water, electricity, and suchlike. Such things do not lend > themselves to competition. > > I said I thought that the mechanics of distribution should remain publicly > owned, but that the management should be allocated by a bidding process to > performance bonded management firms.
The same applies to land in the commons system: The mechanics of distribution remain publicly owned, but the management is allocated by a bidding process to private leaseholders of patches of land. > Locations are indeed a monopoly and the free market cannot control their > cost. Yes, that was my point. > Necessary to optimum effectiveness of the price mechanism is no > restriction on production and no restriction on movement to market (in > response to a price increase). No market necessary... > However, George's Rent collection levels the playing field while keeping > land in the hands of its users. Private ownership is essential for the best > use of a location. You take care of your own. You use it carefully and > properly. This also applies to leased land, especially when the leaseholder was selected for his ability to take best care of that land -- which is NOT the case for landowners (who usually inherited the land, or bought it for speculation)! So you still didn't explain what is the advantage of land ownership. And George's Rent collection would yield _less_ money for the state than the state being owner and lease-giver of the land. But perhaps that is your goal, given your contempt for governments. Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
