Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Robin Hanson has a recent post[0] that says this relating to eminent domain, and I thought it is pretty interesting in the context of this discussion:

"Last October I posted[1] on Eric Posner and Glen Weyl’s proposal to generalize self-assessed property taxes. For many items, such as land and buildings, you’d pay an annual tax that is a standard percentage of your self-set sale-offer price for the item. This would avoid administrative property valuations, discourage people from sitting on stuff they don’t use, and make it much easier to assemble property into large units. Eminent domain would no longer be needed. They have a new book, Radical Markets, coming out in a few weeks, that I will review soon.

Some libertarian types disapprove on the grounds that this weakens property rights. Which it can, relative to a simple absolute property right. But simple property and liability have long been two quite different, and extreme, solutions to legal problems. Neither one is always best. In this post I want to point out that this alternate approach can be used not only to change traditional property to be more like liability, it can also be used to change traditional liability to be more like property. It is an interesting intermediate form between traditional property and liability. One I expect libertarian types to look on more favorably when applied to liability."

[0] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/between-property-and-l...

[1] https://www.overcomingbias.com/2017/10/for-stability-rents.h...




This is an interesting idea.

And so the idea is that anyone can then buy the property from you at that price at anytime and you must sell? Or just the state?


From my understanding of Hanson's posts and references, anyone.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: