> Alternatively, you're talking about rent. Also, large wealth doesn't generally just run out, if properly managed.
Yeah, I don't think my proposal is foolproof. (Among other things, it sucks for the coal miner who no longer has a job, and is great for the new hire at Facebook!) I do think it's a little bit closer to the ideal than land access based on wealth though.
> If John's grandfather invented the axe, thereby incrementally improving millions of lives, and generating vast wealth for himself, such that his contribution is still "being paid back" in some sense by society by allowing John to coast, this seems neutral to me.
I guess this now becomes a matter of political opinion, but I don't see that as a reason for John to get a place near the city center and you to be in the outer suburbs. It makes sense to me for society to repay John's grandfather for his work. It does not make sense to me for society to repay John for his grandfather's work.
Let me put it another way: Jonny's grandfather stole a million dollars in 1930 (which is, of course, much more than that now!). The money was never recovered. The grandfather was caught, ordered to repay the money, and put into prison where he died. Since it hasn't been repaid yet, the debt falls onto Jonny, who needs to come up with millions of dollars and whose wages are garnished. Is this just? Does doing this yield a better society?
I think it makes sense primarily to compensate people for their work and secondarily to incentivize valuable / productive work. I don't think "providing for your grandchildren" really accomplishes that. The grandchild is their own person; just as they're not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, they're not responsible for the accomplishments of their ancestors either. And I really don't think people would cease to make accomplishments like inventing axes if they knew that they could only achieve a good life for themselves and not for their grandchildren.
Yeah, I don't think my proposal is foolproof. (Among other things, it sucks for the coal miner who no longer has a job, and is great for the new hire at Facebook!) I do think it's a little bit closer to the ideal than land access based on wealth though.
> If John's grandfather invented the axe, thereby incrementally improving millions of lives, and generating vast wealth for himself, such that his contribution is still "being paid back" in some sense by society by allowing John to coast, this seems neutral to me.
I guess this now becomes a matter of political opinion, but I don't see that as a reason for John to get a place near the city center and you to be in the outer suburbs. It makes sense to me for society to repay John's grandfather for his work. It does not make sense to me for society to repay John for his grandfather's work.
Let me put it another way: Jonny's grandfather stole a million dollars in 1930 (which is, of course, much more than that now!). The money was never recovered. The grandfather was caught, ordered to repay the money, and put into prison where he died. Since it hasn't been repaid yet, the debt falls onto Jonny, who needs to come up with millions of dollars and whose wages are garnished. Is this just? Does doing this yield a better society?
I think it makes sense primarily to compensate people for their work and secondarily to incentivize valuable / productive work. I don't think "providing for your grandchildren" really accomplishes that. The grandchild is their own person; just as they're not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, they're not responsible for the accomplishments of their ancestors either. And I really don't think people would cease to make accomplishments like inventing axes if they knew that they could only achieve a good life for themselves and not for their grandchildren.