Is Georgism/Geonomics Closer to the Camp of Socialism or Classical Liberalism?

Introduction

Geonomics is a concept that involves the competitive bidding of natural resources, with the proceeds being distributed equally to everyone. This simple yet profound idea has sparked debates and comparisons with other ideologies. In this article, we will explore whether Georgism/Geonomics aligns more closely with classical liberalism or socialism. We will also uncover the fundamental principles that differentiate these ideologies and how Georgism stands as a unique philosophy.

Understanding Geonomics

Geonomics is a straightforward concept: natural resources are put up for competitive bid, and the revenue generated is equally distributed to all. This approach is grounded in the belief that natural resources are a common resource that should benefit everyone. Unlike socialism or liberalism, labeled with varying meanings, geonomics does not inherently exclude any -ism as long as it doesn't assume control over natural resources. Any -ism that attempts to control natural resources is merely a facade of a war against the people.

George and Georgism

Henry George, the proponent of Georgism, was a 19th-century right-wing liberal who believed in laissez-faire principles. His main divergence from mainstream liberalism was his advocacy for public ownership of land. George saw land ownership as a monopoly incompatible with the free market model of the 19th century. He asserted that land is a communal resource and that individuals should be compensated for the value they extract from it.

The Clash Between Georgism and Socialism

Henry George and Karl Marx were contemporaries, but their philosophies could not be more different. While George praised Marx on the occasion of his death, Marx dismissed George's work without even reading it. This stark contrast highlights the fundamental differences between the two ideologies, much like the gap between modern libertarians and Georgists (geolibertarians) in their stance on land as property.

The Core Principles of Georgism

One of the central tenets of Georgism is the idea that the gifts and produce of nature must be the legitimate common property of all. George argued that each individual is entitled by natural rights to an equal share of nature's bounty and is obligated to compensate the common wealth for any resources extracted for exclusive benefit. This principle ensures that no one can claim exclusive property over nature, ensuring the entitlement of every individual to life, liberty, and property.

The Critique of Socialism and Traditional Liberalism

The fatal flaw in socialism, particularly in the modern version, is the conflation of capital (the produce of labor) and land (which cannot be produced by labor). This misunderstanding has led to the dominance of neoclassical economics, which Marx criticized. Marx's critique highlights the system's underlying feudalism, where private ownership of natural resources prevails. Modern libertarians, while claiming descent from classical liberalism, ultimately base their ideology on the premise of first-seizure property rights in nature, a form of market feudalism.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Georgism/Geonomics is distinctly rooted in classical liberalism. Its principles of equal distribution of natural resource revenue and the recognition of natural rights align more closely with the foundational concepts of classical liberalism than with socialist ideals. Understanding the nuances of these ideologies helps to clarify the unique contributions of Georgism and its place within the broader context of political and economic thought.