LVT taxes the unimproved value of land, so we are talking about land itself not what is built on top of it such as housing. Since land is a product of nature, the supply of it is perfectly inelastic

LVT taxing the empty lot next door at the same rate as a multimillion dollar hotel is exactly what makes it so efficiency enhancing because it give land owners economic incentives to use their land productively rather than just holding it and waiting for it to appreciate in value. With LVT, prices would exclude the value of the land.

LVT can be combined with other policies and taxes. You have to look at the whole package of policies to determine progressivity. LVT+UBI is progressive

It meets the definition of a progressive tax.

The broader Georgist program involves aggressive taxation of government-granted monopolies like IP, which both Musk and Bezos are indirectly beneficiaries of.

LVT is 1 policy meant to solve 1 problem. It can be combined with other policies that address other problems.

The labor theory of property, a negative application of which provides a moral rationale for LVT, also provides a justification for an inalienable right to worker democracy

Land value tax is progressive. Due to land’s inelastic supply, this tax cannot be passed on to others. People that own lots of land bear the entire burden of the tax. Charging for unimproved land value encourages building denser on more valuable land. This increases housing supply thus making housing more affordable

LVT is 1 policy. It can be combined with other policies. LVT is not an avoidable tax

Private ownership of labor implies the ability to alienate and transfer it for present or future benefits. Such a procedure is not possible because labor is de facto non-transferable. People can have private ownership over the products of labor, but they cannot own their labor because labor is inalienably theirs

Some Georgists don’t believe in ownership of labor because that inherently implies property rights in people. These Georgists recognize the same labor theory of property, which provides an ethical justification for common ownership of land and natural resources, also provides a critique of capitalist property relations and an argument for an inalienable right to workplace democracy.
See: https://www.ellerman.org/rethinking-common-vs-private-property/

Land value tax would solve this when combined with a UBI from the revenue it generates

You can’t fully experience liberty unless everyone is free

The whole product is the legal rights to the produced outputs and the liabilities for the used-up inputs not value. The employer legally owns the outputs and is legally liable for the used-up inputs.
FOSS can use quadratic funding. Not arguing for complete market abolition.
The workers are de facto responsible for production. By the principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match, the workers should jointly receive the whole product of the firm. The workers can delegate in a coop

Marx thought that control rights over the firm were attached to ownership of capital rather than being logically separately acquired in the employer-employee relationship.

“It is not because he is a leader of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the contrary, he is a leader of industry because he is a capitalist. The leadership of industry is an attribute of capital, just as in feudal times the functions of general and judge were attributes of landed property.” – Marx

Marx made mistakes though. For example, he assumed that the right of appropriating the whole product of a firm and control rights to direct the workers in the firm were attached to the ownership of capital. In reality, capital can be rented out just as labor can be hired. It is really the employer-employee contract that is at the core of capitalist appropriation. Ownership of capital just increases bargaining power to get favorable contract terms such as the employer contractual role

The employers’ claim extend beyond a cut. They solely appropriate 100% of the whole positive and negative product of the firm while employees as employees have 0% claim on the whole product

The latter problem could be solved by banning having non-member workers at the legal level and requiring giving workers voting rights in the firm they work in.

Worker coops don’t behave exactly like for-profit companies. Anti-capitalism is more than just worker democracy. For example, another aspect is common ownership of land and natural resources with fees for use. This would ensure that worker coops factor in environmental costs

What you are looking for is some sort of variant of quadratic funding. It is a mechanism that is specifically designed to overcome the free rider problem that public goods like FOSS suffer from. It solves it by matching private contributions to these public goods using a special formula that aligns incentives, so that everyone that knowingly benefits from a public good has an economic incentive to contribute to it because more contributors leads to a higher level of matching

I disagree that the 2 options are the only ones available. We could have a funding system with aspects of quadratic funding and artistic freedom vouchers, which allows the organizations developing the software to remain private organizations. Quadratic funding is basically a public matching fund for contributions to public goods such as OSS with a special matching formula that matches small contributions from many sponsors at a higher rater than more concentrated ones

This touches on the concept of an inalienable right, which is a right that the holder cannot give up even with consent because to give up that right would, in effect, put the holder in the legal position of a non-person contradicting their factual personhood. Some rights that are recognized as inalienable in many countries are political voting rights and the right to a lifetime of labor. A free market does not require that all human rights be alienable

This point is even stronger if you look at property rights instead of value. The workers in a capitalist firm jointly receive 0% of the property rights to the produced outputs and 0% of the liabilities for the used-up inputs while the employer receives 100% and legally owns the produced outputs and legally owes the liabilities for the used-up inputs. This is a violation of the moral principle that legal and de facto responsibility should match

The author in another article does recommend GrapheneOS.

https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/android.html

“The best option for privacy and security on Android is to get a Pixel 4 or greater and flash GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS does not contain any tracking unlike the stock OS on most devices. Additionally, GrapheneOS retains the baseline security model whilst improving upon it with substantial hardening enhancements … includ[ing] a hardened memory allocator, hardened C library, [and] hardened kernel”

Worker coops are a good thing because unlike employer-employee-based firms they don’t violate workers’ inalienable rights. The justification is a principled ethical argument.

The workers’ voting shares should be inalienable and attached to the functional role of working in the firm. The employer-employee contract would be abolished, so there would be no mechanism within the legal system for having a capitalist firm.

An inalienable right is one that the holder cannot give up even with consent

I never said anything about removing money.

What you are talking about is called social capital accumulation, which is a problem in any system.

A justification for worker coops is the moral principle of assigning legal responsibility to the de facto responsible party. In an employer-employee relationship, the employer receives 100% of the legal responsibility despite the employee being inextricably co-responsible. This violates the aforementioned principle