anonymous question

If a model is implemented specifically with the coefficients you propose, charitable organizations will be swimming in money and spending it on whatever they please. Judge for yourself. In today’s Russia, buying housing is comparable to the cost of rent for a quarter of a century. In Europe, it is comparable to ten years of rent. And here you propose to allow the forced buyout of your real estate for only the cost of an eight-year tax in favor of the poor, which is technically the same as rent. This means that every landowner regularly incurs insane costs for owning their property, and in order to make a profit, is forced to pass these expenses on to consumers. Consumers will howl and say they’ve had enough of such prices, after which they will start turning to the notorious charitable organizations for subsidies. The volume of forced redistribution from the market-efficient to the market-inefficient, amounting to 12% of the value of all real estate per year, is a hell of a lot.

Accordingly, if the x100 coefficient is increased by an order of magnitude, the system will become an order of magnitude more lenient toward efficient market participants. And if the coefficient tends toward infinity, we get ordinary ancap, where the forced buyout of land is impossible.

As I understand it, geolibertarianism has two justifications. First, there is a desire to play it safe in case the volume of private voluntary charity turns out to be lamentably small from the perspective of geolibertarian apologists, and the result wounds their aesthetic sensibilities. Second, there is a desire to protect against those who are unwilling to part with land in favor of those ready to manage it more efficiently than the former owners.

In other words, geolibertarianism is based on the fear of the injustice of freedom. Well, it’s a sort of “half-measure” statism, only unlike classical minarchism, here the rape is proposed in a different hole.