For what it's worth, Voltairine de Cleyre took a moment to consider (but
ultimately dismiss) geolibertarianism in Why I Am an Anarchist. There's
definitely a lot more room for variation on and exploration into the
general proposal than she allows it in this context, but I'm including the
relevant excerpt:

'''
Another school of land reformers presented itself; an ingenious affair, by
which property in land is to be preserved in name, and abolished in
reality. It is based on the theory of economic rent; — not the ordinary,
everyday rent we are all uncomfortably conscious of, once a month or so,
but a rent arising from the diverse nature of localities. Starting with the
proposition that land values are created by the community, not by the
individual, the logic goes as follows. The advantages created by all must
not be monopolized by one; but as one certain spot can be devoted to one
use only at a given time, then the person or business thereon located
should pay to the State the difference between what he can get out of a
good locality and a poor locality, the amount to be expended in public
improvements. This plan of taxation, it was claimed, would compel
speculators in land either to allow their idle lands to fall into the hands
of the State, which would then be put up at public auction and knocked down
to the highest bidder, or they would fall to and improve them, which would
mean employment to the idle, enlivening of the market, stimulation of
trade, etc. Out of much discussion among themselves, it resulted that they
were convinced that the great unoccupied agricultural lands would become
comparatively free, the scramble coming in over the rental of mines,
water-powers, and — above all — corner lots in cities.

I did some considerable thinking over this proposition, and came to the
conclusion it wouldn’t do. First, because it did not offer any chance to
the man who could actually bid nothing for the land, which was the very man
I was after helping. Second, because the theory of economic rent itself
seemed to me full of holes; for, while it is undeniable that some locations
are superior to others for one purpose or another, still the discovery of
the superiority of that location has generally been due to an individual.
The location unfit for a brickyard may be very suitable for a celery
plantation; but it takes the man with the discerning eye to see it;
therefore this economic rent appeared to me to be a very fluctuating
affair, dependent quite as much on the individual as on the presence of the
community; and for a fluctuating thing of that sort it appeared quite plain
that the community would lose more by maintaining all the officials and
offices of a State to collect it, than it would to let the economic rent
go. Third, this public disposing of the land was still in the hands of
officials, and I failed to understand why officials would be any less apt
to favor their friends and cheat the general public then than now.

Lastly and mostly, the consideration of the statement that those who
possessed large landholdings would be compelled to relinquish or improve
them; and that this improvement would stimulate business and give
employment to the idle, brought me to the realization that the land
question could never be settled by itself; that it involved the settling of
the problem of how the man who did not work directly upon the earth, but
who transformed the raw material into the manufactured product, should get
the fruit of his toil. There was nothing in this Single Tax arrangement for
him but the same old program of selling himself to an employer. This was to
be the relief afforded to the fellow who had no money to bid for the land.
New factories would open, men would be in demand, wages would rise!
Beautiful program. But the stubborn fact always came up that no man would
employ another to work for him unless he could get more for his product
than he had to pay for it, and that being the case, the inevitable course
of exchange and re-exchange would be that the man *having received less
than the full amount*, could buy back less than the full amount, so that
eventually the unsold products must again accumulate in the capitalist’s
hands; again the period of non-employment arrives, and my landless worker
is no better off than he was before the Single Tax went into operation. I
perceived, therefore, that some settlement of the whole labor question was
needed which would not split up the people again into land possessors and
employed wage-earners. Furthermore, my soul was infinitely sickened by the
everlasting discussion about the rent of the corner lot. I conceived that
the reason there was such a scramble over the corner lot was because the
people were jammed together in the cities, for want of the power to spread
out over the country. It does not lie in me to believe that millions of
people pack themselves like sardines, worry themselves into dens out of
which they must emerge “walking backward,” so to speak, for want of pace to
turn around, poison themselves with foul, smoke-laden, fever-impregnated
air, condemn themselves to stone and brick above and below and around, if
they just didn’t *have* to.
'''

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:

> that's really cool, I had an interesting realisation about the consensus
> when talking with a friend (caedes) a few days ago.
> Basically democracy is the will of the majority whereas consensus is
> about agreement between everybody. If people disagree then it isn't
> consensus.
> Therefore it's important in our governance model that we are clear what
> purpose the consensus forming mechanisms serve such that they don't
> become abused (i.e like in our current 'democracies' where there's a lot
> of moralising at the expense of liberty), and that we strive for agreed
> compromise rather than rule by majority.
> I don't want to explain too much here but I think the goal of consensus
> should always be about maximising positive liberty:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
>
> Also check this:
>
> https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/UnSYSTEM/Opensource_city
>
> On 10/07/2014 08:16 PM, Kyle Torpey wrote:
> > Tried to write a basic outline for a new startup country a year or two
> > ago as a thought experiment. This ended up being the only "tax"
> > involved. Didn't know this was a real thing. I'll have to find the old
> > doc, but I think a yearly auction for the land tax attached to each
> > piece of land was involved. It's actually quite similar to how a
> > decentralized DNS should work.
> >
> > Not sure if there could be an issue with creating a "higher class" of
> > landowners vs everyone else, but it seems to be the best way to handle
> > land ownership.
> >
> > Josh's points on local ostracization are important when it comes to
> > dealing with people who break consensus. Although, I don't think it
> > would be incorrect to say that being on someone's else's land without
> > their permission is breaking the NAP.
> >
> > -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>
> >
> > On 10/07/2014 01:22 PM, Josh Walker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ​ Not sure how I feel about land tax, except that it seems
> >>> eminently
> >
> >> more logical than the other forms of tax.
> >>>
> >
> >> ​In my conversations with our like-minded brethren, I've found it's
> >> best understood when described as this:
> >
> >
> >> - ​It's not really a tax, because it's entirely optional -- else
> >> it would violate the NAP. - ​ You ​are actually trading for
> >> community consensus that the property is *yours and yours alone. *
> >> *​*Therefore, you might say this is the cost of that service. - The
> >> cost is the equilibrium point ​at which you ​r desire to ​keep the
> >> property exceeds what someone ​someone else would offer.
> >
> >
> >> ​If you're actively listening, you might notice price discovery is
> >> the only tricky part here. This also isn't to replace the cost of
> >> selling developed property; this is just the cost of retaining
> >> consensus ownership of the underlying land.
> >
> >> If you are actively contributing the cost of consensus to the
> >> community in an acceptable form (I see no reason a community would
> >> always demand *only *raw currency, necessarily), the following
> >> happens.
> >
> >> - Someone disregarding the community consensus would face censure
> >> in all local markets. In almost all cases, knowledge of this alone
> >> is expected to keep folks in like. - If a squatter arrives and
> >> refuses to leave, and is not dissuaded by being unable to interact,
> >> buy, or sell with the community, you may remove the squatter. With
> >> the minimum force required, of course. This means, for example, you
> >> could physically push the squatter off the land, as gently as
> >> possible, and if the squatter escalated the altercation, the
> >> community would not view the squatter's escalation as an act of
> >> self-defense (unless you began with excessive force).
> >
> >> If you aren't contributing, it still isn't permissible for folks to
> >> come and steal or break things, but don't expect the community to
> >> object to a camper on your lawn using your well or something.
> >> (Local community standards will vary, I'm sure.) And as above, I'd
> >> definitely expect you to struggle to interact, buy, or sell with
> >> the local market.
> >
> >> The key being it's all voluntary and the only weapon is the
> >> *removal of consent to associate.* Also notable is, there's clearly
> >> room for compassion and exceptions, or for communities to accept
> >> payment in the way of labor, etc.
> >
> >> -J
> >
> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Adam Gibson <ekaggata@???>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> It's not quite the same. The blockchain is literally created by
> >> the miners (the part that actually is useful, the new blocks). The
> >> land was always there.
> >
> >> Not sure how I feel about land tax, except that it seems eminently
> >> more logical than the other forms of tax.
> >
> >> On 10/07/2014 07:19 PM, Thomas Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> In some sense, couldn't the same argument be made for owning
> >>>>> chunks of a blockchain, if bitcoin or something like it
> >>>>> becomes a natural monopoly on transactional economic
> >>>>> activity?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Force address registration on as many people as you can, and
> >>>>> then tax. Sometimes simple obvious plans work best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Amir Taaki
> >>>>> <genjix@???> wrote:
> >>>>>> Geolibertarians hold that all natural resources – most
> >>>>>> importantly land – are common assets to which all
> >>>>>> individuals have an equal right to access; therefore,
> >>>>>> individuals must pay rent to the community if they claim
> >>>>>> land as their private property. Rent need not be paid for
> >>>>>> the mere use of land, but only for the right to exclude
> >>>>>> others from that land, and for the protection of one's
> >>>>>> title by government.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Geolibertarians view the Land Value Tax as a single tax to
> >>>>>> replace all other methods of taxation, which are deemed
> >>>>>> unjust violations of the non-aggression principle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A land value tax (or site valuation tax) is a levy on the
> >>>>>> unimproved value of land only. A land value tax (LVT) is
> >>>>>> different from other property taxes, which are taxes on
> >>>>>> the whole value of real estate: the combination of land,
> >>>>>> buildings, and improvements to the site.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
> >>>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> >>>>> list: http://unsystem.net
> >>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> > _______________________________________________
> >>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> >>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> >> list: http://unsystem.net
> >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>