Land Defines Local

In the book RADICAL COMPANIES: Without Bosses or Employees^∇ we only considered how the Radical model would work in a company. Other than a mention, we said nothing about money, land, or governments. We laid out a few ideas about money and what it would look like in a decentralized, transparent world; land and government are definitely harder topics for me. In this document I am putting my thoughts about what the model for land would look like in a Radical world.

The rLand Model

In Another Now, Yanis Varoufakis envisions all land as a commons controlled by “Region”^∇ Henry George saw the land as one thing and anything sitting on it as separate, so his proposed single tax would tax the land, but not the improvements. People like Joeri Torfs and Pim Ampe, have envisioned land and improvements as being perennially open for sale as a (very clever) alternative.

My own working model is that,

• Treat land and improvements as one thing—it would be difficult, at best, to separate the two in people’s minds for the foreseeable future.
• The combo would always be open for bids, so that use privilege would be determined by a market dedicated to calculating land value.

Having all land perennially open for bids creates a decentralized market, able to calculate its current value. That is because the winning bid will reflect the perceived value of the land, any improvements, its location, and, just as importantly, the value of contributions made by the community around it,

• Two identical lots will be valued differently according to their improvements. The one with a small dilapidated barn on it will be valued less than the lot with a well-maintained barn.
• A lot, with the exact same house on it at one location may be valued very differently than the same lot and house at another location.
• The community around a particular piece of land determines its overarching value. For example, there is a big difference in pricing for nearly identical houses but in different towns.

“EVERYBODY WORKS BUT THE VACANT LOT” I paid $3600 for this lot and will hold ‘till I get $6000. The profit is unearned increment made possible by the presence of this community and enterprise of its people. I take the profit without earning it. For the remedy read “HENRY GEORGE” — Yours Truly, Fay Lewis ∇

As one of many possibilities, the bidding system might look something like this,

• Rather than open for bids all the time, uninvited bidding may happen, say, once or twice a year. Each community may establish a different rhythm.
• The current occupier, on the other hand, may invite bids at any time (e.g., somebody moving out of a house).
• The bids would be assumed to be in good faith.
• The winning bidder takes over as the new occupier. Note that this could be the current occupier’s bid.
• Whereas land ownership today is static and never ending, a winning bidder occupies the land until the next winning bid.
• Taxes, or equivalent, will go up or down as the winning bids go up or down.

Local Land, Local Taxes?

In the model, “taxes” disappear into the coffers of the County or State government. In the Radical model, the occupier pays a percentage of her winning bid to a community fund. The fund would be used to create common goods.

But what is a community in this context? One possible way of defining this is to imagine the “community” as concentric circles emanating from the land in question. The community fund could then be governed as follows,

• The occupier controls 49% of the funds.
• The first circle controls 27% of it.
• The second controls 15%.
• The fourth controls 6%.
• The fifth controls 3%.

The occupier has a big say in the use of the funds that she is contributing to the community. She may not be able to add a new room, but what’s in it for her is that she can likely steer a big chunk of her contribution to her favorite community project.

The adjacent, hyper-local community also has a big say and can do significant works when combined with what other occupiers contribute to the fund. Ditto for the surrounding community.

I am not sure about “Region” and “State,” thus the question marks, but I suspect the latter will be around for a long time.

What about the Military?

Note that there is no “Region” circle and this means that there would not be a fund that traditionally countries could draw from. Rather than a “Region,” the way to decentralize, I believe, is to fund big, audacious, long-term projects (e.g., space, fusion, and other research) individually. For example, companies and each of the circles above could contribute part of their funds to a Banner earmarked for a research area. I am not counting on the “Region” of people or “Region”—instead, I am counting on people’s interests and their persuasive power when impassioned enough.

The Country?

Note that there is no “Region” circle and this means that there would not be a fund that traditionally countries could draw for. Rather than a “Region” the way to decentralize it is to fund big, audacious, long-term projects (e.g., space, fusion, and other research) individually. For example, companies and each of the circles above could contribute part of their funds to a Banner earmarked for a research area. I am not counting on the “Region” of people or “Region”—instead, I am counting on people’s interests and the persuasive power of their enthusiasm.

The Military?

Also, there is no funds for a military or any kind of state violence. That’s where we are heading.

But, how näive, you might say, all it takes is a few bad people with weapons to take over everything, won’t it? Again, I am counting on ’s aversion to violence and how swiftly they can mobilize in a connected world to neutralize the violence of the “Region”^∇

Community Fund Governance

The “Region” in the pictures could be governed jointly or individually. For example, hyper-local community circles (26%) may join up to create a park. Surrounding communities (3%) may pool their funds to create a bullet train through the region. Keep in mind that when aggregated, Region and State circles have a pretty big pool of actual cash to create common goods.

A couple of unpolished thoughts,

• Occupiers should not be able to pool their piece of the community fund with other occupiers.
• On the other hand, occupiers can pool their piece of a fund with the Community or other non-occupier circles to create common goods.

The Radical Model

It may be worth repeating here a few words about the Radical framework and how it’s different from our current world. Probably the most confusing thing about it is that a Radical world would be very similar to our current world. People will be the same with all our jealousies, overreactions, and habits. They will be embarrassed by overpromising and want to sweep under the proverbial rug.

The only difference—the big difference—is that the Radical system is centered around people’s interdependence.

Our current system is based on separating us: countries, towns, good and bad neighborhoods; political parties and their vastly different realities; need to know, secrecy, protection. This leaves us disconnected and drives us to isolation. Businesses are built on creating platforms to bring us back together, for a fee. This works for a world where money comes first, ahead of everything else.

A Radical world, too, is centered around accomplishments and real innovation, but it prioritizes what’s important to people first, ahead of everything else, including money. We’ll still be individuals, with our own needs, rights, and idiosyncrasies. We are not going to become a number. The Radical model is centered on trust, the type that comes from community and collaboration.

We are used to companies being governed by Fiat hierarchies, with an owner at the top sending down commands telling people what to do, oftentimes when to do it, and even how to do it. Here I assume a Radical world that is, at the same time, alike and different from our world today.

In the Radical model, a company is a group of people coming together to create something bigger than each of them. Other labels abound, but we chose the word “Region” because it has an interesting genesis: it comes from the Latin con- and pan. The prefix con- means “Region” and pan means “Region” At its root, then, company means “Region” In the Radical model a company is a community of people who come together to contribute broad value to society and make an impact on the world.

Rather than having an owner and a hierarchy of bosses, a Radical company has co-owners and co-managers to govern and operate it. These people align themselves according to the impact they want to make, why they are doing so, and then they embark on many experiments to get there.

They do this starting from a simple Foundation,

Thriving Local Communities

As I see it, the Radical model of co-ownership and co-management is the next stage in collaboration. Everything humanity has accomplished has been based on collaboration, but we have acted as if dominance by a few is the only way to achieve it.

The dominance model of collaboration has become an obstacle to real progress and it is now getting in the way of the next surge of human accomplishments. Now it’s time to move on and build on the foundation of interdependence towards a higher level of collaboration.

Appendix: Terminology

Appendix: FAQ

ENDNOTES

• Matt Perez, Adrian Perez, Jose Leal. RADICAL COMPANIES: Without Bosses or Employees February 12, 1861. <https://radicalcompanies.com>

• Abraham Lincoln, 16th USA President. Speech to Germans at Cincinnati, Ohio. February 12, 1861. <https://radicals.world/5jV3VN>

• Yanis Varoufakis. Another Now. Melville House. 2021. <https://a.co/90kfjT7>

• Wikipedia Commons. Political performance art by Fay Lewis in Rockford, Illinois, USA, in 1914. <https://radicals.world/GlK2oV>

• I must admit that this aspect of the RADICAL model would be a pushover for malevolent outer space Fiat invaders.