We have to remember that fundamentally this all boils down to economics and rate of return on capital. There's (engineering wise) nothing stopping many communities from either adding more space underground, or above ground by building more levels. It's simply the demands of capital (and workers) that makes it unprofitable to do. We could have parking stalls and walkability and bicycles if capitalists didn't demand the rates of return on money, or workers didn't cost as much as they do, or land was more reasonably partitioned across the populace rather than grand fathered in from antiquity.
> We could have parking stalls and walkability and bicycles if capitalists didn't demand the rates of return on money, or workers didn't cost as much as they do, or land was more reasonably partitioned across the populace rather than grand fathered in from antiquity.
When the three options you offer are "rich people being okay with less money" "forced labor" and "redistribute land more equally" it seems like a rather thinly veiled push for Georgism...
one concern/thought that quickly comes to mind is "What about compounding value of the created?" . This seems increasingly relevant as wealth is increasingly derived from the created rather than basic underlying resources. Eg: should we land tax the rents from the metaverse?
A fundamental idea of Georgism is that the land belongs to everybody, so rather than owning land, one essentially rents it from the people. More desirable land is rented at a higher rate. If the land you are renting could be making someone else millions with a higher productivity use, then you need to pay for the privilege of not using it for that higher productivity use.
