One significant problem about Geonomics is that, taken in isolation, many of its statements are reasonable. However, taken in context, what is missed is the importance of Geonomic statements compared to the alternatives.

Further, Geonomics is a collection of ideas. And the relative importance of those ideas is not clear to an outsider.

One of these is land. Georgists say that they are concerned about privilege, and that the most significant privilege is land ownership.

Land ownership does represent a privilege, but there are lots of forms of privilege, and the issue of which is most important is a complex issue.

Then, Georgists might then say well, they're concerned about all forms of privilege.

But hang on, isn't Geonomics a movement whose main thrust is land ? While writing on Geonomics does mention charging many things which are scarce, eg orbits, pollution and so on, the main thrust does seem to be land.

Its an area where Geonomics equivocates. Its difficult to know just where Georgists stand. The divergence in viewpoints becomes significant.

Take the barest Geonomic statement :

"Land is the most significant form of privilege, and prompts LVT as the most significant reform in pursuit of productivity and fairness in the present economy."

That is too strong. A stronger Geonomic statement, perhaps better approximating the majority Geonomic view, is even more dissagreeable :

"As a moral imperative, we are entitled to the products of our own efforts, but not the contribution which the community makes. This means that taxation is the equivalent of legalised theft, and the only moral way to collect revenue for common expenditure is through LVT."

Even if you add the notion of "privilege" and "taxes" on other "free gifts" to the above statement, it is still way too strong. The idea that taxes are an intrusion into what is our private domain is problematic, as detailed elsewhere.

Further, Georgists say "this issue is important, and prompts reform." How does that relate to the other reforms other people might find important, for other reasons ? That is not clear, but much Geonomics I've read seems to imply that Geonomic reforms are important, and all other reforms are incidental.

Take a somewhat milder statement :

"Where market shortages occur in cominations with monopolies, the economic rent so generated should be "taxed" (claimed by the community) where feasible. Such economic rents so claimed would be less distorting than other taxes, but this is not an issue which overwhelms all other considerations."

Now, that statement above is one I'd agree with. And, it is Geonomics. But one brand of it. You'll find a lot of "stronger" Geonomic views around.

However, in order for Geonomics to be a movement, it must must say something bold and unequivocal, and claim that the issues concerned are more important than any other issues. Its this constraint which is the cause of tension between a few very bare facts which are true, and a broader, more provocative prescriptive statement. This tension makes it difficult to pin down exactly what Geonomics is.

I've also heard a statement like :

"Geonomic reforms are worthwhile, but this is not to say that other reforms would not be worthwhile. We would advocate Geonomic reforms as part of a broader set of reforms which would improve society and the economy."

(adapted from KMN)

Again, there are reasonable variants of Genomics around.

Geonomics also relies on some assumptions about the market. There's a strong statement :

"The economic system, running freely and without distortionary forces, will deliver more wealth and a more equitable result for all."

This statement is too strong. But take a milder statement :

"The market may not always be right. The market is based on human behaviour and that is not always reliable. But interfering in the market often exacerbates the problem that is trying to be rectified. If the economy is working well then less intervention will be required; its not that there would be no need for intervention."

(adapted from NG)

Now, this statement is one which is _almost_ reasonable. You need to define just what your problems are, and how interfering in the market would or would not influence matters, but it is getting there.

So, what is Geonomics ? Is is a range of ideas. I have sympathy with a mild form of it, but there are strong versions I have differences with.

Lastly, a view which DB has put forward seems relevant. Often, philosophers grab hold of some principle, and push it to its absolute limit, resulting in some quite bizzare approaches to life. If, however, they said that this principle was an issue, to be mixed in with others, and we should be willing to change the view with individual situations, then that philosopher would stay in the world that the rest of us occupy, rather than going off the deep end.

That's what seems to have happened to Geonomics. You take a few principles which are reasonably sound in themselves, and some arbitrary viewpoints (like thinking that taxation is an intrusion), and take them to their absolute limit, losing objectivity along the way.

Now, I hope I have not embraced some principles and pushed them to their limits, losing my objectivity along the way. But that's for others to decide :).