I literally gave you a Wikipedia list of other concerns, "natural monopolies, pollution rights, and control of the commons, including title of ownership for natural resources and other contrived privileges (e.g. intellectual property)", the Georgist word land abstracts away, telling you the land of today is data, and the land of tomorrow will be neural models. Complex issues often have solutions in other places; houselessness will indeed not be solved by putting some people in some houses.
55% of homeless were not mentally ill in January 2015 in "the most extensive survey ever undertaken" [1]. Not having a singular worldview is one query away.
> houselessness will indeed not be solved by putting some people in some houses.
Thats my point though. That someone's buzzword ideology or singular solution isn't particularly relevant to this discussion, and that Georgists are the worst of the bunch.
Its actually the only group worse than the internet socialists who just blame "capitalism" for everything.
And georgism is actually worse in that it takes a single topic, that of "land" and just attempts to shoehorn that one concept into everything.
> the Georgist word land abstracts away
Oh thats exactly my point! They take one single word, from an ideology of that was outdated even 100 years ago, and pretend like it applies to every single problem.
What if, instead of that, not everything has to do with "land"? Maybe, different problems are solved by different things and we don't have to stress the definition of the word "land" to apply to literally every single problem.
But my point is "complex issues often have solutions in other places".
You just hate operator overloading, I understand. Hope you don't write much C++.
I do have a tendency to overload solutions, since there are so many problems. For instance, just to give you something more to kick, I believe all democratic issues would be solved by three changes in the electoral process:
(i) no political nominations, instead have a population-wide lottery, arbitrarily selecting 10 or so people as contenders [1]; (the principle behind: power should belong to those who do not want it)
(ii) to be able to vote "No", invalidating all the candidates, if majority vote, reducing the mandate duration, if not; (the principle behind: you are not free if you cannot say "No")
(iii) tie the mandate duration to the voter turnout: if only 60% vote, you get 60% of the duration of the mandate, not 100%. (the principle behind: politicians are better if they are changed often)
That's what I just said.
But, the fact remains, that if you add a land value tax this doesn't do much to help the person who is homeless because of mental health issues.