[sooheon]

I'm glad you're interested.

> So Apple has organised (against the 2nd law of thermodynamics) a collection of companies that moves chips and aluminum and glass into a box in a store near me. [...] That is a form of development / improvement of the 'land'

Exactly right. Which is why none of those improvements should be taxed. They are the product of human labor, to which the laborer has full rights. It is only the common natural resources which an organization monopolizes at the exclusion of others that should be taxed. A tax on such limited resources is in effect a fee that they pay for the private utilization of a public good. Ownership of high value locations is one example, intellectual patents are another. If you squint, a carbon tax is another example.

It doesn't have to get as complicated as Wardley maps. You don't need to account for every layer of improvement in the network of modern business, because no improvement should be taxed. You only need to answer "is this the product of human ingenuity and labor, or is this a natural common good that is owned to the exclusion of anyone else?"

This is the polar opposite of a VAT. You don't want to tax "value add", you want to tax "natural resource use"!

[lifeisstillgood]

So is Amazon's shop owned to the exclusion of everyone else? It's not a natural common good. But it is (if you squint) a utility.

Google's search is a utility with far less squinting

Is an Aqueduct natural common good? Is the water flowing through it? what happens with open source software?

I kind of get where you are trying to draw the line but I think we have progressed so far above "just land"

[sooheon]

> is Amazon's shop owned to the exclusion of everyone else?

Not the online store. The land taken up by their supply chain, offices, and datacenters is all they are excluding others from using.

> Google's search is a utility with far less squinting

It's a valuable service, but because the service was built by humans, it should belong fully to those who built it. I don't see a justification for taxing the output of someone's labor just because it is popular. What they should give back to society is what they have taken from society, again the land that their office buildings and datacenters take up.

There is a more nuanced point about the natural monopolies of certain businesses due to network effects and economies of scale, but it's better to read the book for a full treatment, I can't do it justice.

> Is an Aqueduct natural common good?

I don't see why. It's built by human hands, designed by human engineers. The land the aqueduct takes up, and the reservoir of water it draws from are natural common goods, of course.

> what happens with open source software?

Software is very interesting. It is the output of labor clearly, but ideas are part of the public domain (ideas are there in nature to be discovered, anyone can discover an idea). If you package a set of open ideas into a service, I don't think anyone else has a claim on that service than you.

> I kind of get where you are trying to draw the line but I think we have progressed so far above "just land"

Land is not just land. "The term land embraces, in short, all natural materials, forces, and opportunities". Land is one of the three unique factors of production, along with labor and capital, it is everything that is not the product of human labor. (Labor is labor, and capital is the stored product of labor put to use to create more wealth)