[Dr House]

Your premise is that society is more important in every circumstance than the individual

Society is ultimately a collection of individuals. Therefore, benefiting society means benefiting many, or even all, individuals. Therefore, from a consequentialist perspective benefiting society is ultimately more important than benefiting any single individual. The argument could be made that rewarding the indolent and the unskilled at the expense of the rest of us creates perverse incentives, which ultimately results in a net harm to society (which I partially agree with).

Of course you have to remember that what he's redistributing isn't earned income. It's the unimproved value of land, which is the only portion of productive value that is not man-made, and thus not earned.

Since you seem fundamentally incapable of understanding that landlord does not produce the land values which they reap, there is further point in discussing this matter with you.

There's always a point in debate, because ultimately you're not debating for the benefit of your opponent. You're debating for the benefit of the audience, since your opponent is normally too busy trying to prove you wrong.

[Okonkwo]

Land value taxation, therefore, would essentially be a society's investment in itself.

BINGO!
(I knew I could use this once )

I can gladly declare myself a Paradigmista now. Your ideas are very interesting.

[Dr House]

Houseism is naturally superior to Paradigmism, of course.

[Okonkwo]

Houseism is naturally superior to Pardigmism, of course.

If you could stick to one single ideology for more than a few weeks before changing some parts of it, then perhaps you'd have more followers.
And of course, your Lobby greeting is not exactly the best way to attract new adherents.

[Paradigm]

Another thought occurs to me: With a sufficiently large citizen's dividend, we could stop paying politicians' salaries, as they would be supported by the dividend, and the reasons to run for office should ideally be non-monetary. With the power to create money returned to the federal government(see previous blog post), they would have all the more incentive to devote spending toward useful infrastructure projects which increase rents(and therefore their dividend payments) rather than wasteful pork.

[cyaekn]

But what if it was in everyone's interest to look after society's well-being instead of just their own? What if the two were one in the same? Suppose society itself were a publicly traded stock, in which each of us had an equal share, that paid dividends?

I'm curious; by 'each of us' do you mean adults, working population or literally everyone?

The consumption of both consumer and capital goods would increase the rent by approximately the amount spent, so the government would actually get back most if not all of the money spent on the dividend, and would not have to choose between dividend payments and social expenditures.

I'm not familiar with economics, could you explain this to me in simpler terms?

But the difference is that under a land value tax regiment, the guaranteed income would be a social dividend which is not earned by any individual but is rather the equal right of every citizen. The fact that economists talk about a natural level of unemployment indicates that there is a surplus of labor. Therefore, we don't need everyone working.

I don't see the connection between the first sentence and the second; it's probably just me, but could you explain? Also, it is true that we don't need everyone working, but what if less people than needed work, leaving the burden to be supported by others? I feel that the dividend being representative of society's progress as a whole is not good enough a guard, as it is easy to think that someone else will just bear the burden for them, see the bystander effect.

Moreover, setting the minimum dividend at subsistence means no matter what a person does, he will be supported by the government. This argument against welfare states can be used against your system as well. That there is a natural level of unemployment does not resolve any problems if unemployment goes above the level.

If some global event were to create negative growth, your system would be completely unsustainable. One improvement I can suggest is to remove the minimum entirely. If the economy is thriving, you can choose to work to earn good salary, or do nothing, that wouldn't be a problem. But if the economy is doing badly, you won't be getting enough to live, so you have to work and bring the economy back up.

Overall, the idea is quite interesting. Hopefully you can flesh it out more as ideas come to you