Martin Jacobson 🔸
Bio
I am a political theorist at Uppsala University. My research is focused on "geoism" or "Georgism" - a combination of the economic theory that landownership causes inequality and poverty and the normative position that such landownership is unjustified since no one created the land. I believe that landownership plays a significant but underappreciated role in generating systemic social problems.
Posts 1
Comments3
Hello everyone!
I am a political theorist at Uppsala University, Sweden. Similarly to how I am interested in niche ethical ideas like EA, my research is focused on rather neglected (or weird) political ideas. In particular, I am interested in ‘geoism’ or ‘Georgism’, which combines the economic idea that unequal landownership is a root cause of many social problems with the normative idea that such landownership is unjustified since land was not created by anyone. Hence, geoists argue that taxes should be shifted to land and other naturally occurring resources. Earlier this year I defended my Ph.D. thesis on the relationship between geoism and anarchism. I recently received a postdoc grant to keep on researching geoist political theory in the coming years, being partly based in Oslo and Blacksburg, VA.
In terms of cause area, I really appreciate the wide diversity within EA. But perhaps due to my interest in political theory, I have an extra soft spot for questions concerning institutional and systemic change. This is presumably where my own comparative advantage is, but I also think that it matters massively in terms of ripple effects and global capacity growth. At some point, I want to write up an exploration of land reform as a potential high-impact cause area, and the use of community land value trusts as a way to implement these ideals. The final chapter of my thesis explores some related ideas.
I was first introduced to EA ideas in a university philosophy course in 2018. My New Year's resolution for 2022-23 was to try donating 10% of my income to effective causes for at least a year. I had previously found that smaller trials, like Veganuary, are much more doable than any permanent commitment. During this time I also thought a lot about whether to take any public pledge or just to keep on donating anonymously. I eventually became convinced that the potential social contagion effects provide a really important reason to be public with pledges. I wrote some of these considerations down in this essay, which was published at GWWC last month. I also used this occasion to sign the 🔸 10% Pledge.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions, and thank you all for the good that you do!
That is great to hear David, thank you for your kind comment!
And I agree with you that if a moral action is costly, then this seems to make it more praisworthy to perform it. Additionally, if these costs are shared between many people, it also seems solidaristic to take on part of these costs, and making it easier for others.
However, interestingly, I also believe that it is less costly to be public about donations if one can give some explanation or justification for this. If others perceive the reason for being public as a desire to inspire others, rather than bragging, then it will also be met with much less annoyance. So sharing this essay was not only a way for me to explain why one should take on this cost, but also a way to reduce the cost themselves.
I think that this also connects to your post, which I just read! If you decide to reach out to your clients, and also give some explanation or context for doing this, I think that they would be less inclined to react negatively to it. I am really happy that the essay was helpful for your question, and inspired you to also take the pledge! Thank you for letting me know that, and good luck with the holiday gift package!