First, the exclusive right to use and control a given piece of the earth, subject to not breaking other laws or harming anyone else. It is absolutely necessary to preserve these sorts of rights if we want people to use land intensively. Who would construct a building without being assured of rights of control?
Second, comes the right to collect the value created by the privilege. My theory of charging for privileges splits these two concepts apart. As the privilege charge is phased in the selling price of land (and other privileges) would fall to 0.
Of course, in the bargain we would phase out taxes that fall on specific activities carried out by the owner such as sales taxes, building taxes, income taxes from income generated on the property.
The tax shift I propose essentially strengthens property rights having to do with privacy, and production while eliminating private interest in profit from privilege directly. There would be no change to the core property structures although common practice and expectations would change considerably.
Referring to a property right as a privilege therefore sounds odd and suggests that it is apt to be revoked. This, of course, stimulates associations with nationalisation and classical socialism.
It may be that the ideas you describe can be expressed in different terms, or in a way that uses the term 'privilege', but minimises this problem. I can see the political attractiveness of building on the negative connotations of 'privilege', but I'm concerned about the net effect.
In advancing a political idea, it's important both to motivate a block of supporters and to reduce the motivation of potential opposition groups. The latter becomes more important later in the game, and I'd think expect that an emphasis on cutting (present) taxes and fostering economic growth would be a strength. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
