I often change my mind about the specifics, but the current deal collective members have signed up for is that collective land is rented out with 50% surplus rent getting redistributed to members as a basic income paid in a community currency, redeemable for rent (and most likely other stuff too, especially renewable energy) and 50% reinvested in further land and shared infrastructure.

Actually the community currency part isn’t part of the current deal, but people are aware its on the roadmap…

> Kevin: would you have anything to say about the potential of land as a
> commons, in the context below?

Kevin replied via email:

It strikes me as very similar to what geolibertarians call for: a
citizen’s basic income funded by taxes on land value, resource
consumption and negative externalities.

As a property rights matter, I’m an agnostic. I’m not persuaded by
Georgist and geolib arguments that property in the land is collective
to the extent of an individual obligation to pay rent to the
community, but I also don’t see any objective basis on which such a
property rights regime can be opposed. Aside from the basic
prohibition on property in vacant and unimproved land, and the belief
that it should be open for homesteading (which is shared by all
principled property rights systems), I tend to evaluate property
rights systems on consequentialist grounds. Which means I would be
glad to peacefully coexist with localities or regions that adopted
such a system, and would oppose efforts by any (like right-wing
Lockean libertarians) to overturn it on their own principled grounds.