I’m not sure that I want what is being advocated, exactly, but it sure is interesting to think about.  The basic argument is: landlords increase the value of their land by affecting the social/physical environment of it, or in other words by attracting good neighbors and providing various useful services (or making sure they’re provided).  As the size of land holdings go up, the power that the landlords wield increases, and potentially these landlords might being to provide the sorts of public services that are traditionally provided by government, and get a tax reduction for themselves and their tenants.  The problem, I think, comes when you take this to an extreme; you quickly get feudalism again, with all the resulting problems.  But perhaps you could do Feudalism 2.0 which didn’t actually suck, in the way that Democracy 2.0 seems to be sucking less than the first go-around.