It is not a contradiction to beg

To live we must beg which means we must ask others for money… in a capitalist system we do this by offering goods and services in exchange for payment. But we are still begging we cannot force people to be our customer.

We can only live without begging if we are able to produce our own food as a subsistence farmer everyone else must use capitalism to live and as a consequence they are a beggar. But this is not a problem unless we all must become subsistence farmers... if we are to be capitalists and not (subsistence) farmers then we must be beggars and so to beg should lose its negative connotations. It is not a contradiction to beg in a capitalist society in fact this is the means by which most people are earning their living. Capitalism is begging but this is not bad unless non-farming is bad. Unless farming is more virtuous then selling things begging is not a bad act and there should be no shame in begging… even if we do not offer something in exchange.

Labour can be sold only once

A big problem with capitalism for the working class is that to sell your labour is to sell something which can be sold only once. The great fortunes in capitalism are made by those firms which sell many of something. The volume is important. If volume is not important then we are dealing with something which might resemble capitalism but which is not quite capitalism... for example mining raw materials is profitable and doesn't have a high volume of sales (there are no individual units) but it is not quite like capitalism because it relies on being able to sell something which is present in nature. Farming is another example of an industry where great profits can be made but this again is slightly different from true capitalism. True capitalism requires a high volume of sales which is where this is a problem for the working class who can sell only their labour. Labour can be sold only once which means there is no means to sell a high volume of labour… it is only the management who retain the upside who are able to make a great fortune in a capitalist system. To sell your labour is a very bad way to make profits… it is much better to have equity in a profitable firm because then you will be able to benefit from the high volume of trade.

Capitalism doesn't work

The problem with capitalism is that we rely on people being vulnerable to make a profit. If everyone has everything they want then the capitalist can make no money and they will starve. Communism doesn't work either and so we are left with Georgism which is the political philosophy where people are left to live for themselves on the land. Individually people try to become farmers so they are able to support themselves without relying on the labour market. They are free to trade their goods and services but this is not the source of their sustenance (they do not rely on this income to stay alive). Using the land they are perfectly self-sufficient.

Land is like labour

There is an analogy to be made between tenant farming and employing people. With tenant farming the landowner is able to lease out the land to the tenant farmer who then exploits this (land) capital by creating a profitable crop. The tenant can make more from the land than it costs to lease the land so they are interested in 'employing' the land. In the same way we can think of someone (a company) who exploits and employs someone as being a tenant of their intrinsic labour. So the employee who provides the labour is like the landowner and the employer is like the tenant farmer.

There is no work without land

Those without land have no ability to work unless someone else is willing to buy their product. So then they need to beat the (global) market to survive if they have been deprived of land. Since there is easily enough land in the world we have no right to consign others to landlessness as a consequence of our land ownership. Everyone has a right to land since there is enough of it. If we cannot work it is because we have no land since those with land can always work since they can farm the land which will always yield a profit. Farmers can always make a profit because food will always be valuable and they can always make food. If we do not have land we cannot always work because we can only work if the market allows it. If we have land we can always work so then land is synonymous with work. And since all work ultimately derives from the land we can say that where there is land there is work and that work is land.

Capitalism is better than communism

In a capitalist system individual firms are able to exist and trade. The proceeds are shared amongst the workers. This is similar to a communist system whereby the people work on a communal farm (not factory) and share the proceeds. With a capitalist communal factory (as opposed to a communist communal farm) the firm still needs to make a profit which protects the system from poverty and insolvency. With a capitalist farm the management must make sure the organisation is in profit (even if this means paying their employees poorly) otherwise they and their employees will go out of business. With communism there is no sense of the firm (farm) going out of business so the people remain despite the farm making no profit and people starving. (There is no incentive to leave.) In capitalism the communal factory is required to make a profit and people are attentive to the risks of insolvency moreso than in communism where there is no apparent alternative. In communism if there is no profit people (still) stay but with capitalism people leave since they realise there is a requirement to make a profit. There is a close analogy between the communal farms of communism and communal factories (or firms) of capitalism only in capitalism the profitability of the organisation is tested in the market. If the firm (or farm) is failing then people will need to leave. The only difference is that with capitalism profits (and transactions with other firms) are allowed so people will leave if the firm or factory is not profitable. It is like communism apart from the fact that firms can trade and people are free to move from firm to firm in order to maximise their profitability and happiness.

Capitalism is like begging

It might be argued that apart from farming there are only two lawful means to live. These are begging and selling our labour.

We have a right to land if there is enough of it and so then we have a right to be a farmer. If we are not a farmer we rely for our income on being able to sell a product to people in the market. This means that our survival relies on the demand of the market and we might not be able to live if we cannot out-compete the rest of the market for our produce. So then if we are not a farmer we have no right to live (we are not guaranteed an income from our work). In a sense selling our labour is like begging to live because we are not in control of our own destiny. So then apart from farming there is only one means to live and that is begging (since capitalism is like begging). To sell our labour to live is like begging and so we can deduce that if we are not a farmer we are either a beggar or a thief.

Capitalism is slavery

If we do not have our own land then we must have either a boss (someone who buys our labour) or a client to survive... if we do not want to be a thief and break the law. So then those without land must have a boss (a client is also a kind of boss) to survive. We can either have a boss or be a farmer and have land. But the problem with not having land and relying on a boss for survival is that the boss is entirely within their rights to refuse employment. The boss can 'fire' us at any time perfectly legitimately and then we will have no food... so without land to eat requires the consent of another person which can be viewed as slavery. Capitalism is a form of slavery because if we want to eat then we require the consent of another person... they need to purchase our goods since we have no land. If we have our own land we can avoid this problem of capitalism but without land we are always a slave... even if we are able to sell our labour. If our livelihood relies on someone buying our labour then are are slaves. Landless labourers are slaves.

We have a right to land if there is enough of it

The 'problem' with Capitalism is that without land we must beat the market to survive. Every profit that we make is at the cost of someone else... the harder we work the more inexpensive our products become and the more difficult it is for new market entrants. This is not a problem in itself apart from the reality that we are hurting other people. It is a paradox in a collaborative society that we would need to put someone else at a disadvantage merely to survive ourselves. This means we are not working together as a species. The solution to this apparent paradox of Capitalism is that we have sufficient land for everyone. Since no one is now (in the modern era) dying of starvation it is clear that we have sufficient land for everyone (assuming that this fact doesn't rely on the efficiencies derived from large-scale farms). This means that there is enough land for people to provide for themselves without needing to put a cost on the market by going to work in the traditional (competitive) sense. We do not need to hurt other people if we can make a living on our own from the land. The 'greed' paradox of Capitalism can be resolved by making sure that everyone has sufficient access to land and since there is demonstrably sufficient land for everyone... this is possible. If there is enough land (as there clearly is) then everyone has a right to at least some of it sufficient that they are able to sustain themselves. We have a right to land if there is enough of it. If there is not enough of it then we are left to fend for ourselves in an uncivilised manner but this has rarely if ever been the case.

Only farmers have a right to work

If you have enough land to support yourself then it is possible to survive by yourself doing work 'against' nature. There is no transaction with another human being... you do not need to interact with the market you merely need to do well as a farmer and you will have enough to eat. In all other cases we require the consent of another person to survive. This means that in a sense we are begging to eat when we are not able to farm our own land. We only have a right to work if we have our own land in all other cases we require the consent of another person and they have the right to withdraw their demand for our labour. We do not have a right to work (unless we have land) because everyone has the right not to pay for our work.

Georgists only will survive technology

Unless we have our own farm the only way to survive is to sell our labour. But with the perpetual improvement in technology this will become increasingly difficult as our economic needs will be taken care of by robots. The technological developments will also make it easier for people to become farmers (they will require less land and less sunlight) but the fact remains that robots will make survival practically impossible for non-farmers in the not-too-distant future. The sole remedy to this situation to prevent widespread starvation in the technological future will be the introduction of political Georgism. Georgism involves the sharing of land which is our natural birthright. Georgism recognises the fact that what is in nature is shared by all of us since it was created by no one living. To 'defeat' the robots and prevent them from causing widespread starvation we will need to share the land... as we should have been doing already. The development of technology will require the introduction of political Georgism.

What is neo-feudalism?

"Feudalism was a set of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries, which, broadly defined, was a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour."

In a feudal system the serfs are able to gain access to the land only in return for their labour. Their natural birthright which is a share of the ownership of the land is denied to them to the advantage of the 'Lord of the Manor' who is able to exploit their work. This arrangement is clearly arbitrary and beneficial only to the minority. Neo-feudalism is a modern version of this but with the distinction that the arrangement is not recognised in law. We have a modern version of feudalism as a result of a legal system which fails to reflect our natural land entitlements. Because the law (presently) fails to recognise the importance of access to land a system of feudalism can arise without it being directly imposed by the legislature.

Definition of house banking

We are familiar with the concept of land banking whereby a person holds land not for its use but in the hope that it will serve as a good investment. They own the asset (in this case land) not because they need it for any particular purpose - even to utilise in business - but instead for its resale value. They hold the land because they can use it to raise funds (liquidity) at a later date. The same can be true of house banking whereby a person owns a house not entirely to use it for living but instead so that they will be able to sell it to other people in the future. This means that the house is not being fully utilised to its best potential and people in the economy who would be able to derive good use from it are being denied. Ideally people should only take the amount of housing they require and perhaps a bit extra for comfort. They should not seek to own as much of the housing stock as possible because then other people are being denied the ability to live in their own home.

The future will be difficult for people without land

If you have land you will be immune from the problems of the increasing automation of labour. But if you do not have land then because of the advancement of technology it is possible that you will not be able to find a job. (Only people with their own land will be certain to be able to make an income.) For you then the political arrangement known as Capitalism doesn't work because the robots have replaced your only commodity. The robots will destroy Capitalism for those who do not have their own land. Capitalism in the traditional sense (in contrast to Agriculturalism) requires people being able to sell their labour which means that the advancement of technology will put an end to Capitalism in this form. There will be no capitalist jobs because of the robots. Only farmers will survive in the future.

The singularity isn't a problem for people with land

For people with land the coming 'singularity' of technology is something there is no reason to fear. But for those without land the singularity will perhaps be bad news because it will put them out of work without the means to sustain themselves. The singularity will be bad news for workers who will find it increasingly hard to stay in work... because their work will now be being done by robots. For those with land there is nothing to fear in the singularity.

Farmers only will survive the automation of labour

In the future the degree of industrial automation will reach such an advanced state that it will be very difficult to find work. There will be robots who will be able to do almost every type of manual work so labour in the traditional sense will be almost obsolete. This means that it will be very difficult for people to find work which will be able to support their living expenses. The only certain way to be immune from this process is if you are the owner of land which is able to sustain you. The landed (farmers) will be able to survive the increasing automation of the workplace but everyone else will find it difficult. The robots will put most workers out of a job which means only the farmers will survive in the traditional sense... and a greater and greater proportion of the population will return to the land. Only farmers are immune from the technological automation of the workplace. Without a farm people will find it hard to survive due to the increasing automation and industrialisation of the workplace. The robots will replace all jobs which are not like owning a farm. The robots will put everyone but farmers out of a job. Only the robots (and farmers) will be employed in the future. The robots will replace everyone who is not a farmer.

We have a right to work if we have our own land

Land ownership means that we have the ability to work at all times. If we have our own land and the willingness to work then we can always produce food (if anyone can). So to have land is to have the right to work. If we do not have our own land then we must seek employment from those who desire our labour... but we can be refused. If we have no land then we rely on the employment market to produce food which means we do not have a right to produce food (assuming we have the willingness to work). If we have the willingness to work then to be without land means we have no right to work. If we have our own land then we have a right to work.

Land ownership is criminal if there is no ceiling

To be able to own an unlimited amount of land is detrimental to the rest of society and as a consequence it is detrimental to the owner themselves. If we own an excessive extent of land then we exclude the rest of the population from that land by definition... land is finite. So we are causing hardship for other people if we own an excessive amount of land. An analogy can be drawn with another scarce resource which is water in a desert. If we take all the water for ourselves and exclude other people from having access to the water we have done harm to our environment. It is best if we claim to own a piece of land or other natural and scarce resource that we do not take too much of it otherwise we will be damaging to the rest of the population and as a result... ultimately damaging to ourselves. If we desire to claim (exclusive access to) land then we have an obligation to make sure none of the owners has too much land. If we want to own land then for this not to be criminal requires that we impose a ceiling on the amount of land that an individual is able to own. If there is no such ceiling then it is possible that the system of land ownership in place is a criminal system.

A description of land hoarding

Land hoarding is a phenomenon (symptom) of enabling people to 'own' land at the discretion of the state. This means that when a land dispute arises between a land-owner and a trespasser or 'squatter' the state will intervene to determine who has the true claim. This means that land can be owned and then that land hoarding is possible. The obvious negative consequences of land hoarding are that people will find it difficult to get their own land and a place to live if all the land has been taken. To help prevent this type of land hoarding it is possible to place constraints on land ownership. We can do this by enabling a person to own up to a certain amount of land (measured in area or market value) but no more. If there is a limit on the amount of land it is possible for an individual to own (according to the state) then it will be easier for the rest of the population to get their own land. If there is no limit (or tax) then it is likely that (some) people will choose to hoard the land to the disadvantage of the rest of the population. To prevent land hoarding the state should impose a limit above which it is not possible for a person to own land. If there is not a limit on land ownership land hoarding will result.

Land ownership is socialism

If we own land we are depriving other people of its use by definition. If we cannot deprive other people of the use of land we do not own land. We own the ability to eject people from an area of land. And this is a form of socialism. It is because other people consent to our ownership of the land that we are able to own the land. The group will work together to preserve the existing land claims and over-power the person who does not respect these claims. So land ownership is concerned with the power of the group over the individual and as such it is a form of socialism.

Only land reform will help the poor

Capitalism doesn't work very well if there is not some kind of impediment on owning an excess of land. The reason for this is that if people are permitted by the economy to accumulate land there is no natural impediment on excessive disparities emerging. If people can own an unlimited amount of land they will do so to the detriment of the rest of the economy. People with land are able to lease the land (or work it themselves) which means they have a certain (high) income above their costs. They can earn much more than they spend and (if it is available) they are able to buy yet more land increasing the problem. People without land find it very difficult to get land of their own because those with land have no reason to sell it... in fact they want more. If land is made cheap by a tax or levy... or an upper limit imposed on the amount of land a single person is able to own then this problem is remedied. If people cannot own more than an upper bound of land (in value) then this enables the rest of the economy to acquire their own which means they can get out of poverty. People cannot get out of poverty if they are not able to get their own land which they will not be able to do if there is no (non-market) restriction imposed on the ownership of land. If the government (or those who dictate property rights) do not pay attention to the accumulation of land then the economy will become increasingly dysfunctional and oppressive to the poor. The poor will not be able to get out of poverty and have their own land if the government (or similar) does not pay attention to land and prevent monopolisation of land. If the government is not attentive to this issue the poor will get increasingly poor. The poor will not be able to get out of poverty if the government does not pay attention to the accumulation of land by the few. If there is not a Land Value Tax or similar the poor will be forever trapped without land. The poor will not be able to get land if there is not a Land Value Tax or similar. Capitalism will remain oppressive to the poor if there is not a LVT (or similar). If there is a LVT then land becomes cheap and everyone will be comfortable. Without a LVT land will be expensive and serve as the primary means to save wealth... placing a burden on those who are poor and have no land. The poor will be given (economic) freedom if there is a LVT or similar. If the government does not pay attention to the issue of land ownership the poor will remain poor. Capitalism doesn't work for the poor if there is no limit on land ownership. If land is able to be monopolised then the poor will remain poor. The only way for the poor to get out of poverty is if there is a LVT or something similar.