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.