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.