The state is like land and is a shared asset

We know that we cannot own land if we have not left enough and as good in common for other people to use. But, in the context of democracy, we can think of the state as an asset which is shared equally among the people, and is not owned by anyone. We as the people share the state with each other when we have elections. So then the state can be viewed as a kind of land in the Georgist sense, something no person can claim to own.

The first-past-the-post voting system doesn't share the power held by the state equally among the voters as it favours the larger parties compared against the smaller parties. This is (at least partial) ownership of the state by individuals who are not the voters so it is invalid since the state is like land and is owned by everyone. No one owns the state and this is reflected in the democratic process but the fptp method denies this by making the assumption that the state can be fairly owned in an undemocratic way. Anything other than full democracy assumes that the state is the property of someone (or people) who is not the voters themselves, which is false since the state is a shared asset.

Demand is a lump (whereas labour is not a lump)

If you have ever spent time trying to work out a suitable birthday present for someone who is relatively wealthy it becomes apparent that most people have most of what they want. In a developed and relatively equal society most of the demands of most of the population are accounted for. They have what they want. For someone who seeks to earn money this is a problem because there is little to supply them with that they do not already have. There are certain things that people regularly buy such as food and to earn money a new entrant would need to be cheaper or more efficient than existing suppliers. But overall it is hard to break into the market because demand is a lump and people avoid spending money if they can.

Even rich people are pretty frugal with their money. Of course there are the exceptions of the 'playboy prince' and the female equivalent but overall rich people don't spend a proportionately greater amount of their wealth than the poor.

There are four ways to make a living

As far as I am aware (and please correct me if I am wrong) there are only four different ways to make a living and survive.

I'll get the easy one out of the way and begin by discussing communism. Communism is the ideology whereby there is no private property and everything is owned by the state. This means that only the state can feed you and only the state is able to be productive in the economic sense. Communism is widely recognised as being unworkable (an unworkable utopia) not least because so many lives have been lost in its implementation. It has a staggering history of failure.

If people think they might be able to make communism work where it has in the past failed then I suggest they should try to do so on their own in a small group and when people see how well it works they will copy the techniques themselves. There is no reason to involve the state in any future experiments in communism.

Having discussed communism it seems only natural to turn to what is considered by many to be its axiomatic opposite: capitalism. Again, most people are familiar with capitalism and how it works (most of us have devoted some of our thinking lives to working out how to get 'rich'). Capitalism has its problems... we know that some people who have very few in-demand skills will find it hard to prosper on their own in a capitalist system. We also know that as technology increases it will become increasingly difficult for typical people to sell their labour because labour costs will have been driven down.

I want to mention here that we might consider there to be two different types of capitalism, namely 'safe' capitalism and 'risky' capitalism. By safe capitalism I mean the safe job where you turn up for work and each working day is much like the last. Whilst you may have skills the skills are not too advanced. So this would be the proverbial burger-flipping or shelf-stacking. (Interesting to note as an aside that both of these types of labour, burger-flipping and shelf-stacking, are becoming increasingly complex and skilled work.)

More complicated and skilled work would be the kind for which the participant would generally become famous to a greater or lesser degree as a result of their activity. So this would be cultural stars such as singers or actors. Sports stars. Entrepreneurs and people who have been able to make a lot of money on the stock market. This type of capitalism is risky and might not earn anything for long periods prior to their success but when they eventually do make it big they will do very well.

In our capitalist careers we will generally need to consider both types of work, both the risky and the not-so-risky.

The third means by which we might be able to make a living is to have our own land which we use to grow crops and raise livestock. If we have our own land and a farm then it is possible (at least theoretically) to live in a self-sufficient way without having to buy produce from outside. We might barter some of our goods with a neighbour but we don't need money in the same way that most people need money. This would be a very drastic change in lifestyle for most people and at this point in history is almost an academic concept only. But as time goes forward and farming technology gets better this might become increasingly viable for large numbers of people.

Finally it might be possible for the government to introduce a scheme similar to the Universal Basic Income which has been suggested by some theorists. This would be a stipulated quantity of money given to everyone (every adult) regardless of their circumstances. Clearly if we have a fiat currency which the government can print this UBI would be much easier to implement because even if the government is unable to raise sufficient taxes the sum could still be paid.

The immediate thought would be that if everyone can live without working then there would be no one to provide the goods and services. This would be an interesting test of the claim made by some market-evangelists that they are not motivated at work by money alone. I suspect that many people do enjoy their free-market work irrespective of the profit element so perhaps people even with enough money to survive indefinitely would still go out and earn a living. Of course the UBI would not pay for luxuries so there would always be the incentive to earn that little bit extra which suggests this system might be possible.

In the face of increasing technology which is replacing workers it seems almost cruel on the part of the government not to consider some kind of universal income.

Robots and technology will replace workers

The reality of capitalism and technology is that machines are increasingly competent at work. This means for people who sell their labour that the machines encroach increasingly on their market. If people are able to employ machines cheaply instead of manual workers then the demand for labour will fall and manual labourers will be replaced in the market.

It can also be argued that machines will make it more difficult for employees in the 'knowledge economy' who sell information and knowledge. Computers have democratised access to information and as a result it is much easier to become an expert in a topic and to access the knowledge of an expert. So even (an employee in) the knowledge economy is not immune from the advance of technology.

Machines destroy jobs and since capitalism is able to provide machines then capitalism itself destroys jobs.

Democracy is bad for the land-establishment

Part of the problem in instigating land reform is that many countries use the first-past-the-post system of voting. With this system it is very difficult for the people (the voters) to remove the establishment from power. The establishment are that group of people who have traditionally ruled and (as a consequence) traditionally owned the land. Because the fptp system makes it difficult to remove the establishment (which might be called the land-establishment) land ownership remains the same. Under fptp the land-establishment remain because the people have no mechanism to remove them. With a fully-proportional system the people will be able to remove the historical land owners and thereby claim land freedom for themselves. The voters can acquire true land ownership for themselves if a proportional system is used. True democracy is favourable to those who have (wrongfully) been excluded from land. Democracy is good for the landless and bad for those who have historically owned the land (the land-establishment).

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.