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.