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.