faq

Frequently asked questions or counter arguments.

As expected it seems that most confusion is generated by the idea that everyone should have an inalienable right to land, therefore this is the largest topic in this Frequently Asked Questions document.

A – Summary

1 – This is a rather thick book, where is the summary, why don’t you write a summary ?

Answer: The summary is part of the book itself, which starts with some general economic theory and then a summary version of a system of society as proposed on page 71, 72, after which it will get progressively more detailed, which is what the rest of the book is about.

2 – What is the essential point of your book, what is the most important claim ?

Answer: Since western society already idealizes things like a democratic State, Justice with competent defense in court under public law, freedom of self determination of people and Nations, all of which could perhaps need perfecting (which is what the book is about), perhaps the most important claim of the book is the idea that everyone has an inalienable right to free land (natural resources). What the vote is in politics, is what land is in economics. What bribing representatives and buying votes is in politics (correctly understood as corruption and against the law, especially in a system where a dictatorship of the rich is looming large or an established fact), is what buying land as a perpetual property is to the economy (which is not yet comprehended or agreed to by this culture). Markets in land held as a permanently owned asset at any quantity, turns the system into a dictatorship by the rich. Because land (the place, the natural resource, nature) is not made by human effort, it does not fall under the same economic logic that products and services fall under. The price does not balance around a dynamic equilibrium like services and goods should. The dynamic price equilibrium of the goods and services market even depends on the free right to land for all.

B – Inalienable right to land.

1 – “Not everyone can have land, there are too many people.“

Answer: The matter at hand is not to make everyone a farmer who lives isolated from all other people, but rather to resolve the question of who shall own, control and profit from what land is available.

2 – “Many people are not interested in owning land.“

Answer: Then they can either ignore their right to land, or they can rent it to someone else, or even find someone to handle the trouble of land rent contracts in return for a share of the profit for example. Although one may not every day be in need of having a vote in Government, a proper court to resolve a dispute, or other such important elements in society, it can become essential when the need arises. So it is also with land, which in principle resolves the problem of joblessness because having land is having a job, it resolves the problem of low cost and easy startup for business if the land is free.

3 – “Not everyone wants to be a farmer.“

Answer: Not all land is being used for farming, and not only farming land should be distributed. For example one may envision fairly small plots allowing for a modest building on each, to be freely available near villages and towns for all who live there, to start their free life in industry and trade if they so prefer.

4 – “It is impossible to give everyone the same value in land.“

Answer: Although that is probably true if one fidgets up to the last penny in a year, some reasonable estimates will have to be made, which will likely be a decent improvement compared to the disproportionally owned land distribution in the current Capitalist order.

5 – “We don’t want to go back to the stone age past.“

Answer: Ironically the current trade in land is a stone age way of looking at land ownership, which has not yet incorporated the good sense of farming: allowing everything its rightful place, to live and flourish. If we want to hang on to our technological achievements, we may want to modernize our economic understanding, and quit dividing people into bosses and serfs as a necessity of economic productivity. Keep in mind that even though everyone has a right to an equal value of land and seemingly trade in land will no longer be allowed, rent contracts and land swap contracts still provide the benefit of a market, without denying people their inalienable right to a free life.

Undersigned also had to adjust to the idea that land is a right for all, however the logic is inescapable. Indeed the longer one thinks about it the more natural and true it will seem. Who has no land is ultimately a roaming slave looking for a master to serve. There are many more issues to debate when it comes to land ownership, see elsewhere or even better: think things over if you feel the need.

C – Confusion with other Ideologies

1 – “‘Socialism‘ can never work, people are naturally selfish.“

Answer: Precisely, that is why neither Capitalism nor Communism works well, or to put it differently: there seems to be room for improvement. People who make this accusation typically seem to take the meaning of ‘Socialism‘ to be anti-Social, dictatorship,tyranny, a centrally planned economy, and the like. Notice the difference between nationalization and socialization. Socialization can also be to change a monopoly business into a series of non-monopolistic co-operative businesses in the free market. Socialization of soil can be: give everyone their right to soil and freedom. Socialization does not have to be nationalization. What is proposed here is a free market.

The irony is that in the system of Capitalism, everything will eventually be nationalized under an Oligarchy, until it is a privately run centrally planned economy with a privately owned State, whether or not it will then still be called Capitalism is irrelevant to the problems at hand. In Capitalism the wealthy will have ever more ability to gain ever more wealth, more land, more businesses, more debt instruments, limitless more Capital, whereas the common man over time impoverishes under such pressure. There is little or nothing that reverses the centralization of wealth in a Capitalist economy. Perhaps a highly moral buying activism by the population, or an angelic generosity, are theoretical counter balances against the centralization, which in practice only the smallest fraction of the population is capable off.

Capitalism is a Utopia, requiring mankind to be extraordinarily moral, short of which the system will degenerate into a system of slavery, even when that can take centuries. Market Socialism aims to alter precisely that, by making hard law that secures everyone their power in the economy permanently, while shattering an excess of wealth centralization, and capping the system off with a tight democratic State election system, as well as other measures.

2 – “‘Socialism‘ is supposed to mean that the Government owns everything.“

Answer: That would be called Communism (Commune+ism), or a centrally planned economy. The word Socialism does not have a clear meaning in terms of how the society should be structured. The word “Socialism” is a question, rather than an answer, a question for a humane, peaceful and just society that this website tries to answer.

Particularly American domestic propaganda has been trying to re-define “Socialism” to (exclusively) mean a totalitarian Government, also usually portrayed as a dictatorship / tyranny. They have turned the meaning of “Social + ism” on its head, to make “social” mean the same as “anti-social”. Some people calling themselves “Socialist” agree with that, others never did. The meaning of the word “Socialism” on this website is the opposite of a totalitarian Government or other such entity (such as cliques of the super wealthy).

The meaning of “Socialism” is taken from the root: “social”. It is “social” to have a trade between free people rather than slavery, it is “social” to talk and listen to each other, rather than give or obey orders blindly. It is “anti-social” to rob and dominate people by force. This website does not follow the Orwellian New Speak shallow and hostile re-definitions of words in western propaganda. If a group of criminal tyrants started calling themselves “humanitarian democrats”, will crime and torture henceforth be the meaning of the words “humanitarian” and “democrat”, if a criminal calls themselves “good”, will acts of crime henceforth be called “good” ?

D – Author

1 – Why should we believe you. We don’t believe in you. We don’t like you. You did this/that the other thing that wrong (etc) …

Answer: This is not about a witness report, for which you need the credibility of the person. This is also not about a field of expertise so difficult, you could not casually understand what it is about and what is the truth, so that you would be reduced to observing the results of the seeming magic that was going on. If it was either of those, you would probably want to invest some credibility in the source itself, before thinking about anything.

This proposal here is not about something like that. If you cannot handle the logic of the proposals here on your own, regardless of what you perceive is the credibility of the source (or have been told is the credibility by the people you might be worshipping), then you cannot operate as a voter in this system. It will be about problems like this all the time.

Once the deceivers come, looking shiny and good, how will you resist them if you cannot think about the topics yourself ? Once there is an individual with a grievance and you have been told lies about them, or even if the truth is not that nice, and perhaps their clothes are torn and he is not looking well, then will you listen and find out what is Justice and the Truth, or will you automatically assume that it is not worth your time ?

It does not matter what my credibility is. I prefer my personal credibility to not be too high, so that we don’t get phoney follower types, who will later proof to be unable to maintain themselves as rational voters. Blind and worshipping follower types don’t contribute to the socio-political process with their own input. They form human cattle for demagogues, who will ruin it.