Harry quoted Henry George: > "I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in > land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals > who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are > pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their > land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave > them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate > land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent."
If you keep private land ownership, you keep injust (inherited) privilege -- feudalism, basically --, massive inequality and land speculation -- which ultimately has led to the famous "crisis" in the whole economy. And there is no reason for private land ownership. The land is a commons and should be just that. But to ensure that good use is made of the land, it shouldn't be "collectivized" as in Marxism (so that no one feels responsible), but allocated to individuals/families (not for ownership, but for lease) according to their ability to work it. For a transition from the present system, it is indeed "not necessary to confiscate land". It would be sufficient to abolish inheritance of land, i.e. the community inherits it when the land owner dies. Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
