Harry wrote: > You want the land to be " leased to those best able to effective use". > > Who decides that? The trouble with political decisions is that corruption > soon finds its way into the operation.
This can be a transparent democratic decision. There's no room for corruption -- the reality (of how well that piece of land fares) shows who makes good use and who doesn't. > The market is impartial. It simply reflects the desires of the people. Far from that. Inheritance decides who inherits land. Then, only the owner decides who can buy it. That's totally arbitrary and dictatorial. If the owner makes bad use (or no use at all, speculating with it) of the land, then nobody can do anything about that. In the commons system, the land (lease) would be taken away from him and leased to someone who makes better use of it. > The "leasers' will quickly reflect their prejudices. The owners can apply total prejudice to whom they sell. In the commons system, the ability of lease candidates, not prejudices, will decide on who gets to lease the land. > Particularly when the leasers have to decide the "user does not make best > use of the land". The state of the land can be measured pretty objectively. (Soil quality, yield of produce.) Btw, in your privatized fire service system, who decides which fire company will be hired? That will quickly reflect prejudices, particularly when it comes to firing a fire company. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
