XPost: soc.culture.jewish   
   From: Josjoha@market.socialism.nl   
      
   Things are worse than what many people who critisize Central Banks as the   
   main cause of modern problems seem to think. Land (soil, trees, rivers,   
   the weather, _a place)_ is the starting point of all economics. Work   
   starts point blank, stick in the ground. There are no investors,   
   money doesn't even exist. This is here it already went wrong. In a   
   *civil* -ization, any sort off, you are supposed to be on the _same   
   side_ ultimately. Economics is friendly competition for a greater   
   good. Economics is not war, should not be war.   
      
   What does a _civilization_ do in the stone age: everyone will be allowed   
   to head into the woods and do what they need to do. Everyone gets access   
   to the river bank. In the stone age this is a given, and difficult to   
   prevent. If you get into an argument you walk away for a day and may never   
   see those people again. There you find: *free land.* The starting point   
   of the economy is always open to you. There are very few people. Trade   
   can already flourish in this environment, and reportedly did. This   
   is how humanity learned about trade. The land itself was not part of   
   it. Basically everyone had access to land, even though the quality was   
   not always the same.   
      
   Everything changed when people started farming, and this is where it   
   all went wrong already. They should have done the civilized thing and   
   given _everyone_ a right to land, and every generation again everyone   
   should have their right to a place honored, for free. In this kind of   
   an environment, trade flourishes and free initiative comes up from the   
   bottom non stop. Small businesses can have extremely low or even zero   
   fixed costs. They cannot even go bankrupt. Compare this to opening a   
   boutique shop in a busy city center.   
      
   This is where everything went wrong, this is where the disease is. It   
   is in the ignorance of the people to not allow _each other_ and everyone   
   their children, constantly and forever the right to an equal share of the   
   _land._ With the starting point of the economy being messed up, what was   
   to come of this was going to be the symptoms of the underlying disease.   
   This disease is thousands of years old.   
      
   The final stage of production and trade, the final aim, is money. Money   
   is the most refined product. Land itself is the start of all economics,   
   and money is the end. This disease of unfairness and ignorance in   
   the management of land, the fantasy that land would work in a market,   
   this war of all against all, has now burned through the entire economic   
   process. It starts with land centralization and landlessness, both of   
   course are one and the same thing. This is the start of the underclass,   
   the slavery class, and the master class, the bosses, the Dictators,   
   the exploitation.   
      
   In the middle of the problem you get dictatorial companies, well suited   
   to extract maximum value out of landless masses, and in the end you get   
   massive capital build up in the hands of the few, who set up parasitic   
   investment and loan operations. This latest group eventually manages to   
   overtake the State, take over basically everything, and these days they   
   have set up Central Banks. This is of course not the end either, but it   
   is a form of the ultimate economic power to be allowed to create the most   
   refined economic product (money) in infinite quantities for your private   
   gains. You could say that this is the ultimate form of economic abuse.   
      
   It is however still a symptom of an underlying disease, and that is the   
   failure to understand how land works in the era of farming. How does   
   it work then ? On top of a distribution of land by right, you can and   
   I think should have a market in land rent. You can rent your land out,   
   provided you can always get it back. You must always have the ability   
   to go back to your land. The good this does is so much, it would take   
   me another page to sing the praises of this model.   
      
   For starters anyway: small businesses do not require any investment,   
   small businesses do not go bankrupt, and nobody is unemployed by   
   definition. Even though having land does not equal success, at least   
   it gives people opportunity. Sitting on the sidelines is a 100% waste,   
   a total loss. If you have land you can at least still do _something._   
   You can also just do the same as ever, and search for a job at some   
   company who wants to hire you. This time you have land to share. It   
   makes you more powerful, also in the job market.   
      
   I have already heard all the supposed arguments against it, and it is   
   quite tiring to deal with the shallowness with which these arguments are   
   thrown up. Favorites are: we don't all want to become farmers (a phony   
   argument, nobody said that), or such a system cannot adapt to changes in   
   population (also phony, it depends on how you implement it). Meanwhile   
   the quite complicated system we have now, where land is often not at all   
   available to people who want it, is completely ignored. As if things are   
   working well in the system we have. No, things do not work well, at all.   
      
   It is however Game Over time. Humanity has had more than enough time to   
   get serious and civil. They chose not to, and now in the age of nukes   
   they still don't care. Humanity has failed. Perhaps the best that can   
   happen to humanity, with its stone age mindset and inability to adapt   
   to a farming life, let alone a high technological life, is to indeed go   
   back to the state which their minds never left. The Stone age. Humanity   
   belongs in the Stone Age, where it is _unable_ to deny each other basic   
   freedoms. The violence of humanity also belongs in the stone age. We don't   
   need violence, we have all the tools we need to defeat any animal. We   
   only risk our own survival with continued violence.   
      
   Humanity is a flat out full bore failure, although it could have been   
   worse. Maybe it is fair to say that if humanity needed to score at least   
   a 6 on the development scale of intelligence and civility to make it as   
   a farming species, on a scale from 0 to 10, then maybe humanity scores   
   .... something like a .... pff I don't know ... a 3 or a 4 ? Not as   
   bad as it could be, but significantly not good enough, a margin which   
   will not easily be made up for. I think this situation implies natural   
   consequences, a natural correction where the violence that should not   
   have been anymore, the centralization that should not have been anymore,   
   will do their natural thing, resulting in humanity being put back in   
   the Stone Age.   
      
   That is the lucky outcome, by the way. There are two worse outcomes:   
   extinction and high technological hell forever (the aim of our ruling   
   class, they think they will be the masters of that hell; serious i'm not   
   joking at all, everyone with a kill chip in their head and then they will   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)