3 ms·
A possible justification is crime. I believe it is cheaper to pay someone enough money to allow them to survive and educate themselves, than to put them in a p
by ozzyman700 8y ago
A possible justification is crime.
I believe it is cheaper to pay someone enough money to allow them to survive and educate themselves, than to put them in a position where they weigh the risk of being caught with a crime with the risk of them/loved ones dying due to not having enough wealth to purchase the things they need.
Currently progress leads to more poverty as wealth is concentrated to landowners collecting rent. Every increase in productivity is consumed by increases in rent payment. Holding land and waiting for it to become valuable is absolutely insane to me. It is theft from the common good to allow that speculation of land, out premium finite resource.
Without land and labor combined their would exist no capital.
By taxing land value, increases in productivity are swallowed up by increases in taxes, leading to increases in social wellbeing.
I believe, along with most people who would call themselves Georgists, that private property is theft from the public
- zeroname 8y agoIf you look at the results of welfare programs, it would be hard to argue that they reduce crime. Crime isn't just about subsistence money. For a certain segment of the population, it's the only way to make significant amounts of money and also to get some sort of respect, status and power. If criminals could just be educated and get jobs and become ordinary members of society, then our social programs would work. They don't, because from a sober perspective, if you're already a criminal (or so inclined), then crime is more attractive and ordinary members of society appear as the powerless suckers they really are.