Work For Dole

[Injin]

then ultimately, and in all seriousness, what kind of state or lack of state do you envision, if everything worked out the way you'd like it?

I don't disagree with a lot of your points, but the big problem isn't necessarily the system we have, but all of the people involved.

they are going to be with us no matter what we chose to do.

I have no idea.

My position doesn't require a plan. It's just logical and moral.

Or is that just, logical and moral?

[Injin]

So how would you have the land distributed? Equally, according to lottery, according to skill, a land grab thingy like in that Tom Cruise film, most guns wins, just let the people do whatever they want wherever they want (ie. most guns wins), etc

No idea.

Put down the guns, then we can talk.

[BoomBoom]

I agree, it's not the act of a simpleton to persuade someone else to earn his living for him. Quite the opposite in fact. (Which begs the question of where the slaves really are, in this system).

But the unemployed with a work-ethic can be helped back to work, so the repeat customers (= repeat profits) for these companies will indeed be the work shy ones. Or do you think that the companies will do their job, problem solved, and everyone can go home/to work?

Yu assume that the repeatedly unemployed are to blame for their situation. Casualisation of labour is a large factor

[huw]

Nope. What was said is that everyone has a right to some land, I agree. You introduced the idea of everyone getting an equal share of the landmass. I had in mind something more in the mould of an allotment. I think every family should have the opportunity to grow their own food if they desire.

I used the UK landmass as an example of the maximum amount that could be available given current practicalities, and to demonstrate the insufficiency of the resource given the UK population (bottom line: it would be extraordinarily difficult for us to feed ourselves on the land we have; you pretty much by definition need more than your 'fair share' if you are to do so). More fundamentally I was referring to an equal share of a 'limited' amount of land, which could obviously be less than the entire UK.

If land is a birthright, either it's divided equally, or unequally. At the moment we have unequally, which you and others find objectionable, so I'm assuming you prefer equally. And as I've demonstrated, a system of an equal birthright of land for all is not workable in practice.

I agree that people should have the opportunity to have allotments, by the way

[huw]

Yu assume that the repeatedly unemployed are to blame for their situation. Casualisation of labour is a large factor

Just going by my own experience, there are of course large numbers of unemployed people that I've never met; for all I know they could be champing at the bit for the chance to earn their own living.

[Injin]

I used the UK landmass as an example of the maximum amount that could be available given current practicalities, and to demonstrate the insufficiency of the resource given the UK population (bottom line: it would be extraordinarily difficult for us to feed ourselves on the land we have; you pretty much by definition need more than your 'fair share' if you are to do so). More fundamentally I was referring to an equal share of a 'limited' amount of land, which could obviously be less than the entire UK.

If land is a birthright, either it's divided equally, or unequally. At the moment we have unequally, which you and others find objectionable, so I'm assuming you prefer equally. And as I've demonstrated, a system of an equal birthright of land for all is not workable in practice.

I agree that people should have the opportunity to have allotments, by the way

But mostly you've assumed ownership.

[huw]

But mostly you've assumed ownership.

A fair-share system couldn't support ownership, since the allocation depends on the current population. As someone who believes that property rights bring benefits, this is problematic for me. What if I fertilise and plough and plant my patch, and then the population doubles and half of it is taken away from me? If I'm to improve a patch of land, I want some certainty that it will be available to me in future.

[Injin]

A fair-share system couldn't support ownership, since the allocation depends on the current population. As someone who believes that property rights bring benefits, this is problematic for me. What if I fertilise and plough and plant my patch, and then the population doubles and half of it is taken away from me? If I'm to improve a patch of land, I want some certainty that it will be available to me in future.

Sure.

You can own vegetables.

You cannot own land.

[pppeter]

Sure.

You can own vegetables.

You cannot own land.

Under what circumstances should someone other than huw be able to use the land that he is using if neither owns it? Who should define the term "using"?

[Injin]

Under what circumstances should someone other than huw be able to use the land that he is using if neither owns it? Who should define the term "using"?

Reality defines, always.

Basically, the real question here is -

When is any person justified in attacking another?

[Mr Nice]

Reality defines, always.

Basically, the real question here is -

When is any person justified in attacking another?

that sounds like you are leaning towards:

"If we were all just nice to each other, and respected each other, things would work out for the best."

which, is probably true, but doesn't explain what you do when someone comes along and DOESN'T follow that principle.

you end up right back with policing groups, power structures etc.

[Injin]

that sounds like you are leaning towards:

"If we were all just nice to each other, and respected each other, things would work out for the best."

which, is probably true, but doesn't explain what you do when someone comes along and DOESN'T follow that principle.

you end up right back with policing groups, power structures etc.

I lean towards "if some of us didn't believe such utter drivel then we'd make more rational decisions."

Can people stop believing in drivel?

Yes, they sure can. The last two centuries proved it. They came up with some brand new drivel mind you that was even worse on occasion but the general trend is to become more rational.

[pppeter]

I lean towards "if some of us didn't believe such utter drivel then we'd make more rational decisions."

Can people stop believing in drivel?

Yes, they sure can. The last two centuries proved it. They came up with some brand new drivel mind you that was even worse on occasion but the general trend is to become more rational.

Loading up on guns and booting people off land they've cultivated is rational, at least in the short term. If you've got an idea for a new system then that would be interesting, but avoiding direct answers whilst hinting that you have some well thought out insights isn't. Being someone who Hates The System doesn't make you interesting or your thoughts worthwhile, it just makes for pointless discussions that go nowhere.

People will stop believing in drivel if you stop writing it!

[MarkG]

bottom line: it would be extraordinarily difficult for us to feed ourselves on the land we have

No, just very expensive. Somewhere I have an article about an American university research project in the 70s where they set out to make a house self-sufficient in energy and food, which they achieved with hydroponics and the like, even using methane from rotting waste to power the car for short trips... however, it sure wasn't cheap.

[Abstra]

Saw this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7514513.stm

but my first reaction was that by introducing work for dole, it would increase competition for jobs and act to reduce wage demands. Keeping wage inflation down is obviously critical to controlling inflation, and lowering inflation is key to keep interest rates down. House prices are obviously influenced strongly by interest rates.

So is the work for dole, tied to a desire to keep inflation lower and try to prevent house prices falling? The fact that lowering sterling is persuading Poles (and others) to leave, would otherwise make it harder to find people to employ to do low-skill, manual labour type work. By increasing the size of the pool of potential workers those desiring to employ low-skill workers will find they can pay less. Lower inflation, lower rates, smaller house price falls.

Just shows that all these things can be linked to the HPC, and conversely HPC is tied to the rest of the economy.

any thoughts on the magnitude effect of keeping salaries down on inflation? I remember some figures a couple of years ago about the effect of Polish plumbers on inflation. Not an effect that can be ignored. A good fraction of people earn relatively low salaries, and keeping the tail of wages low at the bottom end will drag down wage claims at all income groups. How will that play on into earning distributions and house prices?

Optobear

Not much of a drag effect on 600,000 public sector workers now is it. I've not even read it; what a load of garbage, work for the dole. Are we all to become state employees now!.

[geoffk]

There is one little problem with all these plans and that is...labour will not win the next general election...

[Injin]

There is one little problem with all these plans and that is...labour will not win the next general election...

Will there be one?

[huw]

No, just very expensive. Somewhere I have an article about an American university research project in the 70s where they set out to make a house self-sufficient in energy and food, which they achieved with hydroponics and the like, even using methane from rotting waste to power the car for short trips... however, it sure wasn't cheap.

I've looked at growing using hydroponics and as you say it's extremely expensive (and not really self-sufficient because the materials and energy embodied in all the kit has come from somewhere). At household level, it only makes commercial sense if you're growing (ahem) something more valuable than food crops.

So I strongly suspect that part of what made it 'expensive' is energy imports of one kind or another (for example, the manufacture, maintenance, and ultimate replacement of the various bits of high-tech gear needed, such as wind turbines or solar panels). Projects of this kind, IME, often fail to do their energy and scalability accounting properly. I'd certainly be interested to learn more about the project though.

[huw]

Reality defines, always.

Basically, the real question here is -

When is any person justified in attacking another?

From the POV of the farmer, the attacker is the landless person who seeks to appropriate the fruits of the farmer's labour.

From the POV of the landless person, the attacker is the farmer for trying to appropriate the landless person's birthright.

Mostly, people think they are defending. It will ever be thus.

The model only works when there's a frontier, i.e. the birthright can be claimed without impacting on anybody else.

[Injin]

From the POV of the farmer, the attacker is the landless person who seeks to appropriate the fruits of the farmer's labour.

I already said, he's entitled to the veg. he isn't entitled to claim he owns land, the idea is quite, quite mad.

From the POV of the landless person, the attacker is the farmer for trying to appropriate the landless person's birthright.

From the POV of reality, the attacker is whoever first uses violence.

Mostly, people think they are defending. It will ever be thus.

Reality > opinions.

The model only works when there's a frontier, i.e. the birthright can be claimed without impacting on anybody else.

Nah, the model only works when people are willing to submit to reality , facts and evidemce. This people are loathe to do because of various psychological reasons when they start using a flawed model and then are asked to switch.

[huw]

I already said, he's entitled to the veg. he isn't entitled to claim he owns land, the idea is quite, quite mad.

That's a simplistic view of land stewardship; there's a lot more to it than putting down some seeds. He will have improved the land (but only if he is incentivised to do so through the knowledge that he, rather than a landless stranger, will reap the fruits of that labour).

From the POV of reality, the attacker is whoever first uses violence.

You mean violence against another human being? There are plenty of other ways to deter someone, ways that will inevitably escalate to real violence. Conflict is implicit in any situation where scarce resources are allocated to competing parties; a system of functioning property rights moves that conflict to the marketplace.

[Injin]

That's a simplistic view of land stewardship; there's a lot more to it than putting down some seeds. He will have improved the land (but only if he is incentivised to do so through the knowledge that he, rather than a landless stranger, will reap the fruits of that labour).

it's pretty simple. if you damage someones property, then you have a right to compensation. Land ownership isn't possible in the way that ownership of cabbages or house (for example) is. By all means look after the land but don't attack people who just happen to be on it.

You mean violence against another human being? There are plenty of other ways to deter someone, ways that will inevitably escalate to real violence. Conflict is implicit in any situation where scarce resources are allocated to competing parties; a system of functioning property rights moves that conflict to the marketplace.

Property rights can be based on -

1) Facts, logic and evidence.

2) Whim of someone with a big stick.

Currently we have 2. Even if the current system moved more towards using facts and evidence it would be a start. As things stand, there is too much profit in being corrupt once we allow a few guys with sticks to decide what goes where and who can use what. Everything stops being about facts and starts being about who benefits the deciders most. This is why our perfectly reasonable system of common law has always had a blind spot towards this issue (and a few others.)

ideally, if you believe in authoritarian solutions to such problems, what you are seeking is a guy with a big stick who is also rational. It's a very needle and haystack approach to solving a problem imo but I will admit we have sort of managed it in the recent past somehow because otherwise we wouldn't have capitalism at all.

Also theres a problem with the "conflict is inevitable" part of your equation. This only happens where there is a perceived or actual imbalance of power usually. The french and british get along splendidly now they have nukes.

[pppeter]

it's pretty simple. if you damage someones property, then you have a right to compensation. Land ownership isn't possible in the way that ownership of cabbages or house (for example) is. By all means look after the land but don't attack people who just happen to be on it.

Going back to the original issue, the problem is that people do not have access to land because it is all owned. It all also has people's property on it and is all used. Are you suggesting that unemployed should be allowed to come onto land that I use and damage whatever I have on that land (grass, crops, property, livestock or whatever) and appropriate the land for their own use if they don't think I'm making enough use of it? If not then there is one alternative to the proposal in the original link - the unemployed or the government should compensate me for not being able to use the land. What if they can't afford it, and what if they compensate someone who claims to be using the land when it is being used by someone else?

You've not worked out a system, you just give evasive or nonsense answers, so I'm not expecting much here. I would like to know though, how a system could work under all the terms you've come out with. I believe the best case scenario would be that the rational people who believed in the system and wanted to make it work would have to subjugate themselves to the rule of psycopaths and keep their fingers crossed. Failing that they could form a government with the power to imprison the psycopaths and codify the silly "use of land/compensation" thing into property ownership rights to allow the market to decide who uses the land.

Property rights can be based on -

1) Facts, logic and evidence.

2) Whim of someone with a big stick.

Currently we have 2.

If someone tried to sell your house you'd realise we only have 1. Go to the seller with a stick and the police will eject you from the premises. Spend thousands taking the facts to court and you get your house back.

Edited July 19, 2008 by pppeter

[huw]

it's pretty simple. if you damage someones property, then you have a right to compensation. Land ownership isn't possible in the way that ownership of cabbages or house (for example) is. By all means look after the land but don't attack people who just happen to be on it.

Even if their actions are depriving you of the benefit of the land you've been looking after (i.e., your livelihood)?

Property rights can be based on -

1) Facts, logic and evidence.

2) Whim of someone with a big stick.

In the end it always comes down to (2), a claim to property is meaningless unless you have a way to enforce that claim (that goes for idealists who think the universe owes them some land, too )

(typo)

Edited July 19, 2008 by huw

[huw]

If someone tried to sell your house you'd realise we only have 1. Go to the seller with a stick and the police will eject you from the premises. Spend thousands taking the facts to court and you get your house back.

Don't forget that the court enjoys the services of a man with a big stick.