So, gather round the camp fire!
If you wanted a brief introduction into "Georgism", this is it, and, #YangGang, this can really help you sharpen your arguments.
Both men saw the Native American, wandering the land and surviving totally on his own efforts, as in a state between that of white landowners and that of white wage laborers. https://twitter.com/scottsantens/status/960642908234964992?s=20
He was trying to determine why material and technological progress was accompanied by a growth in poverty.
You could call this "wealth inequality."
And he proposed a remedy.
The point is to talk about how "the enslavement of labor" through land monopolization is the justification for UBI, as Paine argued.
Our current "wage slavery" - yes, you can use that term, as I hope that you learn from reading this - is merely a different and less directly violent form of slavery.
Exclusively owning land makes one a slave master.
No person created the Earth. We must always point this out.
Therefore, nobody has any authority to come between another person and needed, life-sustaining resources.
That is #geoism.
A few persons own all of what only nature - or God - created.
To exclusively own land is to own the people who need the land.
There's no mention of "capitalists."
George saw the labor-vs-capital conflict as hopelessly misguided. He believed that labor and capital should be naturally allied against landowners.
Think about what you are trying to accomplish - and why you're trying to accomplish it - by enacting UBI. https://twitter.com/JamesRobichaux/status/1201605702218928128?s=20
At one time, if you could not live freely because others already controlled the land where you were, you could just go to where there were no or fewer people.
George was writing at a time when this option was quickly disappearing.
However, at the time that George was writing this, most of my ancestors were not wage slaves. Most of them owned land from which they subsisted.
Please read this little thread. https://twitter.com/JamesRobichaux/status/1155488350226341889?s=20
Universal basic income is merely the modern equivalent of the "free land" that so many of our (white) ancestors were legally allowed to own, because modern technology means that it no longer makes sense to live and PRODUCE that way. https://twitter.com/JamesRobichaux/status/1155501069276983296?s=20
This is why universal basic income is a matter of JUSTICE.
It's NOT a "gift" or a "handout."
Want food and shelter? You're not allowed to do that yourself. You have to "get a job."
"Ownership of land gives absolute power over people who cannot live except by using it."
The first is that "ownership" and "property" is *supposed to* refer to things that one has created, produced, or earned.
But no human being created or produced land; therefore, no human being can earn land.
Success and freedom - and access to life's necessities - does not go to who actually works more, produces more, or behaves better.
Success goes to who is best at muscling others out of what NATURE created.
You hear this as a common defense of the status quo, of poverty.
But "survival of the fittest" doesn't justify taking for everyone else what no person created in the first place.
There are, today, scads of professional workers - like some attorneys and property managers - whose job is not to create or produce things but MAINTAIN control of nature for its exclusive owners.
Today, the most privileged people in our society get paid - and live by - not by producing things but by owning things and charging access to them.
This is why we say . . . . #TaxTheRent.
but . . .
George was suggesting that traditional legal rights were not enough to qualify us as truly being free.
This was written in the 1870s.
Do you see why a narrow focus on raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" but not being for EMANCIPATION of the wage earner in the 21st Century is so repugnant?
First, note that owners of chattel slaves had a far greater incentive to ensure that their slaves' basic needs were met than modern employers, who can more easily shed unwanted laborers and find new ones, have.
Think about that.
"It does not seem to be one human being who drives another," and "for this, no one in particular is responsible."
Recognize the profound meaning there? how it explains our present powerlessness and self-blame? because we have no clearly-defined oppressor?
as if it were like going to kill a deer and cut down trees to make homes.
Universal basic income is reparations for land enclosure, which was deliberately done in order to compel the dispossessed to do powerful people's bidding.
A basic income could defeat the scarcity mindset, instil a sense of solidarity and even ease the anxieties that gave us Brexit and Trumphttps://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/04/basic-income-birthright-eliminating-poverty
So, if you're homeless and starve and die, because you aren't even allowed to go pick nuts and berries somewhere, well, it's just your fault then, right?
It's important to remember what the real reason for the Republican Party's opposition to the *spread of* chattel slavery to the West was: the western territories were an outlet for white people to escape the wage slavery spreading in the North.
They had no land of their own.
Have you noticed that I often refer to us today as "landless people"?
The Republican Party's opposition to the *spread of* chattel slavery was more motivated by white people's desire to avoid having *their* children fall into wage slavery.
Henry George is telling you why those are actually victory monuments.
Only the form of slavery changed in the South.
There were many reasons for that, but one is manifestly obvious.
Is it any wonder they continue to alienate even the dispossessed self-starting people? https://twitter.com/JamesRobichaux/status/1200825867334815746?s=20
Think about what that means TODAY, more than a century after George wrote it.
One thing that it means is "employers," many of whom are, like their laborers, struggling to survive due to their own dispossession from land.
and . . . .
The modern Progressive Movement would do well to understand that one can be both an employer and a wage slave.
George understood that, and that is what he is explaining here.
But the basic structures of feudalism and plantationism remain; a few people own all natural resources that NOBODY created and that all of us need.
During feudalism and chattel slavery, the enslaved either dealt directly with their masters or dealt with maybe one intermediary person.
Nowadays, we mostly don't know who our masters are.
But masters they are.
Seriously, read this.
George was basically a capitalist for things that people created and a socialist for what nature created.
Here, George is telling you one factor: the frontier, the "escape valve," was closing quickly!
"It drives people to acts barbarians would refuse."
YES! This is part of what we mean by the "Scarcity Mindset" that plagues society, and it is due to the ARTIFICIAL scarcity that our system of land ownership creates.
George wanted to remedy it.
It makes me think of that saying that you often here:
"if your business can't pay a living wage, then you shouldn't be in business!"
Again, does the Progressive Movement WANT to continue to lose elections?
George thought that they should form a natural alliance against landowners.
But modern "progressives" pit them against each other.
In our modern, technologized society, most employers are not plantation owners!
But we no longer live and work that way!
We live in a fundamentally abusive culture.
We have been so terribly conditioned to think that we must justify our own existence to those who stand between us and Nature.
Our Bill Of Rights?
All of these are hollow if many human beings must still comply with the demands of a few human beings who have taken Nature and not compensated us.
Are we, then, truly a "free country"?
I hope that, with this thread, I have helped convey why the automation argument is so weak.
But it's not natural. It's a political choice.
Do you see the difference?
He talks about UBI *as* a human right but doesn't talk much about *why* it is a human right.
The Earth, which no person created, is also not the property of anyone, since no person created it.
But we need exclusive land *control* in order to sustain modern production levels.
And this is why we need UBI.
I welcome feedback.
I urge you to watch this video.
All, even most of those employed and with homes, but the independently wealthy are on a spectrum that causes some to be homeless or the victims of human trafficking. https://twitter.com/BeyondSlavery/status/1201469139459694592?s=20
The railroad engineer who is paid a $80,000/year salary and sees his kids only a few nights per week needs basic income just as much as a homeless person. https://www.tulevaisuustalo.fi/en/articles/basic-income-new-universalism/
Universal basic income is firstly universal, secondly about income and only thirdly basic. In short, the most radical thing about basic income is that it touches everyone. This marks a significant...https://www.tulevaisuustalo.fi/en/articles/basic-income-new-universalism/