Form: Question

(Serious, even if it seems antagonistic) So, the principle result of western manorialism was to make best use of land for the community, and by consequence, prevent the reproduction of those who were unproductive. This was an enormously successful program when combined with prohibition on inbreeding – it converted most of Europe into the descendants of the middle class. And while it is an uncomfortable truth that the underclasses are both unproductive and expensive, why is it that we should redistribute to the unproductive, rather than use land to constrain the reproduction of the unproductive, as we have done, and others have done, for thousands of years? We must be equal under the law for a variety of reasons, none of which are just, all of which are necessary for the production of competitive economic velocity. But we are certainly not equal in value to one another. Vast numbers are dead weight on the rest. Even for the productive, I do not understand why I have any particular right to live in central manhattan when those who live there make better value of close proximity to others of exceptional ability than I would make of it. Nor do I understand why progressive taxation of property transactions and income which is onerous already, is not a sufficient means of extraction of value that can be contributed to the commons. I have been struggling to understand this movement for a long time and I am still unfortunately mystified by the assumption that the idea is a ‘good’ one. And I am still hoping that someone can inform me. (Although, truthfully I expect the usual rants rather than to be informed.) Thanks for anyone who helps.