Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[WinterBorn]

My personal idea on solutions? Use empty gov't buildings to get them living inside, while we use job training, substance abuse programs and other programs designed to get them back on their feet, to get them places to live. Just handing them money will not help many of them in the long run. They have other issues that must be dealt with.

how is that market friendly? command economics must distort normal free markets.

It is far more market friendly than paying them unemployment when they do not fit the criteria.

My plan creates viable workers and consumers. It is not just handing out money but addressing the issues that caused the problems. Your plan does nothing to address the issues that were the root causes the homelessness for many in the first place. Substance abuse and mental health issues are rampant among the homeless. Giving them money without any other help would feed those problems rather than help them.

how is that any form of "free market" form of economics?

market participants should self-select. those who have an income and still can't should be a priority for means testing and that form of welfare.

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

how is that market friendly? command economics must distort normal free markets.

It is far more market friendly than paying them unemployment when they do not fit the criteria.

My plan creates viable workers and consumers. It is not just handing out money but addressing the issues that caused the problems. Your plan does nothing to address the issues that were the root causes the homelessness for many in the first place. Substance abuse and mental health issues are rampant among the homeless. Giving them money without any other help would feed those problems rather than help them.

how is that any form of "free market" form of economics?

market participants should self-select. those who have an income and still can't should be a priority for means testing and that form of welfare.

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

 

[g5000]

It is far more market friendly than paying them unemployment when they do not fit the criteria.

My plan creates viable workers and consumers. It is not just handing out money but addressing the issues that caused the problems. Your plan does nothing to address the issues that were the root causes the homelessness for many in the first place. Substance abuse and mental health issues are rampant among the homeless. Giving them money without any other help would feed those problems rather than help them.

how is that any form of "free market" form of economics?

market participants should self-select. those who have an income and still can't should be a priority for means testing and that form of welfare.

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is far more market friendly than paying them unemployment when they do not fit the criteria.

My plan creates viable workers and consumers. It is not just handing out money but addressing the issues that caused the problems. Your plan does nothing to address the issues that were the root causes the homelessness for many in the first place. Substance abuse and mental health issues are rampant among the homeless. Giving them money without any other help would feed those problems rather than help them.

how is that any form of "free market" form of economics?

market participants should self-select. those who have an income and still can't should be a priority for means testing and that form of welfare.

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run. The care of the housing is terrible. The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation. I have no problem with helping them. But there are systems in place for that, which I support.

 

[danielpalos]

how is that any form of "free market" form of economics?

market participants should self-select. those who have an income and still can't should be a priority for means testing and that form of welfare.

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

how is that any form of "free market" form of economics?

market participants should self-select. those who have an income and still can't should be a priority for means testing and that form of welfare.

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run. The care of the housing is terrible. The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation. I have no problem with helping them. But there are systems in place for that, which I support.

only if you argue in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving simple poverty means markets can operate more efficiently and lower costs to consumers.

 

[g5000]

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't believe "free market" is always the best way. There are things our society needs that should not be free market. Free market involves profit. Some areas of our society are not profitable, or should not be. I think the privatization of the prison system is a prime example of this.

But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your demand for unemployment compensation for those who would not normally fit the criteria for the existing system. Namely that they quit their job and do not want another job. Of course, that is an extreme minority of the unemployed.

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run. The care of the housing is terrible. The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation. I have no problem with helping them. But there are systems in place for that, which I support.

only if you argue in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving simple poverty means markets can operate more efficiently and lower costs to consumers.

Allowing anyone without a job to draw unemployment for as long as they want is not solving poverty.

 

[WinterBorn]

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

He and I have been arguing this for a long time. He demands that unemployment compensation be given to people who voluntarily quit their job and do not look for another one. Welfare requires some investigation into income and assets. He wants to bypass all that and just get a check.

He often posts a quote to the effect of "capital should work. Only fools and horse work". He is trying to justify not working but still getting paid. He does so by extolling the benefits of more people having money to spend, while ignoring that taking money via taxes reduces more people's ability to spend.

 

[danielpalos]

employment is at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

How would anyone wanting to rent housing be worse off if any given adult has recourse to unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed?

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run. The care of the housing is terrible. The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation. I have no problem with helping them. But there are systems in place for that, which I support.

only if you argue in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving simple poverty means markets can operate more efficiently and lower costs to consumers.

Allowing anyone without a job to draw unemployment for as long as they want is not solving poverty.

employers can't hire everyone. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment not a natural rate of Employment.

 

[danielpalos]

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

He and I have been arguing this for a long time. He demands that unemployment compensation be given to people who voluntarily quit their job and do not look for another one. Welfare requires some investigation into income and assets. He wants to bypass all that and just get a check.

He often posts a quote to the effect of "capital should work. Only fools and horse work". He is trying to justify not working but still getting paid. He does so by extolling the benefits of more people having money to spend, while ignoring that taking money via taxes reduces more people's ability to spend.

the is employment at will.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

You want that. It would create an entirely new bureaucracy. Duplication of services is never efficient. The Welfare system is better designed to provide long term income.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

It has been shown over and over that just handing someone money (or housing) does not change the situation in the long run. The care of the housing is terrible. The money is spent badly, often on the drugs or alcohol that sent them into poverty in the first place.

What I am advocating for the poor is that they take an active role in their climb out of their situation. I have no problem with helping them. But there are systems in place for that, which I support.

only if you argue in a vacuum of special pleading.

solving simple poverty means markets can operate more efficiently and lower costs to consumers.

Allowing anyone without a job to draw unemployment for as long as they want is not solving poverty.

employers can't hire everyone. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment not a natural rate of Employment.

That does not mean those who quit a job and do not seek another deserve unemployment.

 

[g5000]

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

the right wing refuses to distinguish between "regular welfare" and unemployment compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment, as a more efficient social safety net.

Ahhhhh. You are referring to the violation of natural rights as described by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, to name a couple.

So are you in favor of Paine's minimum basic income and/or Jefferson's progressive taxation?

 

[WinterBorn]

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

Explain "means testing". It looks to me like you and WinterBorn are talking past each other.

He and I have been arguing this for a long time. He demands that unemployment compensation be given to people who voluntarily quit their job and do not look for another one. Welfare requires some investigation into income and assets. He wants to bypass all that and just get a check.

He often posts a quote to the effect of "capital should work. Only fools and horse work". He is trying to justify not working but still getting paid. He does so by extolling the benefits of more people having money to spend, while ignoring that taking money via taxes reduces more people's ability to spend.

the is employment at will.

Indeed it is. And, as I said before, the income comes with the employment. You quit a job, you also quit getting paid.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have answered this question several times. You ignore the answer because it is not what you want to hear.

Taking money away from the people who earned it reduces their ability to spend it by more than the people who receive it are able to spend.

Creating the ability for more people to fend for themselves is far better than simply handing them money. The system already exists for giving money for those who are unable to work. And there is already a system in place for giving money to those in extreme poverty. It is called welfare. Unemployment compensation is not meant to be welfare.

that is what you are advocating for the poor. in a first world economy Only capital Has to circulate, not Labor in any at-will employment State.

it is better for market participants to self select.

How does a mentally ill drug addict self select?

through recourse to an income; the Person can either make it in a more fine and capital manner, or needs to become more of a priority for means testing.

The welfare system was designed for people who have no job and no prospects for a job. Duplication of that via the unemployment compensation system is not efficient.

We want more people on unemployment compensation instead of welfare.

Why do you want unemployment instead of welfare? Why do you care where the money comes from?

 

[g5000]

Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

To James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826