Forum Post: Why is the only choice Capitalism and Socialism which gives us the same outcome only by degree

http://www.henrygeorge.org/canons.htm ;

Some people have mistakenly called Henry George either a capitalist or a socialist, but he was not either, at least not in any simple sense. One might say that George’s philosophy mixes capitalism and socialism, but it is more accurate to say that it is a distinctive philosophy that is neither capitalist nor socialist.

The central principles of capitalism in its purest form are: 1) free exchange of goods in an unregulated market; 2) limited taxes to pay for limited government, and 3) private ownership of property.

The central principles of socialism are: 1) government control or regulation of the market; 2) high taxes to pay for expanded government services; and 3) government ownership of major industries (particularly large industries that are prone to monopoly control).

The central principles of Georgism are: 1) free exchange of goods in markets, with limited regulation of commerce; 2) no taxes on labor; high taxes on certain kinds of property; 3) private ownership of property, but fully offset by taxes that virtually eliminate unearned wealth

he philosophy of Henry George offers a distinctive perspective on the problem of poverty. Although there are hints of that perspective in “The End of Poverty?” no film could possibly capture its complexity. For simplicity, we will refer to the philosophy of Henry George as “Georgism,” although it also goes by other names, such as Geo-economics, Geonomics, and cooperative individualism.

Great website: povertythinkagain.com/poverty/

http://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-sponsor-of-the-film-the-end-of-poverty-georgism-capitalism-and-socialism/

http://wageslaverebel.com/the-abolition-of-wage-slavery-as-our-moral-obligation-part-i/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elg6i3NxvdE

By “poor,” Henry George did not mean people with incomes below some arbitrary “poverty line.” Instead, he defined rich and poor in relative terms in the following way: Anyone receiving greater income or wealth than his/her contribution to an economy is “rich,” and anyone receiving less than his/her contribution is “poor.” In short, anyone who is denied the full use of his/her wages is deemed poor, regardless of income level. By Henry George’s definition, many people currently regarded as “middle class” in the US or elsewhere would be “poor,” simply because their income consists solely of wages, and those wages are heavily taxed. The rich are those who live primarily on property income rather than wage income.

http://s2be.org/economicevils.php