: Your solution? To have land as rent free and peoples movement to be based on whim - that santa cruz becomes dangerously overcroweded and polluted, ala slums, because the entire world wants to stay there?
I suspect if quality of life deterioated, people would begin to move away, but I also doubt that such a scenario would cocur in teh first place, people would look for the 'elbow room' they desired, and cities as such would cease to exist, as would 'the countryside'.:What is your means to deciding the distribution of populace? Perhaps you suppose that poeple, upon seeing a popular location becoming crowded will move on, they will require the "ability or will-power"to do this.
Democracy would be the means, rather than a market which hits the poorest first.
: Except the few you mock are the many millions of the west who would be required to undergo 'assett stripping' should overnight economic equality be sought.
Nope, not so, the basic problem is the market system prevents and inhibits the economic growth of poorer nations, we would not be asset stripped down, the whole world would be levelled up.
: Again we have a situation where, because the 'west' developed culturally toward a materially wealthy society sooner than most they are targets *because* they developed in this direction first. Should they pay 'protection money' to the angry horde? This can only be believed if one attributed the wealth of the west to the lack of such in other countries, an ignorant belief.
Actually, no:
1:The English Cotton industry grew immensely rich by destroying the Indian cotton industry in about 1700.
2:Much English Capital was made through the slave trade, enormously profitable, low overheads.
3:England made a hell of a lot of its money by restricting the eocnomy of Ireland.
4:Erm, the British Empire, and the legacy of all empires and the Colonial economic systems that are still in place.
5:Atlanticist Imperialism.
You're again trying to put borders into a scenario where there would be non, it would not be the poor world against the rich, but a single world developing itself into sustainable prosperity: you use 'us' v. 'Them' to defend the current system.
: Criticisms of destructive monopolies which are companies protected by favor, tarifs and political pull are blamed upon private ownership of capital.
Nope, not the private ownership of capital, of the market system- Russia has already shown how unimportant private ownership of capital is in our equations....
None.
