[...]Here is a Great site You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You To See For Yourself[...]……

Perhaps not, especially if there is global freedom of movement. People don’t breed like rabbits, oblivious to their environment. Today most of the poorest places are the least densely populated.

As for class rigidity, the source of this is State privilege, so those concerned about such rigidity have a strong interest in opposing all such privilege: tariffs, land control, patents, subsidies, and money and banking.

I agree that one cannot rest simply on “best available alternative.” If I give up my wallet to a mugger who demands, “Your money or your life!” we can’t be satisfied that I took the best alternative available. So with economies: We must inquire further to see if government has in any way restricted the set of alternatives.

By recognizing that the lowest of the low, the person who must rely upon their own manual labor _owns_ that labor, de Tracy has exceeded even modern “mainstream” economics.

The only “class” difference are those who can use coercion, and those upon whom coercion is used. When America had a much lower rate of government intervention, the saying was “rags to riches to rags in three generations”. A recognition of the fact that anyone could make themselves wealthy, or lose it all, through their own actions and choices.

Now, those opportunities are far fewer. Licensure, regulation, taxation, all making it nearly impossible for an upstart to overcome the “barriers to entry”.

Where is the social justice in that? Where is the “caring for the poor and needy” when the result of intervention is universal poverty for any but the establishment elite?