Live in prosperity because all goods are available in large enough quantities for everyone.
Yes, but because of (a) absentee landlordism
(Ted Turner alone "owns" millions of acres of land, the Queen of England billions
of acres) and (b) the fact that land, by definition
, is in fixed supply
(neither humans nor robots can produce more of it), there will continue to be an artificial scarcity of available land. (As millions of Third World peasants will readily attest, for land to be unavailable to anyone unable to afford the rent
it commands, it has only to be legally
occupied, not physically
And as Henry George
and Max Hirsch
proved long ago, if a mere subset of the population is allowed to assert exclusive, unconditional "ownership" of the land on which all must live yet which none produced
, then regardless of how much labor-saving technology advances, there will continue to be parasitic rent-gouging
and, consequently, poverty in the midst of plenty
"Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
"She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
"The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx)."
“Given a stationary population and private ownership of all land, improvements in manufacturing methods do not, in the long-run, increase the earnings of labour and capital, but are absorbed by rent
"I am using the word wages not in the sense of a quantity, but in the sense of proportion. When I say that wages fall as rent rises, I do not mean that the quantity of wealth obtained by laborers as wages is necessarily less, but that the proportion which it bears to the whole produce is necessarily less. The proportion may diminish while the quantity remains the same or even increases."
"Place one hundred men on an island from which there is no escape, and whether you make one of these men the absolute owner of the other ninety-nine, or the absolute owner of the soil of the island, will make no difference either to him or to them.
"In the one case, as the other, the one will be the absolute master of the ninety-nine--his power extending even to life and death, for simply to refuse them permission to live upon the island would be to force them into the sea.
"Upon a larger scale, and through more complex relations, the same cause must operate in the same way and to the same end--the ultimate result, the enslavement of laborers, becoming apparent just as the pressure increases which compels them to live on and from land which is treated as the exclusive property of others. Take a country in which the soil is divided among a number of proprietors, instead of being in the hands of one, and in which, as in modern production, the capitalist has been specialized from the laborer, and manufacturers and exchange, in all their many branches, have been separated from agriculture. Though less direct and obvious, the relations between the owners of the soil and the laborers will, with the increase of population and the improvement of the arts, tend to the same absolute master on the one hand and the same abject helplessness on the other, as in the case of the island we have supposed. Rent will advance, while wages will fall
"A family in the United States needs to earn $18.44 an hour, or nearly $38,360 a year, in order to afford a modest rental home, according to a report released April 21  by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Despite the recession, the report finds that rents continue to rise, while wages continue to fall across the country.
"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps naturally, if this is what State absentation comes to, let us have some State intervention.
"But the State had
intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent
, -- thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually
occupied, was all legally
occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus." [Emphasis original]
-- Albert Jay Nock, Free Speech and Plain Language, pp. 320-1
That is precisely why my poll question refers specifically to the "landless
Except for those who chose the fifth option and the Austrian Schoolers
who chose the first, third and fourth, thus far the majority have chosen to beg
-- rather than candidly address -- the question of what the landless should do to survive in a world in which the value of their labor (thanks to advanced robotics) has been reduced to almost nothing, but in which the value of land has not