> Regarding your first premise, specifically the poor. If I live in a city, and work, but my work only pays enough for me to be poor, you are saying I should be shipped out to the country and given a farm?

Since we're speaking in terms of Austrian Economics, now is the time to say this whole thing is based on property rights. So the ultimate point of this is, that if you don't have money to pay to live in the city, or if you don't have a friend who will spot you or whatever, then you can't just be in the city and homeless, because you'd be trespassing someone else's property. This is the key idea. You can't be homeless because you'd be a trespasser. So you either have to fund your stay yourself, or get voluntary help (from friends, family, etc) in order to be housed.

> Under Austrian economics, how would your plan pan out? If the city removed all the poor people, who would do the work they were doing? Does Austrian economics believe that suddenly the wealthy, or rather the people who can afford to live in the city will suddenly pay increased wages to people wash dished, clean streets, do people's laundry etc.?

The city is not removing poor people. You are misconstruing what I said. If someone is found trespassing private property, and it is found they are doing so because they are destitute, then they will be asked to go back to their farmland, or face punishment for trespassing (which no one would choose). Austrian Economics says that the market will have to find a way to fund what it needs to do while being able to pay its workforce what they need to live within an acceptable distance of where they need to be to do their work. This will be solve in a myriad of ways, too many to count really - each company will find their own solution and some companies might converge to a locally optimal solution. But it's not up to any planner, you or I, to tell the market how they should solve their problem of funding their human resources. They will know that if they don't pay someone enough, they might not be able to live within the area they need to be around to do their job. So you will get a sort of self-fulfilling maintenance of a wage floor automatically from competition.

> I could see it might work if as you say, its illegal to stay in the city unless you make a certain amount, therefore making it illegal to pay less than a living wage. Is 'minimum wage' covered under Austrian economics? Would it be set higher for more expensive cities? Or would the wealthy just keep the status quo by busing in people from the mandatory farms and still paying them shitty wages?

Close. Indeed it would be illegal to trespass, which would mean you either can pay for where you are living, or you are authorized by the owner who pays for that place, to stay there. With regards to minimum wage, I addressed this above. With regards to busing people in for "shitty wages", any offer a city person makes to a farmer is voluntary and the farmer is not compelled to accept it, seeing that they don't need to accept it for them to be able to have food and shelter.

> Also, do you think that people would be able to learn enough from public libraries to become a 'producer' as you say? Not everyone is an autodidact.

Yes, I believe they would. Long-term prisoners learn the law of their cases when they can't afford a lawyer or when no one will pick their case up. Where there is an incentive there will be a drive.

> Lastly, what would you do about someone like me? I was homeless and jobless in Hawaii for 6 months because of bureaucratic reasons (I am a US citizen who lived abroad for all my life, and when I moved to the US I had no Social Security Number, therefore couldn't work legally until one had been assigned to me) I have been homeless a few times, but I have never once had to claim welfare of any type.

If you have authorization from some property owner to stay at their place, you could do that. Otherwise if you have no money to pay for a place to stay, and you know no one who will provide you with a place to stay, then obviously that means that by force of circumstance you can't stay because you can't afford to.

> Would your system have me picked up by the cops for breaking the law and shipped to 40 acres with a mule to til the earth until I have learned the error of my ways, and good work ethics?

Only if you break the law. You don't have to break the law. If you leave as soon as you lose your job and can tell you're not likely to find another, or as soon as you run out of savings, then you won't be trespassing and therefore will be able to willingly return to your farmland by yourself.

> Or would a system that tried to treat the root causes of poverty instead of symptoms be more effective?

Indeed it would, which is why I am proposing one to replace the current system that treats the symptoms of being poor, since all it does is give men fish (welfare benefits) instead of teaching them how to fish (how to work for themselves and not have to rely on other people's money). The symptom of poverty is not having money, and this is all that the State tries to fix, namely by giving poor people money. That is treating the symptoms. The root cause of poverty is not being able to provide for oneself. This system I am proposing would treat the root cause of poverty by giving poor people a way to provide for themselves, namely by giving them a farm. Do you understand it now?

> Instead of small farms and deportation of the poor how about livable minimum wages?

Instead of gas guzzling cars, how about flying unicorns?

Small farms and transportation (no one said "deportation" but you, right now, sneakily trying to build a straw-man) exist in the real world, they can be defined in detail, I can draw small farms and transportations, and even take pictures of them to prove they exist, whereas whatever "livable minimum wages" is or means, it doesn't enjoy the same benefits - it can't be defined in detail, you can't draw it or take a picture of one to show me what this is, and you can't prove they exist. It's just a rhetorical term. It's not something real, like a farm or a bus.

> Instead of good libraries, how about free university education?

Instead of reading books, how about free live narrations?

Well, that's because you can't find a way to convince narrators to work for free without pointing a gun to their heads. Same goes for free university education, there's no way to get professors to work for free without pointing a gun to their heads. Unless you are suggesting pointing a gun to everyone's heads and extorting everyone to pay for those professors, but if I thought you were suggesting that, I'd have to assume you are some sort of psychopath, what with wanting to exert violent influence over so many people.

Books and libraries exist and they are a solved problem - we know how to put books in libraries and make them available to people. What we don't know is how to force someone to provide a service for free without impinging on their rights, and you just showed it.

> Instead of making producers of every human being, what about addressing the people who benefit off the production of tens of thousands of people, yet give little back to the system that allows them to do this?

The system that allows people to benefit so much without giving back is crony capitalism, which is exactly what I am proposing we eliminate. The Federal Reserve themselves has admitted that they have widened the wealth gap. So now you have a named target to hate: Federal Reserve. Join the club.

> I ask this straight forwardly, as I do not know Austrian economics. But while I wait your reply, I shall look it up online and see what it is all about.

Let me know how it goes!