Any evidence for that or are you peddling your usual make believe? It's actually difficult to make any clean distinction. Many of the schools of thought (from post Keynesianism to ironically neoclassical labour analysis) have been influenced by Marxism.
Liberty, justice and prosperity. Every resident citizen should enjoy free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of their choice to have access to economic opportunity (and before you say something dumb, that land could be a small share of an advantageously located high-rise apartment building's footprint); and those who want to exclude others from more than that should make just compensation to the community of those thus excluded.
In the US everyone has liberty and justice...prosperity is determined by personal effort. Here's something dumb just for you; if you gave everyone what you demand, a huge percentage of them will fail at converting their land into a profitable venture, and they will sell to the highest bidder. Over time, this land will change ownership many times for many different reasons. In some areas the demand will be low and other areas the demand will be high, meaning some land will be cheap and other land will be expensive. You don't understand that the idea of having land, and working the land, is not something that many Americans either qualify to do or desire to do. Those with a strong desire to own land over time will purchase land. This is the exact process that has taken place over the centuries and continues today..
Flood control is extremely difficult and expensive, often with limited success under extreme rainfall. There's no such thing as drought control.
No, that's just more false, disingenuous, and absurd garbage from you. People's rights to liberty have been stripped from them by force and made into the private property of the privileged. That is why the privileged prosper without effort, while the hardworking poor often work two or more jobs, yet do not prosper. The productive are systematically robbed for the unearned profit of rich, greedy, privileged parasites. Watch and learn: It's dumb all right.... No, that's just more absurd and irrelevant garbage from you. They can "convert their land into a profitable venture" by simply residing on it and thereby having free access to a decent job to earn a living. That's what "having access to economic opportunity" means. It doesn't mean they have to farm it or start a business on it, although those are also available options according to their taste. Everyone will simply have free, secure access to the typical job opportunities, social amenities, shopping, etc. that normal people only get now by paying landowners for what government, the community and nature provide. \ No, it will not, because land can never rightly be owned. If people see more suitable opportunities elsewhere, they will move to an available location of their choice, and again have free, secure access to the new opportunities without shoveling money into landowners' pockets in return for nothing. The cheaper the land, the more of it people will be able to have free, secure tenure on without having to make compensation to the community for depriving others of it. You again spew irrelevancies. I do not propose that they "have" or "work" land, just that they be at liberty to live at an advantageous location without having to meet the extortion demands of a landowner. Land can never rightly be owned, and people will not desire land so strongly when owning it no longer enables them to rob the productive. Garbage. Thieves first steal land, and then other aspiring thieves buy it from the first thieves and use their ownership of it to steal even more.
Large-scale hydrological projects often create land value increases orders of magnitude greater than their cost. The only reason they are uneconomic is that the land value has to be given away to greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners in return for nothing, instead of being recovered to pay for the projects that create it. Garbage. Irrigation projects and river diversions work just fine for drought control. They are what prevent southern CA from still being a desert.
Dry air flowing down causes them. The air flows up at the equator, looses its moisture and flows back down at the latitudes deserts form. Because of the lack of moisture clear skies at night and day cause the wide temperature swing at night since there are few clouds to block radiation of heat to space.
If they want my land and home for an irrigation project, fine. But it's paid off and I put a lot of improvements on the land on my dime. I want back every penny I ever put in it plus a little more to go looking for a new place and cover inflation.
You have been comprehensively and conclusively demolished; you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.
Goats pull up plant roots; that uncovers the soil and makes it vulnerable to conditions that otherwise it would survive.
Ethiopia like most of Africa and more and more most of the world,has a shrinking water supply.You have to have water for both human life and agriculture.
Poorly managed goats. My goats improve my land. Sheep are much worse than goats. Goats are a great tool for brush and weed control. They even hire them out....cheaper than roundup or using machinery.