This file is a collection of examination questions that teachers can use to test
  students their knowledge. Keep in mind that some students will be a LOT smarter
  then their teachers, and may have a more accurate answer then the teacher can give,
  or even then the teacher can understand, and that includes the undersigned as well.
  This may well lead to those answers being under-graded, which is sad and i apologize
  in advance. There is not an easy way out of this, but the ideal way forward is that
  the student in question does not give up and is eventually vindicated and advances
  the art and sciences. This will yield the student the credit he is due.

  This is a logical system and the question therefore pertain to reasons, the why of the
  how; rather then simply asking for 'dead knowledge' to be repeated. This means the
  teachers will have to invest enough time in each student and answer to really understand
  what the student is saying and why. One might note that not all students have sufficient
  intelligence or overview of large mass processes to really give answers that they do 
  understand the logical arguments for themselves - such students will likely revert to
  repeating 'dead knowledge' even though it may be the truth. Perhaps the best way for such
  students to advance their knowledge is to be an active participant in many mass processes
  - which is of course what the system provides for in real life - and come to their own
  understanding and experiences of these issues themselves in their own unique ways ...

  Other students may be far too smart for these questions.

  A side benefit of these questions is that it pins down the system even more (and would
  probably impress a sector of the population (oh he even made exam questions how nice),
  speeding up the ratification process ... while reducing ambiguity on the content. As such
  these questions can be read as a list of what where the major arguments for this system,
  and/or where did the author fail ...

Land.

Q. 1

List at least 3 reasons why land distribution is a good idea, and what would be the
major problem with it in your mind. How would you alleviate (resolve) that problem ?

   A. 1. Land distribution is a good idea because
         - It denies land hoarders their power, a power with which they will cause
           intense misery for the people and create a system where a small class of
           non-productive (useless) exploiters will rule the lives of the great many.
           They do that by controlling and increasing the land rent costs for the rest.
           In order to destroy revolutions they will organize wars, and if these classes
           persist into the high technological age, they will either cause humanity to
           self-destruct, or build a weaponized infrastructure that will catch all of
           humanity and launch a new era of unknown horror.
         - It gives each person a right to live by his/her own hand. It makes people feel
           proud and save to own land, they will be glad to see if their land is managed
           well by themselves. Even if it is not managed right they will experience things
           and become more skillfull people that way. They can use the land as a gateway
           to social interactions.
         - Many people are likely to put some kind of nature on their land, which could
           increase the natural diversity of the land.
         - They can rent the land out if they don't use it, and by that token are compensated
           for not using land while others in society are using land, which is a great power
           in the economy and even politically. Hence the economic playing field is leveled
           between the land owners/users and those that don't use (much).
         - It fractures the market for food because food is hard to produce and it mainly
           requires a lot of land to make. By fracturing the food market between a great sea
           of producers, who produce for all the people which is almost an even larger supply
           of buyers, the food market should become more fair because the suppliers do not
           dominate the food market as it would under centralized land ownership which directly
           produces food (large corporate food producers). (Note that in current society the
           food market is mainly cornered by the middle-men of food distribution, rather then
           the farmer producers.)
         There are a lot more good answers to this wide question ...

         - One drawback is that the system will have to be maintained, which requires a measure
           of bureaucracy, petty squables, serious differences of opinion, and the like. This
           will require judges to hear cases which costs money, it may drive people apart if they
           are disagreeing on things, and there is a threat that the land distribution bureaucracy
           will absorb a measure of power that is undue to it but properly reserved for the 
           people's councils and the individuals in question. Because it is a rights system, a
           limited right which will then have to be filled in, also by what one can do with it,
           and because the goal is to equalize economic power, there is a quite wide grey area
           between various truths and interests that can generate many differences and grievances.
           To compare: a feudal system where only a few own everything will not require that much
           resolving of such conflicts because it is quite clear who owns what - although there
           will be the occaisional bloody farm war over the exploitation. A system of perpetual
           land ownership through sales in the period where that ownership has not yet concentrated,
           may also require less bureaucracy because it is clearer who owns what and is therefore
           entitled to what. Such a system also has far fewer meaningful land owners (most people
           will own next to no land or very little), reducing the bureaucratic burden further.

           Hence the drawback is a larger bureaucracy and judicial effort to maintain this system,
           and it is a breeding ground for differences between people.

           One way to try to alleviate this issue is to keep on top of it through the people's
           councils, and to try to make laws and policies that are sensible, fair and objective
           (non partial). It may also help if those in power make a point of not getting much
           sought after land parts, to evade the impression of abuse of power. The stepping away
           from the best parts of the land by those who have effective power either bureaucratic
           or electoral, means that this generates a measure of calm and letting things be in the
           public mind, which is likely (certainly) to trickled down into the general people's
           (individuals) behavior in regards to where they are suffering a small setback in this
           area themselves. It may come to be counted as a virtue for people to take a small
           hit in their land ownership right if the circumstances are that way, it is a good virtue
           because it stabilizes society by not pressuring for every last scrap of right one fairly
           does deserve. In this way even those suffering a land right hit will still be compensated
           in happyness. The fact that there is this additional burden for the nation to cope with
           seems inherent in the system, maybe by viewing how other nations resolve these issues
           one can attain a more efficient system or a more efficient public attitude towards it.