Buying Land

[YmirGF]

In a system where the land is owned communally? Well, the community would have to decide. Put it to a vote, or something like that.

Gotta love tyranny of the majority! Solves lots of niggling problems.

 

[Woberts]

Amusing side question: For those of you are do not think land should be treated as a commodity, do you own your own land right now? Yes or No. (This is not a trick to call you a hypocrite.)

No sir, I do not.

 

[YmirGF]

No sir, I do not.

Thanks for your answer, @Woberts It is as I expected.

 

[Woberts]

It is as I expected.

Don't think that I don't believe in land as a commodity just because I don't own where I live. I used to own my land, but that was before I moved to Russia. There's really no point in owning land in Canada when you're not planning on going back, after all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for your answer, @Woberts It is as I expected.

Having your busy body neighbors mind your business where you live,
& have total power over you without a body of law or constitutional
protections....depending solely upon their good judgement & noble
motives, eh. What could go wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the questions on the Political Compass test is,

'Land should not be a commodity to be bought and sold'.

Do you agree? Should land be state owned, private, Church (much of UK land is Church owned), other?

What do you think?

There is nothing wrong with "Buying land" as long as one understands that buying land does not give one free reign to do whatever they want with the land forever. Buying land is always temporary. If you can't pay your taxes you will lose it. If you violate local coding ordinances it could be taken away from you. The problem is not so much buying land but peoples' misinterpretation of what own land means.

 

[Woberts]

Having your busy body neighbors mind your business where you live,
& have total power over you without a body of law or constitutional
protections....depending solely upon their good judgement & noble
motives, eh. What could go wrong?

I wasn't talking about anything that extreme. Of course there would be constitutional protections.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't talking about anything that extreme. Of course there would be constitutional protections.

Some commie you turned out to be.

 

[Valjean]

'Land should not be a commodity to be bought and sold'.
Depends. What political system are we working with?

There are many feasible systems of communal usage, individual ownership, assignment, &c. In the current, capitalist west we do still have different types of communes and co-operatives, and sharecropping serfs; but the mainstream system of government ownership, with regulated individual dominion of purchased parcels is so embedded in our economic and social system only a revolution or disaster is likely to overturn it.

 

[Woberts]

Some commie you turned out to be.

Well, I am talking about a small commune, not necessarily a communist state.
With a full blown communist state, the state is likely going to have the power to relocate you.
Although this is generally used during times of war.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I am talking about a small commune, not necessarily a communist state.
With a full blown communist state, the state is likely going to have the power to relocate you.
Although this is generally used during times of war.

Based upon this post, you're not allowed to be a "communist".
Even I favor voluntary communism.
So you're no longer allowed to post in their DIR.
Don't blame me, the messenger. I don't make the rules.

 

[Woberts]

Based upon this post, you're not allowed to be a "communist".
Even I favor voluntary communism.
So you're no longer allowed to post in their DIR.
Don't blame me, the messenger. I don't make the rules.

Well, that's pretty par for the course with communism, so I'm going to assume that the haggis fumes have gotten to your head.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that's pretty par for the course with communism, so I'm going to assume that the haggis fumes have gotten to your head.

I've been on the wagon for years now....not by choice.
Just no haggis around here.

 

[Audie]

One of the questions on the Political Compass test is,

'Land should not be a commodity to be bought and sold'.

Do you agree? Should land be state owned, private, Church (much of UK land is Church owned), other?

What do you think?

As an ideal, it may have merit.

The idealist societies ( see "Mao" ) that have
enFORCED this did not have merit.

As a practical matter, it is unmanageable,
a disaster.

 

[LuisDantas]

Land is a natural resource. The idea that it can be "owned" by specific people is inherently artificial and problematic, and will become increasingly so as population levels also increase.

Ultimately, "to own land" is just code for having some form of back-up from the local authorities. It is a political concession and can never be anything else.

Unless some form of tragedy puts the need further away in the future, land property will have to be abolished sooner rather than later, or else weighted very carefully against the demographic pressures.

 

[Shad]

One of the questions on the Political Compass test is,

'Land should not be a commodity to be bought and sold'.

Do you agree? Should land be state owned, private, Church (much of UK land is Church owned), other?

What do you think?

A balance is required these days. An "All" view is not practical and creates massive issues.

 

[esmith]

Land is a natural resource. The idea that it can be "owned" by specific people is inherently artificial and problematic, and will become increasingly so as population levels also increase.

Ultimately, "to own land" is just code for having some form of back-up from the local authorities. It is a political concession and can never be anything else.

Unless some form of tragedy puts the need further away in the future, land property will have to be abolished sooner rather than later, or else weighted very carefully against the demographic pressures.

Maybe in your country but not here.
You see we have this document called the Constitution.
It grants and protects the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

from: Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 16. Property Rights and the Constitution

It is no accident that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to justice for all protects property rights. Property is the foundation of every right we have, including the right to be free. Every right claim, after all, is a claim to some thing — either a defensive claim to keep what one is holding or an offensive claim to something someone else is holding. John Locke, the philosophical father of the American Revolution and the inspiration for Thomas Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, stated the issue simply: “Lives, Liberties, and Estates, which I call by the general Name, Property.” And James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, echoed those thoughts when he wrote, “as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

One of the questions on the Political Compass test is,

'Land should not be a commodity to be bought and sold'.

Do you agree? Should land be state owned, private, Church (much of UK land is Church owned), other?

What do you think?

The church of England only owns 105,000 acres including churches and their grounds and grave yards, and church halls offices and retreats, as well as all the houses used by priests and other church workers. Most of the land is unsaleable or protected use. Very little is now of much commercial value.

In reality we only "own" land and proerty during our life time. Most is sold on our death, often to pay death duties. And the remainder to be distributed to our families.

Like all capital the money tied up in land can be used as collateral and used to finance other enterprises.

There is plenty of cheap land where no one wants it, it only becomes valuable in areas where demand is high,
Supply and demand play a major roll in controlling the use of land.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ultimately, "to own land" is just code for having some form of back-up from the local authorities. It is a political concession and can never be anything else.

A view from one who has land....
Local authorities are more prone to attacking land ownership rights than defending them.
- They tax it under threat of taking.
- They limit rights thru eminent domain, wetlands laws, endangered
species laws, zoning laws, building & housing codes.
- If someone encroaches on my property, my ability to preserve my
rights is limited to courts & police, which can be enormously slow &
expensive.
Oh, if only I could just take matters into my own hands, I'd do it the
modern NASA way....cheaper, better, faster.

Someone is going to own land. Whether it's government, the people (whatever
that means), individuals or companies, someone will control & use it.
For much land, the highest & best use is achieved by private ownership.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe in your country but not here.

No, it is much the same here.

You see we have this document called the Constitution.
It grants and protects the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

from: Cato Handbook for Policymakers: 16. Property Rights and the Constitution

There are similar provisions here.

They are just as fantastic and as political in nature as those that you mention, and that is what I am warning not to trust too much.

A view from one who has land....
Local authorities are more prone to attacking land ownership rights than defending them.

Of course. They will want something in return for their protection.

- They tax it under threat of taking.
- They limit rights thru eminent domain, wetlands laws, endangered
species laws, zoning laws, building & housing codes.
- If someone encroaches on my property, my ability to preserve my
rights is limited to courts & police, which can be enormously slow &
expensive.
Oh, if only I could just take matters into my own hands, I'd do it the
modern NASA way....cheaper, better, faster.

Someone is going to own land. Whether it's government, the people (whatever
that means), individuals or companies, someone will control & use it.
For much land, the highest & best use is achieved by private ownership.

Someone will seek to control land, no dout. It is just way too precious a resource.

Calling that "ownership", though, is just glorified wishful thinking.

I will readily grant that it is very influential wishful thinking.