Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Use Of Land Is A Natural Right


Recommended Posts

It's not like communism, we each have a right to land, just as we have a right to oxygen. There would be a minimum entitlement, according to market value of the land. The party members don't get anything above other people, or at least to no further extent than they do at the present time.

The last centralized attempt at land redistribution was done in Zimbabwe.

I don't think that worked out so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Which party members might they be? :)

I'm just looking at the situation we have now for parallels, the public sector do very well by giving their support to the Labour party. They don't get land but they get a comfortable job with good perks. That type of arrangement would not arise from what is proposed but it would remain unless steps are taken to eradicate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of Asimov's Bathroom Metaphor:

"If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom; it should be right there in the Constitution.

"But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door: "Aren't you through yet?" and so on. In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the way that you approach problems.

There is a law of eminent domain / compulsory purchase in many countries which allows the government to force changes in land ownership if it is in the public interest.

And there isn't such a thing here?

Tell that to people living where they want to put in a new trunk road. Or Heathrow expansion.

Oh I see, you said the public interest. I take that back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there isn't such a thing here?

Tell that to people living where they want to put in a new trunk road. Or Heathrow expansion.

Oh I see, you said the public interest. I take that back.

Eminent domain is the US law. Compulsory Purchase is the UK law.

The arguments about the public interest are endless. A majority might see Heathrow expansion as being in the public interest but eminent domain / compulsory purchase trample on the rights of the minority and water down ownership rights. I see ownership rights as a cornerstone of any functioning economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case, we have the same time-honoured right to fight and kill each other for that land.

Yes, but the crucial difference is that we are not living in times of scarcity. If there are insufficient resources, then, yes it reduces to a fight for survival, but that is not the case any more which is why aggression is against the law.

Trespass is also against the law.

If you're saying we have a right to reclaim land, then, of course, we agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The last centralized attempt at land redistribution was done in Zimbabwe."

Another good example would be the great Russian famine of the 1920's caused by the bolsheviks.

When people start redistributing land to the proletariat the proletariat tend to end up starving.

Not a good idea.

It's not a redistribution of land to the proletariat; it's getting out of their way in the instances where they have a legitimate right to the access of land. It's not handing land over, it's offering the land to those without it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain's a big place :P What's the area of the UK divided by population? About 1 acre per person, as it turns out... so yes, in urban centres it might not even be 1/10th of an acre; 1/20th perhaps.

Food prices might rise, or they might not, remember that families could rent out their land to farmers who would be employed to turn a profit. If you're worried about the land going to waste, remember that it would be unprofitable to leave it doing nothing, there would be a competitive market offering to pay you for use of surplus land, so it would be free money and the land would be used efficiently.

In fact the efficient use of land is one of the main arguments generally given in favour of land taxes such as the Land Value Tax.

Fair enough. So you're a family of 4,say.? So how much land would you want (need). Which piece in the Uk would you want? Do you want road access? do you want drainage? Do you want a water supply?

......or are you single? if so, do you have more or fewer rights that a family of 4?

You need reasonable answers to these question. ........ or do you simply want to own the land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. So you're a family of 4,say.? So how much land would you want (need). Which piece in the Uk would you want? Do you want road access? do you want drainage? Do you want a water supply?

......or are you single? if so, do you have more or fewer rights that a family of 4?

You need reasonable answers to these question. ........ or do you simply want to own the land?

It would be an auction. Families are treated no differently to a group of individuals. Any adult is eligible. The money would be given to you from either printing money or receipts from a Land Value Tax. Land would be cheaper than it is now because of the taxes. The Government would also be selling off council housing. You would be getting a voucher to choose where you want the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be an auction. Families are treated no differently to a group of individuals. Any adult is eligible. The money would be given to you from either printing money or receipts from a Land Value Tax. Land would be cheaper than it is now because of the taxes. The Government would also be selling off council housing. You would be getting a voucher to choose where you want the land.

And where would this land come from? Confiscation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's not a redistribution of land to the proletariat; it's getting out of their way in the instances where they have a legitimate right to the access of land. It's not handing land over, it's offering the land to those without it... "

The road to all these disasters is always paved with good intentions.

The system of land ownership we have today has evolved over the course of human history that teaches us that attempts to be overly generous to the proletariat tend to end in tears because the proletariat get out of control and harm themselves.

Sad but true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's not a redistribution of land to the proletariat; it's getting out of their way in the instances where they have a legitimate right to the access of land. It's not handing land over, it's offering the land to those without it... "

The road to all these disasters is always paved with good intentions.

The system of land ownership we have today has evolved over the course of human history that teaches us that attempts to be overly generous to the proletariat tend to end in tears because the proletariat get out of control and harm themselves.

Sad but true.

The proletariat are being oppressed by the system. It can't be justified, can it? Is the oppression to their advantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food prices might rise, or they might not, remember that families could rent out their land to farmers who would be employed to turn a profit. If you're worried about the land going to waste, remember that it would be unprofitable to leave it doing nothing, there would be a competitive market offering to pay you for use of surplus land, so it would be free money and the land would be used efficiently.

In fact the efficient use of land is one of the main arguments generally given in favour of land taxes such as the Land Value Tax.

The farmer does not generate any income from his ownership. His income is derived from his farming of the land, the difference between the sale price of his crops and his costs. It is as if he has been given the land for free. With no cost of ownership he is able to sell his crops for the lowest possible price because his costs are the lowest possible.

All you are proposing is a system of absentee city dwelling landlords deriving income simply from ownership. The rentier landlord is much despised in leftish circles. The farmers income must still be maintained. So every £100 you charge him must be clawed back by adding £100 to eventual food costs.

You would see exactly the same problem you saw in communist zones where production fell after the introduction of communism. The farmer will not drain your land or increase its fertility. This would only serve to increase its value and attract a higher rent next year. He would not invest in long term crops, such as fruit trees, because they would not mature in the period of his rental. His only incentive is to extract as much profit as possible in his rental period and forego long term planning. You are certainly not a farmer, you would not be make the investment choices for your land. Is it worth the cost of digging a ditch here, or spreading lime there. He has this expertise.

Your agenda is simple, to become an absentee landlord. Should you receive £5000 a year from your rental, any food produced from your farm rises in cost by that amount. So you choose to buy from abroad where no such costs are imposed. All the farms then shut down. With the UK then importing all its food, it must export something of equal value or the pound goes down. The outside observer would ask why the UK is importing its food when it has unemployed people and idle land and it would all be down to rent seeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The proletariat are being oppressed by the system."

Unfortunately, the proletariat have a habit of being more oppressive to themselves than the traditional system that recognises their value along with their shortcomings.

Take the last decade of rule by the proletarian faction that has once again oppressed the proletariat by removing proletarian freedom rather than enhancing proletarian liberty.

I really think that when it comes to consideration of land redistribution, it is best to stick with nurse for fear of getting something worse.

Edited by indirectapproach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be an auction. Families are treated no differently to a group of individuals. Any adult is eligible. The money would be given to you from either printing money or receipts from a Land Value Tax. Land would be cheaper than it is now because of the taxes. The Government would also be selling off council housing. You would be getting a voucher to choose where you want the land.

I say again

Fair enough. So you're a family of 4,say.? So how much land would you want (need). Which piece in the Uk would you want? Do you want road access? do you want drainage? Do you want a water supply?

......or are you single? if so, do you have more or fewer rights that a family of 4?

You need reasonable answers to these question. ........ or do you simply want to own the land?

You need to answer if you want to be taken seriously. Specifics are needed, not generalities. Say you're single. You won 1 acre land at auction it was 5 miles form the nearest road without water or electricity. 5 years later you are a family of 4. Do you NEED more land or do you WANT more land. If you NEED it how do you get it?

oh, and how much did it cost to get the services?

I'm not saying your scheme isn't good...... we'd all like land...... but you have to convince it is workable and 'fair' to all. There are many who could / would out bid us for the best bits..... especially the party leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of people live without land. All those in the cities could sell their house and move to a house with land in the countryside where it is cheaper, yet they do not do so. They would not like the isolation of the countryside or the lack of work. All that is being asked for is a tax on those in the countryside to those in the cities. Yet those in the cities already pay less tax since they do no need to pay for fuel to visit the shops or schools.

There certainly does have to be rights associated with land. He who spends his time and money on producing a crop needs the sole right to harvest that crop. Without this people would just go collect the ripe crop and the farmers would go bust. Farming is a very efficient market. The prices of agricultural products have a tiny mark-up over cost of production and even that is dependable on random factors such as the weather. To farm at all means investing millions in machinery and working 80 hours a week. It is that cut throat. If we were to impose a land tax on them, they could not absorb it since there is not the margin. They would simply have to pass it right back to the city dwellers in terms of higher food costs. Yet the city folk would not accept this, they would buy produce from abroad where no such cost is imposed. Thus all farming would cease and the countryside could become a huge park for the city dwellers, which is what most of them want.

If all the land were divided between the people, none of them would be able to afford the machinery needed to farm it themselves. Nor would they have a large enough plot to warrant investment in machinery. Nor would they enjoy the digging in the mud lifestyle. They would simply rent their land to someone else to farm and remain in the city. It is not the case that land is simply not for sale. Anyone can go buy land. The price of land is determined from the profits that can be made from farming it. If people can make more by sticking money in the bank, they do that instead of buying land.

During harvesting machinery leaves huge amounts of onions/potatoes etc wasted on the ground > they then get ploughed in!

In France they have a law that anyone can go onto a landowners/farmers land after a crop harvest and fill sackfulls of leftover veggies for themselves! Probably what keeps prices lowish over there.

Edited by erranta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The farmer does not generate any income from his ownership. His income is derived from his farming of the land, the difference between the sale price of his crops and his costs. It is as if he has been given the land for free. With no cost of ownership he is able to sell his crops for the lowest possible price because his costs are the lowest possible.

All you are proposing is a system of absentee city dwelling landlords deriving income simply from ownership. The rentier landlord is much despised in leftish circles. The farmers income must still be maintained. So every £100 you charge him must be clawed back by adding £100 to eventual food costs.

You would see exactly the same problem you saw in communist zones where production fell after the introduction of communism. The farmer will not drain your land or increase its fertility. This would only serve to increase its value and attract a higher rent next year. He would not invest in long term crops, such as fruit trees, because they would not mature in the period of his rental. His only incentive is to extract as much profit as possible in his rental period and forego long term planning. You are certainly not a farmer, you would not be make the investment choices for your land. Is it worth the cost of digging a ditch here, or spreading lime there. He has this expertise.

Your agenda is simple, to become an absentee landlord. Should you receive £5000 a year from your rental, any food produced from your farm rises in cost by that amount. So you choose to buy from abroad where no such costs are imposed. All the farms then shut down. With the UK then importing all its food, it must export something of equal value or the pound goes down. The outside observer would ask why the UK is importing its food when it has unemployed people and idle land and it would all be down to rent seeking.

You would be in ownership of the land, just as is the case today. Your plot would be smaller, but you would have just as great an incentive to improve the land as does a farmer, per acre. Each smallholder would have an incentive to improve the land in proportion to the quantity of land, but yet since there are many such smallholders, the net result is a similar economic interest in sustainability.

Free market land reform, of the type being proposed, results in land being used more efficiently than it is now since everyone has a cost to the misuse of land. For individuals it means your food must come from elsewhere, for the landowner, it means the Land Value Tax is being used to pay for an unproductive good.

You are advocating a monopoly to ensure competitive prices. Would you do that in any other market than the one for land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The proletariat are being oppressed by the system."

Unfortunately, the proletariat have a habit of being more oppressive to themselves than the traditional system that recognises their value along with their shortcomings.

Take the last decade of rule by the proletarian faction that has once again oppressed the proletariat by removing proletarian freedom rather than enhancing proletarian liberty.

I really think that when it comes to consideration of land redistribution, it is best to stick with nurse for fear of getting something worse.

Please bear in mind that anything suggested would be an incremental procedure, not revolutionary. There would be no confiscation of land, nothing too extreme. We would start off with a gentle land tax, maybe push up council tax rates a little bit. Then we could reduce Income Tax and other punitive taxes. Again, everything done very gradually and with the ability to reverse each step along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During harvesting machinery leaves huge amounts of onions/potatoes etc wasted on the ground > they then get ploughed in!

In France they have a law that anyone can go onto a landowners/farmers land after a crop harvest and fill sackfulls of leftover veggies for themselves! Probably what keeps prices lowish over there.

I was not aware of this law. My neighbours would not care less if I did this, but it was all maize around me this year. Trespass, as such does not exist in France. Keeping 'la chasse' of your field is almost impossible since they just go where they wish and shoot everything that flies or crawls. You can get some bargains on veg at harvest time where the local supermarkets will sell large sacks of spuds and onions for a few euros but for most of the year supermarket fresh veg is more expensive in France than the UK. In fact, food, and just about everything else from shops, is more expensive in France.

If its fresh veg you want though, you can grow your own, keep chickens for eggs etc. I laugh at the house prices I see on the UK 'escape to country' programs. You can get a modern 4 bed detached with 5 acres for £85k over here in rural France, I should know, I have done it. There is a whole section of UK city dwellers that dreams of the 'good life'. They find they need a half a million to buy what they want in the UK, they never think of looking just over the channel, even though its just as close to London as Devon is. Prices are a fifth of what you would pay in the UK and the land is better for growing due to slightly better weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say again

You need to answer if you want to be taken seriously. Specifics are needed, not generalities. Say you're single. You won 1 acre land at auction it was 5 miles form the nearest road without water or electricity. 5 years later you are a family of 4. Do you NEED more land or do you WANT more land. If you NEED it how do you get it?

oh, and how much did it cost to get the services?

I'm not saying your scheme isn't good...... we'd all like land...... but you have to convince it is workable and 'fair' to all. There are many who could / would out bid us for the best bits..... especially the party leaders.

This all assumes you are eligible for the free land, and to be eligible you must not have any other land; if you have less than the acceptable threshold for land then you qualify...

You don't get allocated land in a random way, you get a token from the Government with which you are able to buy any plot of land that you like. You might want to get a plot locally, which is near your house, but might cost more. You would be able to get a bigger plot in the countryside, but it would be difficult to travel there.

We aren't only talking about land for growing crops, but land for housing also.

The question of whether you need more land, or not, depends on the market value of all the land you own now. If you own more than the minimum quantity, then, sorry, you don't get any more land.

Just like in normal circumstances, you could be outbid for the best bits, you get a token, or voucher in cash but someone else could add cash to their amount and pay more. You are competing in a cash market. It is not replacing the market.

If you already have land with market value above the minimum level, you don't qualify, however great you perceive your need to be. If you have no land, or very little, then you will go on the list to get a cash voucher to buy land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too.

I think if I see a nice piece of land I should have the right to claim it for myself........................one problem.

What happens when someone likes the piece of land I have claimed ?

The solution to the UK's housing problem is in reducing the population. We have plenty of housing stock, but have admitted very large numbers of immigrants into the nation without taking into account the strain on local resources.

Solution is to shut the doors firmly closed.

Impossible because UK plc would go bankrupt. I agree with reducing the population but you simply can't do it in the economic system we have at the moment.

Making more land available to citizens is an amazingly good idea but huge vested interests would prevent it. It might be better to buy a plot of agricultural land or woodland. Deregister it from the land registery, then put in a Notice of Claim of Right of Ownership. Then build a house on it and declare yourself sovereign on the land and not subject to land usage legislation. You would get a lot of hassle from the council probably though.

Edited by DavidSWP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.