Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Use Of Land Is A Natural Right


Recommended Posts

The problem with land tax is that it requires a totalitarian dictatorship to do it and once they have the money they won't give it back.

The trick is to make the laws as oppressive as possible for the State, which is what this proposal is an ambition to do.

We need an authority to make and set the rules or would you have them emerge locally, so that we find out who owns which field when we try to plant our turnips?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

:rolleyes:

The old posts are there for anyone interested enough to view for themselves.

The point I'm interested in now is this idea of "natural" rights, which you seem to be restricting to UK citizens rather than to people in general ... in which case they are politically-enforced rights, no different from existing land ownership rights.

This applies to all people, not only UK citizens. The point about Nationality is that borders exist and we start where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick is to make the laws as oppressive as possible for the State, which is what this proposal is an ambition to do.

Laws don't apply to the agency which has the power to implement them, unless they happen to fancy doing whatever the law is anyway.

next time you are getting mugged, write down on a piece of paper "mugging is forbidden" and see what happens. If they mugger stops, it's their choice to and they never have to obey the paper.

We need an authority to make and set the rules or would you have them emerge locally, so that we find out who owns which field when we try to plant our turnips?

We don't need any extra human created rules, they are built in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that how they are maintained currently?[/quote

Not usually, no.

So we can't have our own plot of land, or a garden, or our own house? What's to stop someone sleeping in the wrong bed?

Beds aren't land afaik, they are created items which the ownership for can be sorted out without the need to resort to hitting people over the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws don't apply to the agency which has the power to implement them, unless they happen to fancy doing whatever the law is anyway.

next time you are getting mugged, write down on a piece of paper "mugging is forbidden" and see what happens. If they mugger stops, it's their choice to and they never have to obey the paper.

That's not the point I'm making; it is true that the State can be restricted by the rule of law. Democracy is to restrict the lawmakers to only people that have been elected. We have right to a trial by jury and no unfair detention.

It doesn't work without laws because no one bothers to make anything or to look after themselves, because it is impossible to retain your labour and everyone dies.

We don't need any extra human created rules, they are built in.

I don't really understand the point here. Are we allowed to have our own field, or must we make way for whoever comes along who wants to eat the crop that you have nurtured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be no obligation on using the land, but you would not be able to sell it. The State would not recognise the sale and the purchaser would have a duty to verify that the seller is not selling their mandated minimum of land.

This will not work with a Land Value Tax. You are forced to own a piece of land, the tax is subject to market rates, if you can't rent it out or find a profitable enough use for it then you are saddled with a tax on life. It could get pretty cut throat as businesses wait for land owners to go bankrupt and negotiate to rent it for a pittance.

Personally I think the government needs to make a decision. Either it owns the land or it doesn't. At the moment they act like both when it suits them, but ultimately they do control the land. Either drop a huge section of the planning laws and scrap compulsory purchase altogether, or ban the sale of land and zone it as they see fit, taxing it in place of income/property taxes. Trying to have it both ways is messing things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This assumes you require force to maintaim property rights - is that true?

All rules are enforced by, or by the threat of violence. Otherwise if I wanted a pint of beer, I would go to the pub and take one without paying. The landlord would go bust unless he simply took from the brewery, then the brewery would go bust or simply stop making beer. Likewise if I grow a row of crops, I need to be sure I will get to harvest them. This is seen clearly in the cannabis plantations where rival gangs attempt to steal each others crops. There is no recourse to the law and they must use violence to keep each other away. If I want a house, then I could simply enter, slaughter the current residents and claim it for my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the point I'm making; it is true that the State can be restricted by the rule of law.

Never happened, ever. The person who makes the law cannot be bound by it because anytime they want to do somethoing new, they simply add a new law.

Democracy is to restrict the lawmakers to only people that have been elected. We have right to a trial by jury and no unfair detention.

No, you don't. If they want you they will black bag you. If they want you dead, you will go hillwalking. Power does what it wants.

It doesn't work without laws because no one bothers to make anything or to look after themselves, because it is impossible to retain your labour and everyone dies.

What?

I don't really understand the point here. Are we allowed to have our own field, or must we make way for whoever comes along who wants to eat the crop that you have nurtured?

No, you can factually own crops because they are really there, land isn't really there and you can't. You can onyl force others to pretend that you have land, you can't actually have land. The earth is not divided up into little blocks called land, it never has been and never will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ame='nik21' date='31 January 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1264947537' post='2367248']

Isn't that how they are maintained currently?[/quote

Not usually, no.

What about taxes, are they reliant on force, how are property rights different?

Beds aren't land afaik, they are created items which the ownership for can be sorted out without the need to resort to hitting people over the head.

How do you get the right to the land upon which the house is built?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This applies to all people, not only UK citizens. The point about Nationality is that borders exist and we start where we are.

So you have moved away from your earlier position on land rights:

hotairmail>>How do you deal with the Nation State? If you were to give land rights here along the lines suggested, what would the qualifying criteria be?

You would need to be a UK citizen, so you would need to be able to show a passport. It doesn't need to be done across the world

which now leaves you in a logically-defensible position ... but one which you'll find hard to sell to the existing UK population. I trust you won't overlook the need to disclose this detail when promoting the idea of land-rights as a natural right :)

Edited by huw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will not work with a Land Value Tax. You are forced to own a piece of land, the tax is subject to market rates, if you can't rent it out or find a profitable enough use for it then you are saddled with a tax on life. It could get pretty cut throat as businesses wait for land owners to go bankrupt and negotiate to rent it for a pittance.

To an extent though, that's the idea, it's designed to make land ownership less of a free ride than it currently is.

It would also be directed at the more wealthy end of the spectrum, those near to the bottom would not pay much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you can factually own crops because they are really there, land isn't really there and you can't. You can onyl force others to pretend that you have land, you can't actually have land. The earth is not divided up into little blocks called land, it never has been and never will be.

So who has the right to plant crops in the field?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Globally and with population exploding, the presumption of abundant/sufficient resources is a canard. If you're talking about a less-than-global area then you're implicitly denying the natural rights you've just granted to those living outside that area.

Basically if access to land is a natural right, then you have no justification for keeping anybody out -- even if the only reason for the imbalance/injustice is that your parents used contraception and theirs didn't.

Other arguments surrounding this have been done to death here, you could try looking through the old threads for arguments pro and con :)

It works both ways. Yes you're denying the inhabitants of other nation states their natural right to come and walk all over our country, but the agreement is that we give up our natural right to to unfettered access to where they reside too.

The population/resource argument has no impact on this, even if resources were diminishing (and there's no evidence to suggest that is true) it wouldn't be an argument to deny peoples' natural right to a share in those diminishing resources. The people concerned would still be morally equal.

Edited by chefdave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have moved away from your earlier position on land rights:

which now leaves you in a logically-defensible position ... but one which you'll find hard to sell to the existing UK population. I trust you won't overlook the need to disclose this detail when promoting the idea of land-rights as a natural right :)

I'm not sure what deviation you claim to have found, but for clarity, you would need to have a UK passport in the UK and a French passport in France. Whether we do this in the UK alone, or whether all countries implement it doesn't affect the ability of one country to do it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To an extent though, that's the idea, it's designed to make land ownership less of a free ride than it currently is.

It would also be directed at the more wealthy end of the spectrum, those near to the bottom would not pay much.

How do you direct it whilst simultaneously leaving it to market forces?

It still seems wrong to force people into a 'bumpy ride'. Land management may not be my forte.

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.