Liberating The Land

[(Blizzard)]

You can't own land.

The government permits that allow people to levy a tax within some geographical area, are a key part of the feudal system.

Until that system ends, there will always be serfs and lords.

[Tired of Waiting]

Agricultural land is relatively cheap. IIRC, it's only about 5k an acre. You can build several family homes on an acre of 1 with plenty of space grow some some crops/animals. In short, if you can build on more land, it will bring the cost of housing down.

Note that we have built on only about 10% of the uk and land prices make up the lion's share of property prices.

EDIT: typo - sent from phone

I think we have built on only about 2% to 3% of the UK. But reliable data is virtually impossible to find about that.

[erat_forte]

You can't own land.

The government permits that allow people to levy a tax within some geographical area, are a key part of the feudal system.

Until that system ends, there will always be serfs and lords.

Trouble is, you really can't own the Land, it was there before you and is not going anywhere. Best you can do is exclude others from it. But how best to organise who has access to what bits, and who gets to have their house where? The current system is complete sh1te and tinkering around the edges as proposed in the OP links will only enrich the interests proposing the tinkering...

[Tired of Waiting]

That is the problem; the bank bench Tory toffs will be dead set against it. Whether the more classical liberal, free market thinkers can hold onto the balance of power long enough remains to be seen.

I'm still hoping for the 'democrat' (read: socialist) wing of the lib dems splits of back to Labour and leaves us with a genuine, Liberal (in the classical sense) party. Having a tripartite of conservatives, liberals and socialists could add an interesting dynamic in politics. Anyway, I digress... if we have less government and freer planning, it would be a good start.

Exactly! That is the biggest... absurd in British politics. I think the majority of the British population is on the centre ground, liberal, socially and economically - even is some of them don't know the "political philosophy" behind it. And yet, we don't have a proper liberal party.

And even in our political classes, I think the majority is liberal too. If you add the New-Labour side of the Labour party, the Liberals in the Lib-Dems, and the modernisers, or "Cameronians" from the Tories, you may well have more than 50% of MPs there.

.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[(Blizzard)]

Trouble is, you really can't own the Land, it was there before you and is not going anywhere. Best you can do is exclude others from it. But how best to organise who has access to what bits, and who gets to have their house where? The current system is complete sh1te and tinkering around the edges as proposed in the OP links will only enrich the interests proposing the tinkering...

Its difficult, given the world we live in now, to imagine an alternative. That's why I do support LVT as a compromise.

The distribution of power is so unequal that, without government backing, few would be able to defend their own land. (I don't imagine defending it from nutters with guns, I don't think that's the issue. I imagine trying to stop an abbatoir opening next door, something like that)

Without land ownership, the right to use land would have to be decided by individuals making contracts with each other. The difficulty is to make this process simpler, and reduce the transaction costs, since you'd have to make a lot of contracts. This could probably be coordinated by computer:

Land user agress to pay in £100 to the system. Everyone who agrees to keep off the all the land in the system and gets their share of the total income in return. If you don't want to sign up, then that's up to you.

Land value tax does this, but at the cost of increasing government influence.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

You can't own land.

The government permits that allow people to levy a tax within some geographical area, are a key part of the feudal system.

Until that system ends, there will always be serfs and lords.

Do the Dutchmen who have been busily reclaiming land from the sea not own the results of their labour?

[(Blizzard)]

Do the Dutchmen who have been busily reclaiming land from the sea not own the results of their labour?

I would say no. Nor, do oil companies 'own' the oil.

On the other hand, if you want some oil (or some reclaimed land) those are the guys to pay.

As far as land is concerned, I think this is a rather uncommon situation.

A more common way of 'making' land is through building tower blocks. You can own a skyscraper.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

As far as land is concerned, I think this is a rather uncommon situation.

Maybe uncommon but a proposition has to pass all tests to be valid.

What are skyscrapers built from btw?

Edited August 7, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[Authoritarian]

Do the Dutchmen who have been busily reclaiming land from the sea not own the results of their labour?

Do the Dutchmen in questions expect the Dutch gov't to defend their newly created land with the use of the courts & the military etc?

This is the only reason I can see why they want to pay some form of 'tax'.

[(Blizzard)]

Maybe uncommon but a proposition has to pass all tests to be valid.

What are skyscrapers built from btw?

Its a very good question (can the dutch own land I mean), and I don't have a good answer.

I disagree that a proposition has to pass all tests to be valid. The world is too complicated for that, and the best we can ever hope for is partial compromise solutions to the different needs and desires of people.

You cannot axiomatise social norms.

When I talk about 'owning', I mean having either a moral claim or using violence to back up your claim.

You cannot simply draw some lines on a map, and expect other people to respect those boundaries, even when it is counter to their interests. We shouldn't teach our children to respect 'land ownership', in the way we teach them that violence is wrong. Most of all, we shouldn't use force, or expect a government to use force to defend territory.

People respect ownership rules when they are mutually beneficial, or because they are forced to. Allowing other people to occupy some land, while I occupy mine, is a mutually agreed compromise. Allowing one man to own hundreds of acres, while hundreds of men own nothing is an unfair situation that people are forced to tolerate.

There is a famous scam, in which you go and set up a little stand in a free car-park, and start charging people to park. I believe there was a story on here a while ago about a man who did this for 20 years, and was only found out when he died. This is outrageous, except that's exactly what landowners are all doing. They simply showed up and started to claim some kind of right over the land. They believe they are justified because they were scammed by the previous 'owner' who was scammed by the 'owner' before him, and so on. It is still a scam but we have all fallen for it.

PS: Skyscapers are made from metal and concrete, or happiness and good feelings. I forget which.

Edited August 7, 2010 by (Blizzard)

[Injin]

Do the Dutchmen who have been busily reclaiming land from the sea not own the results of their labour?

Did they own the sea before they started?

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Did they own the sea before they started?

The sea doesn't exist.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Its a very good question (can the dutch own land I mean), and I don't have a good answer.

I disagree that a proposition has to pass all tests to be valid. The world is too complicated for that, and the best we can ever hope for is partial compromise solutions to the different needs and desires of people.

You cannot axiomatise social norms.

When I talk about 'owning', I mean having either a moral claim or using violence to back up your claim.

You cannot simply draw some lines on a map, and expect other people to respect those boundaries, even when it is counter to their interests. We shouldn't teach our children to respect 'land ownership', in the way we teach them that violence is wrong. Most of all, we shouldn't use force, or expect a government to use force to defend territory.

People respect ownership rules when they are mutually beneficial, or because they are forced to. Allowing other people to occupy some land, while I occupy mine, is a mutually agreed compromise. Allowing one man to own hundreds of acres, while hundreds of men own nothing is an unfair situation that people are forced to tolerate.

There is a famous scam, in which you go and set up a little stand in a free car-park, and start charging people to park. I believe there was a story on here a while ago about a man who did this for 20 years, and was only found out when he died. This is outrageous, except that's exactly what landowners are all doing. They simply showed up and started to claim some kind of right over the land. They believe they are justified because they were scammed by the previous 'owner' who was scammed by the 'owner' before him, and so on. It is still a scam but we have all fallen for it.

PS: Skyscapers are made from metal and concrete, or happiness and good feelings. I forget which.

I agree you can't have a moral claim to anything you didn't produce yourself.

I believe someone has a moral claim to those things they do produce - like land reclamation.

I, like you, think morality could well be overrated.

[Injin]

The sea doesn't exist.

Well I know that....

[Injin]

I agree you can't have a moral claim to anything you didn't produce yourself.

I believe someone has a moral claim to those things they do produce - like land reclamation.

I, like you, think morality could well be overrated.

It's how all decisions are made, ultimately.

[(Blizzard)]

It's how all decisions are made, ultimately.

Social norms, not morality, although people (including me) often use the terms carelessly.

Its why men tend not to wear dresses, even though there's no law against it.

Its also why most of us don't cheat and steal.

[lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!)]

Yeah, and when that happens I take up arms - there will be revolution.

get ready then

IMF plan

crash all currencies and then offer the only solution

except it is far from the only solution and alternative currencies will win otherwise we starve

link

[erranta]

But also note where a significant portion of the rest of the 90% is or its geograpy. There are vast sections of the UK that you couldnt build on even if you wanted to - flood plains (yes i know some muppets have been building on them) mountains, moorland etc. or simply too far from where people want to live, yes there is lots of land around Durness but no economic need for many people to live there...

LOL - people pay a hefty Premium to live in/next to National Park areas etc

Look at Dartmoor/New forest/Lake district/Kielder Water etc - in middle of nowhere!

Edited August 8, 2010 by erranta