live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Because the land was mine to start with. It was everybodys to start with. You can have a house and the public can wander round it, only paying for damages. No it was somebody elses before you were born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 No, the idea that it's in private possession is a nonsense. There are no facts behind it. What did you pay Stars, do you have a contract with him? The land is owned , probably from doomsday by somebody, and shifts down through the years ,and by law has a legal owner. Enforced by the law of the land. if land is not legally owned then mo law is valid. If stars had a contract, or deeds, he would own it. Simple as. Unless we were a North Korea type place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Nom, they aren't. A market is where you are free to refuse. That's how the price is found, by refusal, offer, refusal, offer, acceptance, price. The rental market is a market whereby people are initially forced to rent and then the market process begins. To find out the market value of renting, the underlying coerced conditions have to be removed. Yes they are.You can go and rent another house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 His argument is entirely logical, you may argue that it is unworkable in the current situation, but it is a valid position to hold IMHO. Injin, if you are happy to categorise your philosophy, are you a geolibertarian? What is one of those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Err no I don't claim to own the land, i claim that liberties are stolen through land ownership Patently, if all the opportunity to do something ar monoplised and sat on, there is not as a result more (only in the restricted sense of more for the monoplisers) Err yes, land does have legal owners in real life. Maybe its not what you like but there it is. and if your not the one you cant do anything with it. thats why things get done with land. like built on, and BTL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Just against violence in general, it takes you strange places when consistent! And yes, it's obviously unworkable right now, never claimed otherwise. The point about landlords is ofc completely valid anyway. Then i take it you wont be attempting to put your land is mine theory to the test anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Simple: Uni students: Halls of residence (I know uni is technically LL but at least quality and security are more likely) Workers on short term contract: Hotels? Youth Hostels? Caravan? Holidays: Hotels again?? LOL And maybe they prefer to rent a house. Nobody forces them to rent when they have the choices you state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 B*LL*CKS. I bet it's OK for a landlord to have a pet, but god forbid allowing a tenant to enjoy the pleasure. Landlords want it all. They have to realise they're dealing with human beings. Our cats cause zero problems. I consider myself to be a good tenant, always pay the rent on time and look after the property. I should think that someone with a pet is more likely to be settled and more dependable. Having a pet should be a plus. Cats are a feckin pest when they are in a rented house. Difference is when the cat shits, it shits on your own carpet when you own the place. But the tenant thinks the cat shit is nothing when its on the LL carpet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Yes they are.You can go and rent another house. Reread injin's point - you are being lazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Then i take it you wont be attempting to put your land is mine theory to the test anytime soon. It's not, in any moraly sustainable sense, your land more than it's injin's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Err yes, land does have legal owners in real life. Maybe its not what you like but there it is. and if your not the one you cant do anything with it. thats why things get done with land. like built on, and BTL We all know this - we are discusing whether this situation involves theft Remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Rogue tenants not paying their rent are the new foot soldiers in this war. They are my heros, and I salute them!! Go tenant rent dodgers!!! With your hard work and skill in evading capture, the landlord despots will begin to taste what financial hardship really is! Good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Reread injin's point - you are being lazy well thats what you would expect from a LL isnt it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 It's not, in any moraly sustainable sense, your land more than it's injin's and where do you propose to enforce this moraly sustainable theory, its mine until i die or dispose and i can live in it. your theory will get you nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 We all know this - we are discusing whether this situation involves theft Remember? we were discussing tenants Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munro Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Oh come on, even if it's a business transaction you should still treat people with a bit of courtesy. The expectation of simple courtesy is not what I meant when I talked about landlords with ideas above their station. Indeed, but I didn't mention the four separate notes left in the bathroom with instructions about how to prevent drips from the ill-fitting shower curtain reaching the floor, nor the smoke alarm battery that failed at 2.30 am and exploded when I took it out - and turned out to have an expiry date over two years earlier. Or the missing post. Or the notes on the fridge. Or the broken toilet seat that took nearly two months to get replaced. If she'd provided a reasonable service I'd have treated her with courtesy. The "ideas above her station" were that she was offering a decent service as a business at a fair price. She wasn't. Hence my general disgruntlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
right_freds_dead Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 its a bit rich saying late paying tenants are costing thousands of pound while taxpayer money supports billions of BTL loans and a low paying savings rate to claw back the losses. its all pete tong. but the main thing is. people are appy'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Indeed, but I didn't mention the four separate notes left in the bathroom with instructions about how to prevent drips from the ill-fitting shower curtain reaching the floor, nor the smoke alarm battery that failed at 2.30 am and exploded when I took it out - and turned out to have an expiry date over two years earlier. Or the missing post. Or the notes on the fridge. Or the broken toilet seat that took nearly two months to get replaced. If she'd provided a reasonable service I'd have treated her with courtesy. The "ideas above her station" were that she was offering a decent service as a business at a fair price. She wasn't. Hence my general disgruntlement. so why are you living in such a persons house? there are many good places about with no problems. its your choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 and where do you propose to enforce this moraly sustainable theory, its mine until i die or dispose and i can live in it. your theory will get you nothing There ya go. So, you don't care about arguments regarding the tenant's rightful property and some tenants don't care about arguments regarding yours. I'm not entirely surprised myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 There ya go. So, you don't care about arguments regarding the tenant's rightful property and some tenants don't care about arguments regarding yours. I'm not entirely surprised myself You seem to be getting two arguements mixed up. One minute you are saying no one owns the land. Now you are using my post on that subject to conclude that i think tenants havent any rights. Tenants havnt any property rights regarding land ownership. Just contractual regarding use of anothers property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munro Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 so why are you living in such a persons house? there are many good places about with no problems. its your choice I'm not. I agreed a fixed period of just under three months, paid in full in advance. All too often you don't find out the downside until you've moved in, which is another reason why housing can be such a sh!te experience. Of course if I'd known in advance I wouldn't have done the deal, but it isn't always possible to tell what's good and what's bad until it's too late. The inflexibility of housing is something that's all too often overlooked. I'm glad now it's over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 (edited) Tenants havnt any property rights regarding land ownership. Just contractual regarding use of anothers property. It is you that seem to be getting confused; either that or you are constantly repeating the same strawman Tenants do not actually own the land any more than landlords; they do however own the liberties stolen from them by the possession / 'supposed' ownership of land. A landlord selling those stolen liberties back to the tenant is selling the tenant’s stolen property back to him. Edited August 19, 2010 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 You seem to be getting two arguements mixed up. One minute you are saying no one owns the land. Now you are using my post on that subject to conclude that i think tenants havent any rights. Tenants havnt any property rights regarding land ownership. Just contractual regarding use of anothers property. I wouldn't waste you're breath.. you'll still be here in another ten pages Stars believes that owning land is theft because when people first started owning land, it was not handed out evenly to everybody. He argues that owning land should not be a birth right as it should all belong to everybody evenly. Therefore by paying for land you are stealing it from someone who should have it for free. You are arguing based on what is currently real and accepted, Stars is arguing based on how he thinks the world should be.. right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Sh!t houses, only problem tenants can afford, Implication is they are sh1t because you are getting sh1t tenants, you have had problem tenants in the past that you have called scum in this thread so you're not dealing with the upper end of the market. over valued, We are just past the peak of the biggest property price bubble in history, so yes, overvalued having a day job. You said "to be paid for from my day job plus ploughing back rental income" You have deduced so much from very little written that maybe your true calling is working alongside Doctor Watson. Ok then. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
live in hope Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 It is you that seem to be getting confused; either that or you are constantly repeating the same strawman Tenants do not actually own the land any more than landlords; they do however own the liberties stolen from them by the possession / 'supposed' ownership of land. A landlord selling those stolen liberties back to the tenant is selling the tenant’s stolen property back to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.