Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
mightytharg

Do You Agree With This?

Recommended Posts

HOUSING

Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be

owned by others. Living in another's house, whether paying rent or not, compromises

freedom. Attempts made by various countries to solve the housing problem did not

provide a definite solution because such attempts did not target the ultimate solution - the

necessity that people own their dwellings - but rather offered the reduction, increase, or

standardization of rent, whether it went to privately or publicly-owned enterprise. In a

socialist society, no one, including society itself, has the right to control people's needs.

No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of

his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it because this additional house is, in fact, a

need of someone else. Acquiring it for such a purpose is the beginning of controlling the

needs of others, and "in need freedom is latent".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonably. I think they should have social housing, instead of paying the private sector housing benefits. Land rationing shouldn't be allowed. If they're going to let 300,000 more people enter the country than leave per year, then they should damn well build some more houses.

I think one thing that your statement ignores is that some people will be so poor as to not be able to afford a house. Therefore you are going to need the state to sort them out with one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonably. I think they should have social housing, instead of paying the private sector housing benefits. Land rationing shouldn't be allowed. If they're going to let 300,000 more people enter the country than leave per year, then they should damn well build some more houses.

I think one thing that your statement ignores is that some people will be so poor as to not be able to afford a house. Therefore you are going to need the state to sort them out with one.

The quote was from Gadaffi, who provided money so people could buy a house when they got married. He also turned his country from the poorest in Africa to the richest and paid off all its debt.

He seems to have been stomped on very hard, and many of his people have been killed by Nato and the rebels. The Zionists have now imposed a new central bank and will probably be charging interest etc.

So my point is that we should be careful, if Britain solved the housing crisis and paid back the money we owe, it might annoy the people who profit from the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has said something agreeable at some point or another, even awful people like Tony Blair.

Gadaffi did make Libya rich, but how much of that was from freedom and international trade rather than oil riches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote was from Gadaffi, who provided money so people could buy a house when they got married. He also turned his country from the poorest in Africa to the richest and paid off all its debt.

And Hitler did a lot for the 'pure' German people. Some of stuff coming out of Libya makes it hard to regard Gadaffi as an ideal leader or regret his fall.

That said, interesting quote. A little cherry-picking of the best of the worst might not go amiss. Gadaffi's housing policy, Cuba's health-care system, Soviet Russia's tractor-production... (oh, wait, forget that last one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intetesting. Proves that there's always more than one side to every reported story and to not believe anything you read or hear especially if they want you to.

Edited by ader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote was from Gadaffi,

Do you have a reference for that?

One trouble with quotes translated from distant languages is that the sense can be distorted to suit an Agenda. Just look at the Melanie Phillips translations of anything said in Arabic or Farsi, making the speakers appear utterly monstrous (and in the case of president Ahmedinejad it's not just the High Priestess of Hate and a bunch of acolytes who famously distort his words).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOUSING

Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be

owned by others. Living in another's house, whether paying rent or not, compromises

freedom. Attempts made by various countries to solve the housing problem did not

provide a definite solution because such attempts did not target the ultimate solution - the

necessity that people own their dwellings - but rather offered the reduction, increase, or

standardization of rent, whether it went to privately or publicly-owned enterprise. In a

socialist society, no one, including society itself, has the right to control people's needs.

No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of

his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it because this additional house is, in fact, a

need of someone else. Acquiring it for such a purpose is the beginning of controlling the

needs of others, and "in need freedom is latent".

Laughable. Where did you find the quote?

Focussing the power in the hands of a few at the top is never going to solve the problem. The only real solution is the abolishment of all planning laws, preferably along with the state itself.

P.S. In an anarcho-capitalist society, there is nothing stopping people grouping together into communist/socialist unions, buying up land between themselves, sharing resources etc. The difference is, the rest of us aren't forced into it too.

EDIT: I just read that it was a quote was from Gadaffi - how unsurprising! ;)

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has said something agreeable at some point or another, even awful people like Tony Blair.

Gadaffi did make Libya rich, but how much of that was from freedom and international trade rather than oil riches?

Bullseye!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonably. I think they should have social housing, instead of paying the private sector housing benefits. Land rationing shouldn't be allowed. If they're going to let 300,000 more people enter the country than leave per year, then they should damn well build some more houses.

I think one thing that your statement ignores is that some people will be so poor as to not be able to afford a house. Therefore you are going to need the state to sort them out with one.

Land is cheap. Building a simple house is cheap. It's the restrictions on where to build and the regulations to build to, not to mention the taxes to pay, which make it expensive.

Getting yourself a quarter acre of grazing land and throwing up a log cabin wouldn't take long, nor cost much. EDIT: Nor would buying a static caravan and living in that either... whether charitable people would want to help these people more, should be up to the individuals doing the donating.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something stinks to high heaven in Libya. It is blindingly clear that the news we are being fed does not relate to how things are on the ground. Stories abound about journalists being threatened if they report anything other than the Rebels = good, Gaddafi = bad line.

NATO is playing to some agenda and it is nothing to do with protecting civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HOUSING

Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be

owned by others. Living in another's house, whether paying rent or not, compromises

freedom. Attempts made by various countries to solve the housing problem did not

provide a definite solution because such attempts did not target the ultimate solution - the

necessity that people own their dwellings - but rather offered the reduction, increase, or

standardization of rent, whether it went to privately or publicly-owned enterprise. In a

socialist society, no one, including society itself, has the right to control people's needs.

No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of

his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it because this additional house is, in fact, a

need of someone else. Acquiring it for such a purpose is the beginning of controlling the

needs of others, and "in need freedom is latent".

No, however hard you argue it, OWNING a house is most definately not a human right and there is nothing wrong with renting.

And if you are going to have people renting you have to have other people who own the house that they rent.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land is cheap. Building a simple house is cheap. It's the restrictions on where to build and the regulations to build to, not to mention the taxes to pay, which make it expensive.

Getting yourself a quarter acre of grazing land and throwing up a log cabin wouldn't take long, nor cost much. EDIT: Nor would buying a static caravan and living in that either... whether charitable people would want to help these people more, should be up to the individuals doing the donating.

Yes. But there are people in this country who are turning 16, don't work, aren't going to work and their Mum lives in a council house and is on benefits. Maybe they shouldn't move out, but then there are other examples,the disabled etc. I was mainly talking about those who wouldn't have the nous to get off their bums and build a log cabin if it were economically viable.

Totally agree with building land should be cheap. Though I'd rather go for a one in one out policy on immigration. Not that it would be easy to implement.

As for Gaddaffi, I think people want the right to choose. They see an authoritarian regime telling them what to do. And for the bits they don't like, they dislike the regime for. The whole idea with communism was for the people. It's just implementing it that is the hard part. Especially when the educated think they should be able to sell their skill set for what they can get for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He also turned his country from the poorest in Africa to the richest and paid off all its debt.

Could you state the last year in which Libya was the poorest country in Africa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mightytharg, I think you have come across very well in this interesting thread

However here is the point in "The Green Book" where I stopped reading:

THE LAW OF SOCIETY

Law represents the other problem, parallel to that of the instrument of government, which has not been resolved. Although it was dealt with in different periods of history, the problem still persists today.

For a committee or an assembly to be empowered to draft the law of society is both invalid and undemocratic. It is also invalid and undemocratic for the law of society to be abrogated or amended by individual, a committee, or an assembly.

What then is the law of society? Who drafts it and what is its relevance to democracy?

The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made) positive law, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification.

If in the UK we followed that path, we might still be stoning adulterers or burning witches. Very interesting point to debate though about the ownership of multiple houses being an immoral, in that it is a way of controlling others, limiting their freedom. My counterargument would be that a person with capital can acquire two houses, and offer for one rent- allowing a person who has not yet accumulated capital to share in good housing. Which in principle is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Gadaffi personally discovered the Oil, did he?

tim

No, but he did direct it's value towards his own people, rather than the multinational oil corporations. And THAT was his crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mightytharg, I think you have come across very well in this interesting thread

However here is the point in "The Green Book" where I stopped reading:

THE LAW OF SOCIETY

Law represents the other problem, parallel to that of the instrument of government, which has not been resolved. Although it was dealt with in different periods of history, the problem still persists today.

For a committee or an assembly to be empowered to draft the law of society is both invalid and undemocratic. It is also invalid and undemocratic for the law of society to be abrogated or amended by individual, a committee, or an assembly.

What then is the law of society? Who drafts it and what is its relevance to democracy?

The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law outside these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions cannot be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made) positive law, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification.

If in the UK we followed that path, we might still be stoning adulterers or burning witches. Very interesting point to debate though about the ownership of multiple houses being an immoral, in that it is a way of controlling others, limiting their freedom. My counterargument would be that a person with capital can acquire two houses, and offer for one rent- allowing a person who has not yet accumulated capital to share in good housing. Which in principle is good.

Actually, that's given me heart that the document may be worth reading, as it is exactly right.

Our 'make the laws up as you go along, to please the mob' social-democracy is morally bankrupt. Laws should come from the people and from their customs, not from on high, with little use of any moral compass. Laws should reflect a moral and logical thought process and be obvious to any reasonable person in the land. Our arbitrary sprinkling of laws supporting one mob or VI or another provides none of this; is it any wonder society is breaking down?

Ancient anarchic Ireland relied on a free market in arbitration, based on laws which had lasted, and evolved little, over 100s of years. Contrary to your suggestion that we would be 'stoning adulterers or burning witches', Ireland at the time had more rights for women than England and virtually no corporal punishment, also in stark contrast to England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something stinks to high heaven in Libya. It is blindingly clear that the news we are being fed does not relate to how things are on the ground. Stories abound about journalists being threatened if they report anything other than the Rebels = good, Gaddafi = bad line.

NATO is playing to some agenda and it is nothing to do with protecting civilians.

Reminds me of a blatant peice of hilariously bad spin by BBC news last week. They showed a BBC reporter in a Libyan Building where they had" found" e-mails and documents that Gadaffi's regime had used to store details about people that opposed them. All the documents "they found" and showed the camera were in English.

Yeh right, because Libyans speak and write English as their first language and would never communicate details in Libyan Arabic would they :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something stinks to high heaven in Libya. It is blindingly clear that the news we are being fed does not relate to how things are on the ground. Stories abound about journalists being threatened if they report anything other than the Rebels = good, Gaddafi = bad line.

NATO is playing to some agenda and it is nothing to do with protecting civilians.

I don't think Western military forces are ever mobilised for humanitarian motives - despite what the BBC and politicians might spout.

I used to think Kosovo was an exception to this but, not at all sure on that any more.

No, but he did direct it's value towards his own people, rather than the multinational oil corporations. And THAT was his crime.

It's like Hugo Chavez who is also often maligned in the media - despite no real evidence of abnormal oppression for the region. Even where there might be evidence - there's no guarantee opposition protestors aren't a front for Western interests.

I have a feeling that axis of evil is sheeple shorthand for countries with no Western controlled central bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but he did direct it's value towards his own people, rather than the multinational oil corporations. And THAT was his crime.

He also wanted to stop accepting $ for his oil. He wanted gold instead from the USA, not worthless green pieces of paper printed at will by Helicopter Ben

Now, that really was a crime

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 285 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.