4 ms·

It's truly amazing to me that people accept landlording as legitimate. Nobody made land, so why should some people be allowed to make money out of it at the exp

It's truly amazing to me that people accept landlording as legitimate. Nobody made land, so why should some people be allowed to make money out of it at the expense of others?

jdnenej 7y ago
By that logic you have to reject all property ownership entirely and modern society becomes totally unable to function since no one could ever build a building. I think the vast majority of us find the ability to own land to be more useful than everyone living in grass tents that someone else could knock over because they want to sleep there.
- djrobstep 7y ago
  You talk as though the concept of public property doesn't exist. It's also possible eliminate land rents from private property ownership, by charging 100% tax on the land portion (as opposed to the facilities on it). Perhaps your political preferences close your eyes to the practical possibilities?
- pietroglyph 7y ago
  I think the GP is drawing a distinction between private and personal property. If you outlaw private property (e.g. things owned in absentee by entities, usually to seek rent, like landlording) then you are not outlawing people owning the places in which they work or sleep. It is only when you outlaw personal property (e.g. your clothes, your home) that you encounter the problematic scenario that you suggest. When Marx says he wants to abolish private property (i.e. the means of production), he does not mean to abolish personal property. I think this nuance is often ignored or unknown, which is unfortunate.
  - jdnenej 7y ago
    So you are saying that people may only own land if they work or live on the land? This is not desirable for most businesses where renting property makes much more sense since it gives them the flexability to expand or downsize. It is also not desirable for people who are living somewhere temporarily.
    - scotty79 7y ago
      Renting is desirable because land is expensive to buy. And that's because its value is inflated because you can use it as the source of passive income (rent). If you could buy land from somebody moving out at the price similar to todays renting you wouldn't want to rent. And the company that's moving out would have incentive to sell it to you at low price because ofter it stops operating there it will loose the ownership and get nothing.
    - djrobstep 7y ago
      Renting itself is fine. Property ownership is actually a huge, annoying pain in the ass which, putting aside financial security reasons, and the fact that renters are often treated like scum, nobody would want to go through. What is at issue here is landlording for private gain. As I pointed out, these rents are entirely unearned because nobody made land, and so should flow to the general public, not private owners.
      - Nasrudith 7y ago
        Under that logic wouldn't a farmer farming for private gain have unearned money? They didn't make the land. Not that there is never unjust rent-seeking activity but there are real investment of capital and work involved and merely "dependence on land" isn't a sufficient arguement.
  - oceanplexian 7y ago
    In your example, who gets to decide who will use the "private" property? The government? The person who got there first? Does it become a sort of law of the Jungle that the person to defend a place is the one who gets to enjoy the view? At least in the latter the property is truly owned by the public. But in the former, you simply made the government the rent seeker instead of a individual person or company. The end result is no different.
    - djrobstep 7y ago
      You think there's no difference between public and private land?
larnmar 7y ago
Because they paid money for that land?
closeparen 7y ago
The instinct to possess and control territory is much older than humanity itself. I’d rather be in a bidding war than a literal fight to the death.
exolymph 7y ago
Check out Georgism.
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  To those downvoting grandparent: parent refers to a serious economic theory based in that idea.
King-Aaron 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHTRyDs4RU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHTRyDs4RU
air7 7y ago
Nobody made anything really. Everything you "own" was made by someone else or at least the raw materials were not created by you. What's the justification for any kind of ownership?
- darkwater 7y ago
  Obviously, the added value in the manufacturing process.
- simias 7y ago
  The general idea is that the value of something comes from the amount of human work that went into it, more or less. If you build paper planes and I buy one from you it's because I value the work you put into it (and, transitively, the work put into the paper it was made of etc...). If I think I can do it better, or that I can find somebody else who does it for cheaper, then I don't buy your product. When I pay my rent, what work do I reward? What added value does the land owner offer to society? What service do they provide?

It's truly amazing to me that people accept landlording as legitimate. Nobody made land, so why should some people be allowed to make money out of it at the expense of others?

jdnenej 7y ago

By that logic you have to reject all property ownership entirely and modern society becomes totally unable to function since no one could ever build a building. I think the vast majority of us find the ability to own land to be more useful than everyone living in grass tents that someone else could knock over because they want to sleep there.

djrobstep 7y ago
You talk as though the concept of public property doesn't exist. It's also possible eliminate land rents from private property ownership, by charging 100% tax on the land portion (as opposed to the facilities on it). Perhaps your political preferences close your eyes to the practical possibilities?
pietroglyph 7y ago
I think the GP is drawing a distinction between private and personal property. If you outlaw private property (e.g. things owned in absentee by entities, usually to seek rent, like landlording) then you are not outlawing people owning the places in which they work or sleep. It is only when you outlaw personal property (e.g. your clothes, your home) that you encounter the problematic scenario that you suggest. When Marx says he wants to abolish private property (i.e. the means of production), he does not mean to abolish personal property. I think this nuance is often ignored or unknown, which is unfortunate.
- jdnenej 7y ago
  So you are saying that people may only own land if they work or live on the land? This is not desirable for most businesses where renting property makes much more sense since it gives them the flexability to expand or downsize. It is also not desirable for people who are living somewhere temporarily.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    Renting is desirable because land is expensive to buy. And that's because its value is inflated because you can use it as the source of passive income (rent). If you could buy land from somebody moving out at the price similar to todays renting you wouldn't want to rent. And the company that's moving out would have incentive to sell it to you at low price because ofter it stops operating there it will loose the ownership and get nothing.
  - djrobstep 7y ago
    Renting itself is fine. Property ownership is actually a huge, annoying pain in the ass which, putting aside financial security reasons, and the fact that renters are often treated like scum, nobody would want to go through. What is at issue here is landlording for private gain. As I pointed out, these rents are entirely unearned because nobody made land, and so should flow to the general public, not private owners.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      Under that logic wouldn't a farmer farming for private gain have unearned money? They didn't make the land. Not that there is never unjust rent-seeking activity but there are real investment of capital and work involved and merely "dependence on land" isn't a sufficient arguement.
- oceanplexian 7y ago
  In your example, who gets to decide who will use the "private" property? The government? The person who got there first? Does it become a sort of law of the Jungle that the person to defend a place is the one who gets to enjoy the view? At least in the latter the property is truly owned by the public. But in the former, you simply made the government the rent seeker instead of a individual person or company. The end result is no different.
  - djrobstep 7y ago
    You think there's no difference between public and private land?

larnmar 7y ago

Because they paid money for that land?

closeparen 7y ago

The instinct to possess and control territory is much older than humanity itself. I’d rather be in a bidding war than a literal fight to the death.

exolymph 7y ago

Check out Georgism.

iudqnolq 7y ago
To those downvoting grandparent: parent refers to a serious economic theory based in that idea.

King-Aaron 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHTRyDs4RU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCHTRyDs4RU

air7 7y ago

Nobody made anything really. Everything you "own" was made by someone else or at least the raw materials were not created by you. What's the justification for any kind of ownership?

darkwater 7y ago
Obviously, the added value in the manufacturing process.
simias 7y ago
The general idea is that the value of something comes from the amount of human work that went into it, more or less. If you build paper planes and I buy one from you it's because I value the work you put into it (and, transitively, the work put into the paper it was made of etc...). If I think I can do it better, or that I can find somebody else who does it for cheaper, then I don't buy your product. When I pay my rent, what work do I reward? What added value does the land owner offer to society? What service do they provide?