2 ms·
This seems to be directly in conflict with the idea that once you own land, it's yours. I don't see this flying at all, at least not with the current expectatio
by CydeWeys 6y ago
This seems to be directly in conflict with the idea that once you own land, it's yours. I don't see this flying at all, at least not with the current expectations of most people.
Any sizable company could easily bully any number of people out of their homes to acquire the land. It's hard to overstate how much people would hate this.
- nabla9 6y ago> once you own land, it's yours. Idea that you can buy a monopoly is generally a bad idea.
- CydeWeys 6y agoClearly people don't think so, as the vast majority do agree with private property exclusive ownership.
- em500 6y agoOwnership of land by individuals within any national border is always subject to local government power (taxation, eminent domain, police power, escheat). True exclusive land ownership is prohibitively expensive for individuals, since it would require military defense.
- ethanbond 6y agoMost people haven’t thought about it very deeply.
- abdullahkhalids 6y agoEasily fixed by having an exception for people's primary place of residence. And other reasonable exceptions.
- neilparikh 6y ago> the idea that once you own land, it's yours. This idea is the problem. Taken to its logical conclusion, we get feudalism, where those who don't own land will forever pay rent the landed gentry, only because they were fortunate enough inherit land. Property tax fixes this somewhat, but California decided to weaken that with Prop 13, and now is approaching feudalism. For example, in the apartment I lived in California, the rent paid would cover the landlord's property tax obligations in a month, and the remaining rent is the landlord's (minus whatever costs they have for maintenance).
- snidane 6y agoYou were sold a lie. You don't own land today if you buy it. Consider what the government would do if a huge oil deposit was found under your house.