5 ms·

We were also owners once, and not all land and property was already spoke for and regulated against building more. One of the problems that I think could help

We were also owners once, and not all land and property was already spoke for and regulated against building more. One of the problems that I think could help this a lot is income inequality. The economic gains are no longer that of the people working for them, but those of the ownership class. The only way to get ahead is to become an Owner, and such a thing is harder and harder as one has to compete against entire organizations of owners.

8note 6y ago
Technically the government was in the business of taking land from people to give it to other people at the time. It's not like there was just empty land
- taurath 6y ago
  I mean, yeah there was, though yes the governments owned it and sold it to developers.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    I think 8note is referring to the native people who were being forcibly displaced
    - throwawaywrench 6y ago
      Possibly although at some point someone had to be the first humans in an area
      - dcposch 6y ago
        Lot of callousness in that comment. > Possibly Definitely. > at some point someone had to be the first humans in an area Yes, and we know who they were. Hundreds of different tribes, spanning from coast to coast. They came during the last Ice Age, crossing over the Bering Straight which was solid ground at that time. The way American settlers treated the native peoples is not something that can just be "possibly"-d away.
        ponker 6y ago
        But how much of that land was actually "owned" by the people who actually first settled it? Didn't they have their own disputes and conquests? Anyway the idea of land "ownership" is kind of stupid in the first place. You can't "own" land, you can just possess it under the rules of some kind of system of power.
        mod 6y ago
        "Possibly" in that comment refers to the possibility that the GGP comment was referring to the native peoples, rather than the meaning you took from it.
      - inawarminister 6y ago
        100,000 years ago for most of the Old World, 40,000 years ago for Australia, and 6000 years ago at the maximum for Southern America's (12kya for North America).
    - taurath 6y ago
      I’m a bit embarrassed I didn’t pick that up first to be quite honest. And it’s a great point.
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    Albert Jay Nock has some interesting things to report on the subject of land-grabbing in colonial America as done by many of the Founding Fathers. "Most of [land speculation] was done on the company-system; a number of adventurers would unite, secure a grant of land, survey it, and then sell it off as speedily as they could. Their aim was a quick turnover; they did not, as a rule, contemplate holding the land, much less settling it - in short, their ventures were a pure gamble in rental-values. Among these pre-revolutionary enterprises was the Ohio Company, formed in 1748 with a grant of half a million acres; the Loyal Company, which like the Ohio Company, was composed of Virginians; the Transylvania, the Vandalia, Scioto, Indiana, Wabash, Illinois, Susquehannah, and others whose holdings were smaller. It is interesting to observe the names of persons concerned in these undertakings; one can not escape the significance of this connexion in view of their attitude towards the revolution, and their subsequent career as statesmen and patriots. For example, aside from his individual ventures, General Washington was a member of the Ohio Company, and a prime mover in organizing the Mississippi Company. He also conceived the scheme of the Potomac Company... Patrick Henry was an inveterate and voracious engrosser of land lying beyond the deadline set by the British State; later he was heavily involved in the affairs of one of the notorious Yazoo companies, operating in Georgia. ... His company's holdings in Georgia [amounted] to more than ten million acres... Benjamin Franklin's thrifty mind turned cordially to the project of the Vandalia Company, and he acted successfully as promoter for it in England in 1766. Timothy Pickering, who was Secretary of State under Washington and John Adams, went on record in 1796 that "all I am now worth was gained by speculations in land." Silas Deane, emissary of the Continental Congress to France, was interested in the Illinois and Wabash Companies, as was Robert Morris, who managed the revolution's finances; as was also James Wilson, who became a justice of the Supreme Court and a mighty man in post-revolutionary land-grabbing. Wolcott of Connecticut, and Stiles, president of Yale College, held stock in the Susquehannah Company; so did Peletiah Webster, Ethan Allen, and Jonathan Trumbull, the "Brother Jonathan," whose name was long a sobriquet for the typical American, and is still sometimes so used. James Duane, the first mayor of New York City, carried on some quite considerable speculative undertakings; and however indisposed one may feel towards entertaining the fact, so did the "Father of the Revolution" himself - Samuel Adams." He further says that the British forbade claiming land beyond a certain western border, and says that this was probably a strong motive for the revolution, stronger than some of the other things the British had done. "In 1763 [the British] forbade the colonists to take up lands lying westward of the source of any river flowing through the Atlantic seaboard. The dead-line thus established ran so as to cut off from preemption about half of Pennsylvania and half of Virginia and everything to the west thereof. This was serious. With the mania for speculation running as high as it did, with the consciousness of opportunity, real or fancied, having become so acute and so general, this ruling affected everybody. One can get some idea of its effect by imagining the state of mind of our people at large if stock-gambling had suddenly been outlawed at the beginning of the last great boom in Wall Street a few years ago. ... A mere common-sense view of the situation would indicate that the British State's interference with [the land-granting process] was at least as great an incitement to revolution as its interference, through the Navigation Acts, and the Trade Acts ... In the nature of things it would be a greater incitement, both because it affected a more numerous class of persons, and because speculation in land-values represented much easier money."
- 6510 6y ago
  I cant recall who but some ingenious game developer wrote an article arguing that a design with land tax makes people (players) do interesting thing with land. Without it the game world just ends up owned and stale. I see a parallel with [insane] real estate prices but also with taking land from one person and giving it to another.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dash2 6y ago
    Not a game developer :-) but Henry George's Progress and Poverty made the same point and was almost as influential as Marx in its day.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Me and a friend used to play a game called Wurm Online (the guy behind Minecraft worked on that before branching off); in that game you could build things like a house, but over time, weathering would slowly break it down so if you abandoned it, everything would just be removed. I mean the game is janky but the concept was really interesting.
- charliebrownau 6y ago
  How does one issue and grant land ownership without an goverence group ? Even if LAND was given to citizens or tax payers for FREE Whats going to stop one person claiming 10-100 ha of land for themself in a town and no one else gets a bit or another person comes along and kills the land other then claims its their because they WANTED IT This is why ancaps and peacefull interactions fail under its own system Everything is enforced with FORCE if a person doesnt agree
WalterBright 6y ago
It's become easier and easier for anyone to own stock in American companies. Commissions are now $0, and you can buy fractional shares. Becoming an owner is just opening a brokerage account away. If land is your thing, you can buy shares in REITs, too. (Real Estate Investment Trusts)
- zxcmx 6y ago
  "I'm being oppressed by my own retirement fund". :/
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Quite often this can be literally true; you have ownership but not control, because there's too many layers of indirection. You may find your retirement fund is investing in companies that give money to the PACs of candidates you oppose.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      You have a vote on how the corporation or REIT is run. You can also sell your shares, and buy shares in an outfit more aligned with your interests. There are lots of companies to choose from.
      - pjc50 6y ago
        You only have a vote on shares that you hold directly. There are lots of tax-incentive wrappers where this isn't true. Ultimately, yes, you usually have the flexibility of picking individual stocks. But then diversification (for security) reduces your overall time and attention available to control any one stock. Buying passive index trackers, as usually recommended, gives you neither.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        In other words, it's the individual's choice whether they buy voting stock or not. Anyone can buy shares in Microsoft (for example) and become a part-owner and have votes. And it's never been easier to do so. Microsoft will even pay you a quarterly dividend as your cut of the company's profits.
0xfaded 6y ago
Not only that, but by becoming an owner, you increase demand for that which is owned, pushing up prices and benefiting existing owners. Something has to give.
- pas 6y ago
  Demand far surpasses supply. The density is too damn low (in high demand places).

8note 6y ago

Technically the government was in the business of taking land from people to give it to other people at the time. It's not like there was just empty land

taurath 6y ago
I mean, yeah there was, though yes the governments owned it and sold it to developers.
- brundolf 6y ago
  I think 8note is referring to the native people who were being forcibly displaced
  - throwawaywrench 6y ago
    Possibly although at some point someone had to be the first humans in an area
    - dcposch 6y ago
      Lot of callousness in that comment. > Possibly Definitely. > at some point someone had to be the first humans in an area Yes, and we know who they were. Hundreds of different tribes, spanning from coast to coast. They came during the last Ice Age, crossing over the Bering Straight which was solid ground at that time. The way American settlers treated the native peoples is not something that can just be "possibly"-d away.
      - ponker 6y ago
        But how much of that land was actually "owned" by the people who actually first settled it? Didn't they have their own disputes and conquests? Anyway the idea of land "ownership" is kind of stupid in the first place. You can't "own" land, you can just possess it under the rules of some kind of system of power.
      - mod 6y ago
        "Possibly" in that comment refers to the possibility that the GGP comment was referring to the native peoples, rather than the meaning you took from it.
    - inawarminister 6y ago
      100,000 years ago for most of the Old World, 40,000 years ago for Australia, and 6000 years ago at the maximum for Southern America's (12kya for North America).
  - taurath 6y ago
    I’m a bit embarrassed I didn’t pick that up first to be quite honest. And it’s a great point.
- waterhouse 6y ago
  Albert Jay Nock has some interesting things to report on the subject of land-grabbing in colonial America as done by many of the Founding Fathers. "Most of [land speculation] was done on the company-system; a number of adventurers would unite, secure a grant of land, survey it, and then sell it off as speedily as they could. Their aim was a quick turnover; they did not, as a rule, contemplate holding the land, much less settling it - in short, their ventures were a pure gamble in rental-values. Among these pre-revolutionary enterprises was the Ohio Company, formed in 1748 with a grant of half a million acres; the Loyal Company, which like the Ohio Company, was composed of Virginians; the Transylvania, the Vandalia, Scioto, Indiana, Wabash, Illinois, Susquehannah, and others whose holdings were smaller. It is interesting to observe the names of persons concerned in these undertakings; one can not escape the significance of this connexion in view of their attitude towards the revolution, and their subsequent career as statesmen and patriots. For example, aside from his individual ventures, General Washington was a member of the Ohio Company, and a prime mover in organizing the Mississippi Company. He also conceived the scheme of the Potomac Company... Patrick Henry was an inveterate and voracious engrosser of land lying beyond the deadline set by the British State; later he was heavily involved in the affairs of one of the notorious Yazoo companies, operating in Georgia. ... His company's holdings in Georgia [amounted] to more than ten million acres... Benjamin Franklin's thrifty mind turned cordially to the project of the Vandalia Company, and he acted successfully as promoter for it in England in 1766. Timothy Pickering, who was Secretary of State under Washington and John Adams, went on record in 1796 that "all I am now worth was gained by speculations in land." Silas Deane, emissary of the Continental Congress to France, was interested in the Illinois and Wabash Companies, as was Robert Morris, who managed the revolution's finances; as was also James Wilson, who became a justice of the Supreme Court and a mighty man in post-revolutionary land-grabbing. Wolcott of Connecticut, and Stiles, president of Yale College, held stock in the Susquehannah Company; so did Peletiah Webster, Ethan Allen, and Jonathan Trumbull, the "Brother Jonathan," whose name was long a sobriquet for the typical American, and is still sometimes so used. James Duane, the first mayor of New York City, carried on some quite considerable speculative undertakings; and however indisposed one may feel towards entertaining the fact, so did the "Father of the Revolution" himself - Samuel Adams." He further says that the British forbade claiming land beyond a certain western border, and says that this was probably a strong motive for the revolution, stronger than some of the other things the British had done. "In 1763 [the British] forbade the colonists to take up lands lying westward of the source of any river flowing through the Atlantic seaboard. The dead-line thus established ran so as to cut off from preemption about half of Pennsylvania and half of Virginia and everything to the west thereof. This was serious. With the mania for speculation running as high as it did, with the consciousness of opportunity, real or fancied, having become so acute and so general, this ruling affected everybody. One can get some idea of its effect by imagining the state of mind of our people at large if stock-gambling had suddenly been outlawed at the beginning of the last great boom in Wall Street a few years ago. ... A mere common-sense view of the situation would indicate that the British State's interference with [the land-granting process] was at least as great an incitement to revolution as its interference, through the Navigation Acts, and the Trade Acts ... In the nature of things it would be a greater incitement, both because it affected a more numerous class of persons, and because speculation in land-values represented much easier money."
6510 6y ago
I cant recall who but some ingenious game developer wrote an article arguing that a design with land tax makes people (players) do interesting thing with land. Without it the game world just ends up owned and stale. I see a parallel with [insane] real estate prices but also with taking land from one person and giving it to another.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dash2 6y ago
  Not a game developer :-) but Henry George's Progress and Poverty made the same point and was almost as influential as Marx in its day.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Me and a friend used to play a game called Wurm Online (the guy behind Minecraft worked on that before branching off); in that game you could build things like a house, but over time, weathering would slowly break it down so if you abandoned it, everything would just be removed. I mean the game is janky but the concept was really interesting.
charliebrownau 6y ago
How does one issue and grant land ownership without an goverence group ? Even if LAND was given to citizens or tax payers for FREE Whats going to stop one person claiming 10-100 ha of land for themself in a town and no one else gets a bit or another person comes along and kills the land other then claims its their because they WANTED IT This is why ancaps and peacefull interactions fail under its own system Everything is enforced with FORCE if a person doesnt agree

WalterBright 6y ago

It's become easier and easier for anyone to own stock in American companies. Commissions are now $0, and you can buy fractional shares. Becoming an owner is just opening a brokerage account away. If land is your thing, you can buy shares in REITs, too. (Real Estate Investment Trusts)

zxcmx 6y ago
"I'm being oppressed by my own retirement fund". :/
- pjc50 6y ago
  Quite often this can be literally true; you have ownership but not control, because there's too many layers of indirection. You may find your retirement fund is investing in companies that give money to the PACs of candidates you oppose.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    You have a vote on how the corporation or REIT is run. You can also sell your shares, and buy shares in an outfit more aligned with your interests. There are lots of companies to choose from.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      You only have a vote on shares that you hold directly. There are lots of tax-incentive wrappers where this isn't true. Ultimately, yes, you usually have the flexibility of picking individual stocks. But then diversification (for security) reduces your overall time and attention available to control any one stock. Buying passive index trackers, as usually recommended, gives you neither.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        In other words, it's the individual's choice whether they buy voting stock or not. Anyone can buy shares in Microsoft (for example) and become a part-owner and have votes. And it's never been easier to do so. Microsoft will even pay you a quarterly dividend as your cut of the company's profits.

0xfaded 6y ago

Not only that, but by becoming an owner, you increase demand for that which is owned, pushing up prices and benefiting existing owners. Something has to give.

pas 6y ago
Demand far surpasses supply. The density is too damn low (in high demand places).