3 ms·

IMHO the land belongs to all of us, like the air, and the water. ie '(wo)man is born free' rather than 'born to pay rent to a private owner until such time as

IMHO the land belongs to all of us, like the air, and the water. ie '(wo)man is born free' rather than 'born to pay rent to a private owner until such time as they can buy a freehold and pass on the condition'. That doesn't mean you can't have exclusive use of some part of it, how else would we encourage people to take care of the land and develop it. But you should continuously pay everyone else for it's exclusive use. Inherited, and corporate (basically immortal) land outright ownership is immoral IMHO.

mathgeek 4y ago
Do you believe this expands globally or only within sociopolitical boundaries as they mutate?
- jacknews 4y ago
  A very good question. People should be able to choose where they live (that does require a more equal world though), but on the other hand, communities should have some say in who their members are and what their rules are. I do see current fixed national boundaries as problematic.
burnerburnito 4y ago
>but you should continuously pay everyone else for it's exclusive use. So pay rent to the state instead of a private landholder? I found your first paragraph very agreeable and convincing, but this feels like it's just passing the problem on up to the state. Would you just be suggesting that any ownership of land outside of a a single home or apartment be heavily rented/taxed to the government, or literally all use of space used exclusively (e.g. a private bedroom)?
- jacknews 4y ago
  I think the logical consequence of the first paragraph is the second. If the land belongs to everyone, but you want to occupy some part of it exclusively, you need to pay everyone else for the privilege. Not just one individual who happens to 'own' it through various historical doings. I'm not sure how you can 'pay eveyone else' except through some kind of 'state' mechanism.
- bigtex88 4y ago
  Assuming OP is taking a Georgist perspective, the idea is that the land rent would be distributed equally among the community as a basic dividend.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > So pay rent to the state instead of a private landholder? You pay rent to the people (via the state, which acts as a layer of indirection) who no longer get to use the piece of naturally occurring land that you're monopolizing. Think of it like finite natural resources. Who really owns that? It's a gift of nature. Nobody made it. So if one person wants to dig those up and sell them, part of the proceeds should be shared with everyone. Because it's not even their property, so they have no moral right to privatize 100% of the gains in the first place. Now if someone puts effort into transforming those resources into something more useful, then they should own the fruits of that labor. The distinction is labor (the fruits of which I should own) versus naturally occuring thing I had no role in making (which I should not own).

mathgeek 4y ago

Do you believe this expands globally or only within sociopolitical boundaries as they mutate?

jacknews 4y ago
A very good question. People should be able to choose where they live (that does require a more equal world though), but on the other hand, communities should have some say in who their members are and what their rules are. I do see current fixed national boundaries as problematic.

burnerburnito 4y ago

>but you should continuously pay everyone else for it's exclusive use. So pay rent to the state instead of a private landholder? I found your first paragraph very agreeable and convincing, but this feels like it's just passing the problem on up to the state. Would you just be suggesting that any ownership of land outside of a a single home or apartment be heavily rented/taxed to the government, or literally all use of space used exclusively (e.g. a private bedroom)?

jacknews 4y ago
I think the logical consequence of the first paragraph is the second. If the land belongs to everyone, but you want to occupy some part of it exclusively, you need to pay everyone else for the privilege. Not just one individual who happens to 'own' it through various historical doings. I'm not sure how you can 'pay eveyone else' except through some kind of 'state' mechanism.
bigtex88 4y ago
Assuming OP is taking a Georgist perspective, the idea is that the land rent would be distributed equally among the community as a basic dividend.
hackerlight 4y ago
> So pay rent to the state instead of a private landholder? You pay rent to the people (via the state, which acts as a layer of indirection) who no longer get to use the piece of naturally occurring land that you're monopolizing. Think of it like finite natural resources. Who really owns that? It's a gift of nature. Nobody made it. So if one person wants to dig those up and sell them, part of the proceeds should be shared with everyone. Because it's not even their property, so they have no moral right to privatize 100% of the gains in the first place. Now if someone puts effort into transforming those resources into something more useful, then they should own the fruits of that labor. The distinction is labor (the fruits of which I should own) versus naturally occuring thing I had no role in making (which I should not own).