3 ms·

Land belongs to society, not whoever has a house on it. If you are using it ineffectively you deserve to be punished by society via taxes because you are direct

Land belongs to society, not whoever has a house on it. If you are using it ineffectively you deserve to be punished by society via taxes because you are directly making the community worse off.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
If you don't believe in property ownership, I think it unlikely we will find common ground.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  I absolutely believe in property ownership. And that land is such a unique and important asset that it is utterly immoral for anyone except society as a whole to own it and tax those on it at close to its full value.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    In this we have similarly strong feelings but opposite conclusion. I also think that land is a fundamental and important asset, but conclude from that it is immoral for an individual possession to be reliant and dependent on society. I feel it in the same way that I would not want my ability to beath air to depend on some social utilitarian function that could decide it is better used elsewhere. I suppose you might view this as anti-social.
    - danans 4y ago
      > it is immoral for an individual possession to be reliant and dependent on society. Society is what defines the concept of land ownership and actively protects the ownership of land, so it's not possible to remove a dependency of the latter on the former.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Society accepts and protects property ownership of land but is not the only method possible. Legal rights and social processes are just the most agreeable way to manage it amongst several people. For example, You can own land if there is no society or other people to contest it. If you are alone on a island, there is no one to say you don't own it Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it. If you've ever been mugged or read of nations conquered, it is clear that social consensus and the rule of law is but one mode of arbitrating property ownership. That said, it is one that works out quite well
        danans 4y ago
        > If you are alone on a island, there is no one to say you don't own it Ownership has no meaning unless you can identify who does not have it, which requires at least one other person nearby. If you are alone on an island, you are just occupying it. > Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it. This requires an army or militia, or an overwhelming technological advantage over those you are dispossessing. Those imply operating in a societ. Otherwise where does your militia and technology come from?

Land belongs to society, not whoever has a house on it. If you are using it ineffectively you deserve to be punished by society via taxes because you are directly making the community worse off.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

If you don't believe in property ownership, I think it unlikely we will find common ground.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
I absolutely believe in property ownership. And that land is such a unique and important asset that it is utterly immoral for anyone except society as a whole to own it and tax those on it at close to its full value.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  In this we have similarly strong feelings but opposite conclusion. I also think that land is a fundamental and important asset, but conclude from that it is immoral for an individual possession to be reliant and dependent on society. I feel it in the same way that I would not want my ability to beath air to depend on some social utilitarian function that could decide it is better used elsewhere. I suppose you might view this as anti-social.
  - danans 4y ago
    > it is immoral for an individual possession to be reliant and dependent on society. Society is what defines the concept of land ownership and actively protects the ownership of land, so it's not possible to remove a dependency of the latter on the former.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Society accepts and protects property ownership of land but is not the only method possible. Legal rights and social processes are just the most agreeable way to manage it amongst several people. For example, You can own land if there is no society or other people to contest it. If you are alone on a island, there is no one to say you don't own it Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it. If you've ever been mugged or read of nations conquered, it is clear that social consensus and the rule of law is but one mode of arbitrating property ownership. That said, it is one that works out quite well
      - danans 4y ago
        > If you are alone on a island, there is no one to say you don't own it Ownership has no meaning unless you can identify who does not have it, which requires at least one other person nearby. If you are alone on an island, you are just occupying it. > Similarly, you can own land without social dependence if you have the power take or defend it. This requires an army or militia, or an overwhelming technological advantage over those you are dispossessing. Those imply operating in a societ. Otherwise where does your militia and technology come from?