4 ms·

“ The biggest blocker is always going to be land acquisition - either we reject the entire notion that you have property rights and the right to recourse, or yo

“ The biggest blocker is always going to be land acquisition - either we reject the entire notion that you have property rights and the right to recourse, or you accept that these basic civil liberties are a requirement and thus building will have to be done by the private sector because unlocking public funds would take 3-5 years on top of 2-3 years of construction.” Reflecting on the conflict of Israel and also in the show “yellowstone” basically originates from land ownership issues, i really think this human constructed abstraction and entitlement is fundamentally flawed. I really think it needs reworking and needs to be held as less sacred in America. Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes? So long as housing is so fundamentally stressful in current systems with resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter thats long paid for its investment yet still inflates in costs applying pressure on low income residents: i dont think mostly inalienable rights to property ownership in many cases is a public good.

alephnerd 2y ago
If my family has owned this house for multiple generations, why should I give it up to at best be resettled in a 2 bedroom apartment in the boonies? There is no good answer to that. Either you accept civil liberties of which property ownership is a critical part or you accept that civil liberties like ownership do not matter. Owning property is a right every human agrees with (it's literally article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). This is why you either need to compensate exhorbitantly or threaten to break a few legs and skulls in order to gain property. The mass urban housing projects of the 30s to 60s were literally built by mass demolishing black neighborhoods - look at Central Boston's redevelopment for example, as well as Cincinnati's. And that's why these projects ended once the Civil Rights movement succeeded - why should black residents lose their property and intergenerational wealth to urban projects built by governments that didn't care for them. Look at how the 1968 DC Riots and 1967 Detroit Riots were exacerbated by HUD plans to revitalize "slums" (black majority neighborhoods) like Capitol Hill and Lafayette Park > Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes In return for those taxes they get piped water, roads, police, local schools, sewers, garbage collection, and other basic services. > resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter Mass Eminent domain of land only leads to crony capitalism anyhow. Either way it's the same contractors and builders who are doing development - the difference is now instead of wooing voters you just woo the political class instead. Nor is there actually a need for mass development to alleviate homelessness - housing subsidies can and do help, as SLC and Houston have both shown as well as Section 8. That said, you will have to follow the law - meaning no substance abuse or criminal activity.
- Agentus 2y ago
  According to traditional american propaganda yes civil liberties of property ownership is critical. According to a deep reflection on the indirect impact these civil liberties have in different scenarios, suddenly these civil liberties start imposing a staggering cost on others that becomes intolerable to pay. In less abstract wording it’s like the one hold out property preventing the building of a dam. Civil liberties are just a human abstract construct which go at odds with reality and as such cause inevitable downstream problems no matter how the civil liberties or laws are constructed or fabricated. Like you said theres no good answer but as such (while fully cognizant of issues with all sides) im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups).
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    > According to traditional american propaganda Literally every society holds ownership of land and property as a fundamental core value. > im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups) People will not willingly give up their property without adequate compensation (and even then might not due to emotional attachment). If you want to back your words with threats of physical force, feel free to go ahead. There's a major reason most civil and criminal cases in both China and India revolve around land disputes and conflicting ownership. This has been the status quo of society for millenias - this is why you have folk stories like Hattefield McCoy, the biblical story of Zelophehad, the dishonest plowman of European folktales, the qissa of Dulla Bhatti's revolt against the Mughals, and the conflict between Der Shin and Der Yi in Chinese folklore. Private Land Ownership has literally been codified in the Hammurabi Code, the Arthashastra, the Bible, and the Book of Rites from the Zhou Dynasty.
    - Agentus 2y ago
      Yes yes i get it :) ive grown up in a capitalist society, thats been vitriolically anticommunist, which ive drunken the koolaid fully, i get all the standard implications. I wish typing on an ipad with a flip phone size keyboard wasnt so troublesome. So please excuse issues with my typings. Funny enough in the bible, one can not cross into the spiritual realm with any earthly possessions. This partially highlights how nonintrinsic ownership is to reality. Looking at past serfdom societies or others ownership took a different form. Hunter gathering societies think borders are incomprehensible. Then theres colonialism where european powers took over Africa then claimed its inhabitants owed them an annual tax for the land which the natives already resided on. Israel claims ownership of Palestine on behalf the jews based on some 2000year religious inheritance and used force and manipulation to settle/colonialize already claim lands. Thats not to say im pro palestinian claims either. People will make some rationalized justification on why they are entitled to something when the natural state of nature is to just roam and intermingle freely. Theres all these weaselly ways to deprive people of property like gentrification or legal manipulations. Then theres always exceptions like imminent domain. Theres also the flipside if force used to seize territory, theres also the force used to protect illgotten territory from trespassers. Then theres the capitalist stakeholder math that crudely gives a vast disproportionate share of ownership to a few stakeholders (usually the progenitors of the capitalistic endeavor) despite it really being a rather conmunist at least laborwise endeavor. To put clearly its strange that jeff bezos can own ten percent of all of amazons collective largess despite it being a product of a million or 100000 laborers. All im saying is property ownership isnt natural and is usually stitched together in a crude manner usually according to the values of the times. Im uninterested in holding it sacred though i do recognize confiscating peoples properties at willynilly whims is quite problemmatic.

alephnerd 2y ago

If my family has owned this house for multiple generations, why should I give it up to at best be resettled in a 2 bedroom apartment in the boonies? There is no good answer to that. Either you accept civil liberties of which property ownership is a critical part or you accept that civil liberties like ownership do not matter. Owning property is a right every human agrees with (it's literally article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). This is why you either need to compensate exhorbitantly or threaten to break a few legs and skulls in order to gain property. The mass urban housing projects of the 30s to 60s were literally built by mass demolishing black neighborhoods - look at Central Boston's redevelopment for example, as well as Cincinnati's. And that's why these projects ended once the Civil Rights movement succeeded - why should black residents lose their property and intergenerational wealth to urban projects built by governments that didn't care for them. Look at how the 1968 DC Riots and 1967 Detroit Riots were exacerbated by HUD plans to revitalize "slums" (black majority neighborhoods) like Capitol Hill and Lafayette Park > Besides do people really own land when the government demands rent in the form of property taxes In return for those taxes they get piped water, roads, police, local schools, sewers, garbage collection, and other basic services. > resulting pervasive homelessness and rent seeking capitalism applied to shelter Mass Eminent domain of land only leads to crony capitalism anyhow. Either way it's the same contractors and builders who are doing development - the difference is now instead of wooing voters you just woo the political class instead. Nor is there actually a need for mass development to alleviate homelessness - housing subsidies can and do help, as SLC and Houston have both shown as well as Section 8. That said, you will have to follow the law - meaning no substance abuse or criminal activity.

Agentus 2y ago
According to traditional american propaganda yes civil liberties of property ownership is critical. According to a deep reflection on the indirect impact these civil liberties have in different scenarios, suddenly these civil liberties start imposing a staggering cost on others that becomes intolerable to pay. In less abstract wording it’s like the one hold out property preventing the building of a dam. Civil liberties are just a human abstract construct which go at odds with reality and as such cause inevitable downstream problems no matter how the civil liberties or laws are constructed or fabricated. Like you said theres no good answer but as such (while fully cognizant of issues with all sides) im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups).
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > According to traditional american propaganda Literally every society holds ownership of land and property as a fundamental core value. > im beginning to dislike the current state of the status quo thats really only a modern phenomenon (nation states and most pieces of land being claimed for ownership by individuals or worse: large stakes of land claimed by small groups) People will not willingly give up their property without adequate compensation (and even then might not due to emotional attachment). If you want to back your words with threats of physical force, feel free to go ahead. There's a major reason most civil and criminal cases in both China and India revolve around land disputes and conflicting ownership. This has been the status quo of society for millenias - this is why you have folk stories like Hattefield McCoy, the biblical story of Zelophehad, the dishonest plowman of European folktales, the qissa of Dulla Bhatti's revolt against the Mughals, and the conflict between Der Shin and Der Yi in Chinese folklore. Private Land Ownership has literally been codified in the Hammurabi Code, the Arthashastra, the Bible, and the Book of Rites from the Zhou Dynasty.
  - Agentus 2y ago
    Yes yes i get it :) ive grown up in a capitalist society, thats been vitriolically anticommunist, which ive drunken the koolaid fully, i get all the standard implications. I wish typing on an ipad with a flip phone size keyboard wasnt so troublesome. So please excuse issues with my typings. Funny enough in the bible, one can not cross into the spiritual realm with any earthly possessions. This partially highlights how nonintrinsic ownership is to reality. Looking at past serfdom societies or others ownership took a different form. Hunter gathering societies think borders are incomprehensible. Then theres colonialism where european powers took over Africa then claimed its inhabitants owed them an annual tax for the land which the natives already resided on. Israel claims ownership of Palestine on behalf the jews based on some 2000year religious inheritance and used force and manipulation to settle/colonialize already claim lands. Thats not to say im pro palestinian claims either. People will make some rationalized justification on why they are entitled to something when the natural state of nature is to just roam and intermingle freely. Theres all these weaselly ways to deprive people of property like gentrification or legal manipulations. Then theres always exceptions like imminent domain. Theres also the flipside if force used to seize territory, theres also the force used to protect illgotten territory from trespassers. Then theres the capitalist stakeholder math that crudely gives a vast disproportionate share of ownership to a few stakeholders (usually the progenitors of the capitalistic endeavor) despite it really being a rather conmunist at least laborwise endeavor. To put clearly its strange that jeff bezos can own ten percent of all of amazons collective largess despite it being a product of a million or 100000 laborers. All im saying is property ownership isnt natural and is usually stitched together in a crude manner usually according to the values of the times. Im uninterested in holding it sacred though i do recognize confiscating peoples properties at willynilly whims is quite problemmatic.