4 ms·
> Now try non-rigid land ownership, where land and buildings can be expropriated in the name of nebulous greater good. Maybe there could be some balance instea
by diggan 1y ago
> Now try non-rigid land ownership, where land and buildings can be expropriated in the name of nebulous greater good.
Maybe there could be some balance instead of "Either everything can be owned, or nothing is!".
It isn't impossible to move cities if it's really needed and someone is footing the bill, even in a democratic Western country that is famously highly regulated, like Sweden. Since a mine in the north is expanding, they have to move the entire city (paid by the mine's operator in this case), building by building, which of course isn't without complaints, but it's a thing that actively being done as we speak. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3xp4xlw9o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde3xp4xlw9o
- inglor_cz 1y agoI don't really mind takings for very good compensation. If you want to uproot people in the name of X (say, a railway that cannot really change its path, or a very valuable mine), pay them some low multiple of the current market price of their property and off they go. The part with the market price helps them buy property elsewhere and the extra part is sugar to compensate for injured feelings. (It is not easy to abandon a home if your family lived there for generations, and we should account for that.) But such situations are relatively rare. Perhaps the mine in Kiruna is worth it and the corporation/government can pay for the compensations. Same for vital ground communications (highways, railways). If it isn't, though, then let the ore in the ground and let the people live where they built their homes. Most of the time I hear ideas about "flexible ownership" etc., upon further discussion, the person starts talking about outright expropriation from people they don't like.
- sentinelsignal 1y agoYeah i agree. Theres a very thin layer between these ideas and outright crazy.
- ehnto 1y agoTo defend myself a little, I never said rigid land ownership was not still what I would prefer. But tying significant value to land and allowing individuals to hold it has some downsides.
- sentinelsignal 1y agoyeah i see what you mean. There are only trade offs.
- mc32 1y agoThat’s a limited population being moved for high value resources. This option does not scale for large populations. It’s easier and cheaper to rebuild.
- mrangle 1y agoMaybe the current system is the historical balance.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y agoIt's a small town of 17k and they expect to be done "moving" (really just building a whole new town 3km away) by 2100. That's not a scalable process. For a more likely scenario, see Japan. Demographic crash (which is already happening all over the developed world) followed by mass migration to urban centers with economic forces dooming or favoring a city depending on it's circumstances (looking at you, Miami).