3 ms·

It's amazing how society will always have it's shadow over you. I work my butt off to buy a home, my own piece of land but I have to ask the government permissi

It's amazing how society will always have it's shadow over you. I work my butt off to buy a home, my own piece of land but I have to ask the government permission for who to let stay on my land for a certain period of time.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
switch007 12y ago
Most people own land on a fee simple basis (in England, the Crown holds the allodial title), but that's another discussion. I've used airbnb in many European cities where the rentals are invariably converted apartments in dense buildings (i.e. 30-200 apartments) in a residential neighbourhood. It's completely different to letting out a farm house on an estate in the middle of no where. Respect for your neighbours (tenant and owner alike) in such communities is paramount.
qq66 12y ago
Land "ownership" has no basis in natural law since it's a formalization of violence (all private land was either taken from someone else, or declared to be owned by threatening newcomers with violence). You can't own land the way you can own the fruit of your labor, so all land ownership is contingent on the consent of the community.
- icebraining 12y ago
  That doesn't mean that the community shouldn't simply decide to actually grant full property rights to whoever is deemed to have the title. You don't need to rely on nonsense like "natural rights" to oppose the government-granted licensing system. (You should also not assume I support full property rights)
  - vidarh 12y ago
    The community could, but the community won't in most cases for the simple reason that most communities find it incredibly damaging to neighbours to let people do whatever they want on "their" property. If I were to, for example, start a 24/7 brothel in my terraced suburban house, complete with front garden strip show set to loud music and light show, it would have tremendous negative effects on my neighbours.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Your example isn't relevant. Full property rights doesn't mean you can blast your neighbors with loud music and bright lights; after all, they would have full property rights as well, which would be affected by that.
- zo1 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle You don't need the consent of the community to declare land as your own. There are other moral systems and ideas to the ones you specify. Just putting it out there, you know.
  - qq66 12y ago
    Maybe, but certainly very little land in the United States wasn't taken from someone at the wrong end of a rifle.
CaptainZapp 12y ago
You are aware that you could never own that land, or a house without the government. How exactly do you propose land registration would work, when it's not backed up by a government guarantee?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

switch007 12y ago

Most people own land on a fee simple basis (in England, the Crown holds the allodial title), but that's another discussion. I've used airbnb in many European cities where the rentals are invariably converted apartments in dense buildings (i.e. 30-200 apartments) in a residential neighbourhood. It's completely different to letting out a farm house on an estate in the middle of no where. Respect for your neighbours (tenant and owner alike) in such communities is paramount.

qq66 12y ago

Land "ownership" has no basis in natural law since it's a formalization of violence (all private land was either taken from someone else, or declared to be owned by threatening newcomers with violence). You can't own land the way you can own the fruit of your labor, so all land ownership is contingent on the consent of the community.

icebraining 12y ago
That doesn't mean that the community shouldn't simply decide to actually grant full property rights to whoever is deemed to have the title. You don't need to rely on nonsense like "natural rights" to oppose the government-granted licensing system. (You should also not assume I support full property rights)
- vidarh 12y ago
  The community could, but the community won't in most cases for the simple reason that most communities find it incredibly damaging to neighbours to let people do whatever they want on "their" property. If I were to, for example, start a 24/7 brothel in my terraced suburban house, complete with front garden strip show set to loud music and light show, it would have tremendous negative effects on my neighbours.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Your example isn't relevant. Full property rights doesn't mean you can blast your neighbors with loud music and bright lights; after all, they would have full property rights as well, which would be affected by that.
zo1 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle You don't need the consent of the community to declare land as your own. There are other moral systems and ideas to the ones you specify. Just putting it out there, you know.
- qq66 12y ago
  Maybe, but certainly very little land in the United States wasn't taken from someone at the wrong end of a rifle.

CaptainZapp 12y ago

You are aware that you could never own that land, or a house without the government. How exactly do you propose land registration would work, when it's not backed up by a government guarantee?