Irrelevant. Some rights are property, some property consists of rights. A right that is owned is property. Then you agree that landowning violates everyone's rights, as the control of their own bodies is forcibly taken away by landowners. Land is not legitimate property because landowning necessarily violates the physical bodies of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. The legal privilege of stopping him from exercising that liberty is property, just like the landowner's legal privilege of stopping others from exercising their liberty to use the land is property. In both cases, it is ownership of others' rights to liberty.
Following 1066, where the Normans forcibly handed out the land to their gentry, it is the case that rights violations were maximised. Indeed, you had to next to no rights. For example, marriages typically occurred on Xmas Day. The only day they got off.
I call you evil because you disingenuously try to mislead readers in order to prevent them from understanding injustices of which they are the victims.
Ooo, I got called evil again! Perfect timing too. I'm currently tattooing myself an inverted pentagram! Blood everywhere, but no actual rationale of how I misread your mythical readers! Are they Wiccan readers and I've forgotten to wink at the Mother Goddess?
Yes, I have proved to you many times that it indisputably does, which explains the slave-like condition of the landless in EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD where private landowning has been well established, but government has not intervened massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners. American history also proves it: why did the USA have slavery while Europe had abolished it? The answer is simple: because all the good land in Europe was owned, the landless could be -- and were -- treated like slaves without all the bother of actually owning, fettering and whipping them. The institution of landowning alone was sufficient to reduce them to a condition of poverty, squalor, suffering, oppression and despair indistinguishable from that of slaves. In America, there was so much good land available that landowners could not mistreat the landless: they would just leave, and take up some nice land for themselves. So until the land was all owned, workers had to be enslaved to stop them from leaving. After the land was all owned, such measures were superfluous, as landowning effectively made the landless into slaves anyway: "During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The [plantation owners], on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can." From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885. Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George.
Like slaves had to pay to purchase their rights to liberty from their owners. Right. Like you would have to pay the owner of the earth's atmosphere for air to breathe, if it were made into private property as the land has been. Like you would have to pay the owners of letters and numbers if they were made into private property as land has been, and you wanted to use them. But how is it that our rights to use the land have been taken from us, and are now owned by parasites whom we must pay for permission to exercise them? I want a system where everyONE is free, and we only have to pay owners for use of what THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED, not for PERMISSION to use what was already there with no help from them, and would have been available to use if they had never existed. Do you want a system where you have to pay for air to breathe because someone has been declared its owner? Or a system where you have to pay every time you use numbers or letters because someone has been declared their owner? Why are you trying to pretend that property is always rightful, and "owners" always entitled to own it? Justice. Something you have no understanding of whatsoever.
What are you really after? Forget all the whine about "you is evil you is". Forget all the land obsession. What political economic outcome do you support?
The Federal government owns about 640 million acres of land, more than enough to give each non-landowner an acre and eliminate poverty and all Federal welfare programs.
As Zimbabwe shows us, giving people land doesn't end poverty. WTF would you do with an acre of random land. Cost you more than any profit you could make on it just to get there. Land isn't unaffordable. Not to anyone. An acre costs less than a car. It's also a lot less useful.
Imagine if land was nationalised in the UK. We wouldn't have nitrates polluting our waters. We wouldn't have wildlife levels collapsing. We wouldn't have the megafarms and their daily breaches of good practice. On the brightside, you get to watch the weather on Countryfile...
And also the type of land and it's geographic location. An acre of fertile land, slap bang in the middle of the pacific ocean is useless. Just as an acre of infertile land is useless elsewhere. The desert or the swamp for example. An acre of building land inside a city however, very useful indeed.
Hawaii is much bigger than an acre. No idea what crops they grow and if they are worth my travelling 14 hours to harvest. And 14 hours back. And again each time I need to plant or maintain my acre. Vegas has worked out great due to it's central USA geography, but I don't personally have the resources to exploit an acre in that way, let alone one in the Sahara. Again this is a very expensive commute for a very small plot of land, that if I am not going to build on is totally worthless. Don't know anything about Saudi. Sorry. But it would have to be a damn good acre to make that trip worth while. There's 50 acres behind my house, that if I had £650,000 I could make use of.
sure, imagine our civilization without people believing in the 10 commandments? God is the foundation of our lives.
You seem confused. I asked you which god, and if you can show us it exists. Please answer what I actually asked you this time.
A friend of a friend bought a gold claim in North Nigeria. Boko Harem land. A child almost cut him in half with a machete when he went to see it. It's useless land, Not commercially viable. Wouldn't be any use if it had oil or diamonds either. He could of bought a new car.
Crikey, only right wingers could have a conversation that goes: "some land is worth more than other land"; "yeah but, some land is worth less than other land".
So were slaves. You could buy their rights to liberty, just as you can now buy other people's rights to liberty when you buy a land title or other privilege. And....? The only difference between owning land and owning a slave is that when you own a slave, you own all of one person's rights to liberty, while when you own land, you own one of all people's rights to liberty.
