about 25% in most areas but why should old people have to move out if they are so rich from owning land for 30-40 years? See how easily your freaky idea is crushed at every turn??
There is no monopoly over agricultural land. @£10,000 an acre it is affordable to anyone. It's freely traded and you can even grow food under lamps in your shed without it. In developed nations the bigger problem is the shortage of farmers. It's hard work and it pays little. No one wants the work. Marxists obsess with control over the means of production. Their goal is through monopoly over critical resources to take control of a country. This goal has been defeated by improvements to the means of distribution. Globalisation has defeated Marxism. Local supply may be monopolised but global monopoly is practically speaking impossible and distribution is so cheap as to be affordable to all. Land is not a finite resource. My farm, didn't used to be land at all. It was reclaimed from the sea, In Israel, the desert has been irrigated. In Brazil the rainforest cut down. On Peru the mountain sides stepped and so on. New techinques and technologies constantly increase the yields and turn unviable land into agriculturally productive land. Intensive farming. Drainage. Fertilisers and pesticides. There is nothing preventing you from owning agricultural land except your will and commitment to do so. No one has stolen from you. You are not a victim of society. We don't owe you anything and have taken no liberties from you. You are as free as I am. If you fail to recognise this and behave accordingly, society will sanction you.
"Here, climb up onto the treadmill. Capitalism is your friend. The rich and privileged are willing to help you toil your life away on the treadmill that powers the escalator they ride up on at their leisure." Do you really believe that saving up to buy others' rights to liberty, or borrowing to do so, somehow validates the transaction? Did people who scrimped and saved to buy slaves somehow have more right to own them than those who bought them with stolen money? Right. Because it is not easy for the producer to feed so many greedy, privileged parasites who drink so much of his blood. How does some people -- however many -- having borne an injustice justify others having to bear it, too? Oh, but they haven't, and you know it. You claim to be English. An Englishman who pretends not to know how greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners have robbed and oppressed his honest and hardworking countrymen for centuries is a disgraceful spectacle. And even if everyone else had borne that burden, which they most definitely have not, would the fact that they had to bear the injustice of landowner parasitism somehow justify inflicting the same injustice on everyone else, and on every subsequent generation, to the end of time? They owe me my right not to be forcibly deprived of what I would otherwise have. They owe me not killing me, not enslaving me, not robbing me. It's not yours, either, no matter how many thieves you bought it from or got it from, or whom you stole it from at gunpoint. ROTFL! Gotcha. THAT IS THE EXACT SAME JUSTIFICATION THAT WAS OFFERED FOR SLAVERY: “When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the confidence of British subjects.” –Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850 You are destroyed. As your "argument" would justify slavery equally well, it is already known to be fallacious and evil, with no further refutation required. Indeed, the fact that you are using the exact "logic" that slave owners used to justify their depredations automatically condemns your views, and you personally, as completely and indisputably evil with no further evidence required. LOL! How special for you. The fact is, though, that you DO NOT speak for anyone but yourself, however presumptuous you may be, and many, many people have been aware for a very long time that landowner privilege is evil and indefensible. You may have heard of them: some of them guillotined your let-them-eat-cake philosophical forebears. No, champ, I am not. I am not the one rationalizing and justifying the greatest evil that has ever existed, an evil that has robbed, oppressed, enslaved, tortured and degraded the great majority of humanity, killed billions of innocent people, and continues to kill many millions EVERY YEAR. That is of course the perfect description of the landowner, who is privileged by government to charge others full market value for the advantages conferred by the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides, while providing NOTHING himself. I just don't agree that because billions of others have been sacrificed on the altar of landowner greed, privilege, and parasitism, I should submit enthusiastically to being sacrificed as well. And attentive readers will note that Baff is again, as usual, attempting to make this exchange about me personally and his false and unsupported claims about my personal failings, rather than addressing the injustice I have identified. Attentive readers will note that Baff is again, as usual, attempting to make this exchange about me personally and his false and unsupported claims about my personal failings, rather than addressing the injustice I have identified. Attentive readers will note that Baff is again, as usual, attempting to make this exchange about me personally and his false and unsupported claims about my personal failings, rather than addressing the injustice I have identified. You continue to heap disgrace upon yourself by such insulting, puerile, despicable, and utterly unsupported remarks. Attentive readers will note that Baff is again, as usual, attempting to make this exchange about me personally and his false and unsupported claims about my personal failings, rather than addressing the injustice I have identified. Attentive readers will note that Baff is again, as usual, attempting to make this exchange about me personally and his false and unsupported claims about my personal failings, rather than addressing the injustice I have identified. In what words, exactly, would it be possible for a victim of injustice to protest against it and not seem to you to talk like a "shirker," hmmmmmmmm? Is posting some relevant facts or reasoning to support your claims rather than just infantile ad hominem filth too much for you, mate? Well, it wasn't for me. Sounds like you have a long line of greedy, privileged parasites in your family tree. So at least you come by it honestly. ROTFL!! Such claims are just self-evidently false and absurd. It is just some silly $#!+ you are making up because you cannot offer any facts or logic to support your false and evil beliefs. For 99% of humanity's existence, NO ONE EVER claimed to own land as private property. <yawn> More completely (and permanently) unsupported ad hominem filth. That is a pretty clear Rule 2 violation, and I will thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head. It has cost a lot of lives because that is the inescapable logic of landowner greed, privilege and parasitism. Google "feudalism" and start reading. And I believe your OED will inform you that the past participle of "cost" is "cost," not "costed." <yawn> You are the one who has forcibly stolen it from everyone who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it. I am already used to the evil of massive, systematic, institutionalized, and wholly gratuitous injustice. But that doesn't mean I am going to accept it. History shows beyond any doubt that the privileged prefer to perish in blood and flame, and watch their children slaughtered before their eyes, rather than relinquish even the smallest portion of their unjust advantages. Again, that is the exact "argument" by which slave owners sought to justify their ownership of others' rights to liberty. Right: no peace without justice. <yawn> I'm not the one constantly talking about other people's mummies, sport. You are.
All landowning is a monopoly, because there are no perfect substitutes and supply cannot be increased. Land is a canonical example of monopoly: “Land monopoly is not only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies; it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.” — Winston Churchill So you don't know what a mono[poly is, either. That fits. Original paintings are also freely traded. Yet the owner of each one is a monopolist. Right: because the farmer is a producer who has to compete in a pretty free market. It's hard to make a living by producing in a free market. Much easier just to collect rent from producers in return for doing nothing, as the landowner does. Especially factories, because they want to steal capital. No, their goal is to do it directly, by force, confiscating the fruits of private labor. They don't have the patience for monopoly rent seeking. It is not only finite, it is FIXED. No, that claim is false and absurd. So it was wet land. It was still land. And none of them increased the earth's solid surface area -- the supply of land -- by one square inch. No, that is false. There is also the private landowner, who demands I pay HIM for the advantages government, the community, and nature provide at that location. I have proved that landowners have stolen my liberty and everyone else's. Right. Like everyone but the most privileged, I am a victim of privilege. You owe me everything I would have had if you had not taken it from me. Already disproved. The landowner has forcibly stolen the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. You cannot dispute this. All you can do is deny it, just as you can deny that the sky is up. Not so many posts back, you even boasted how you had deprived others of their liberty at gunpoint. That is more or less true, I suppose; but as I have told you before, trying to make this about me personally rather than the institutional injustice I have identified is nothing but a childish and boring ad hominem fallacy. Unlike me, you just don't understand how your liberty has been abrogated. So while most people are more or less as free as you and I, many are not as PRIVILEGED as you are. That's what this exchange would be about if you could restrain your incontinent ad hominems for a minute: what society should sanction, how, and why.
That would be unusual. Well, they shouldn't be rich just by owning land, for one thing. That is self-evident injustice. And for another, old people, like anyone else, should have to move when by staying put, they are costing everyone else more than they are contributing. I haven't seen you come close to formulating an argument, let alone crushing anything I have said.
Capitalism is your friend if you want it to be. If you are determined not to use available social tools to your best advantage, that really is a problem of your own making. So if capital is not available to you you can build in small chunks. In Romania for example, no one lends money to the poor. Because they are too poor to have any to lend. They buy their land piecemeal. Build their houses piecemeal over decades, instead of getting a loan and building it in one go. Have a bumper harvest, build another wall or foundation that year. They love capitalism, because unlike you, they know what a good deal is when they see one and have a keen understanding of the alternatives that your indolent life of luxury has denied you.
The house I grew up in, purchased for $13,000 in 1950, was billed $12,106 property tax in 2016. My Dad sold the house many years ago due to the property taxes exceeding his ability to pay the taxes based on his income. He and the current owner have remained friends over the years which is how and why I know the property tax bill. While the taxes are a small amount relative to the assessed value of the property, the taxes over the next 45 years if everything remains constant would be equal to the value of the house.
While I agree with that, I would rejoice equally if not more to see Federal government spending reduced.
mono means one while there are 200 million landowners in America all competing with each other. Do you understand that 200 million is not one??
Churchill was not an economist, in fact nobody was back in 1909, by today's very advanced standards. Put his words in context and see how little he understood: "The manufacturer proposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price for his land that the purchase price hangs around the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than any foreign tariff in his export competition, and the land price strikes down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the worker." Back then Churchill compared a guy owning one bridge into town ( a true monopolist) with a guy owning land upon which a factory might be built when the world contained a billion parcels of land on which a factory might be built . Absurd of course but perhaps state of the art at the time in some odd circles. Today it logically puts brighton in the clearly insane category
Given Churchill was a great imperialist, didn't you worry about that quote? Seems a strange choice, given your "you is evil you is" stance to others
Rent on my house was £12,000 a year. Council tax on my house was £2,000 a year. I earn minimum wage. If I pay the tax, I starve and become homeless. For the first 15 months I lived there I had no significant job at all. Starvation did occur. While I was starving, the tax bailiffs were trying to take my stuff. I must pay them more than I earn, to live a rich life I will never be able to afford myself. ****ing ********s.
Like everyone else mate, it can try. But I'm a scarey boy. Most of us in my country own our own property. And this makes us the greater unified force. We outnumber our government. We out gun it in every way. We have the monopoly on freedom. When you try and take something from some one that is worth more to him than his life... you must be willing to sacrifice your own life to succeed. And lard arsed sponging lefties, aren't.
@Bringinton a small lesson on slavery. I live in a country that if it has ever seen slavery on it's shores at all has not done so for 1800 years. No society in human history has done more to end slavery world wide than my country. The strongest political force against slavery in human history, was called "the Liberals". And these people ended slavery on 2/3 of this planet. Including in your country. My parents risked their lives to defeat the last great attempt to enslave us. My father was not enslaved by the Nazi's, despite their best efforts and I was born free. The closest thing we have ever had to slavery here historically was indentured farming. You paid the landowner for the right to farm his land. About 1400 years ago we got rid of this system. And from that day on. We have all had the ability and civil right to own our own land. And we commonly do. If you do not wish to be a slave, be self sufficient. Like me. My land is not your land. I am not your slave. I am a free man in a free society. You will never rule here.
No. He was a great man. I have others -- Paine, Mill, Tolstoy, Einstein, Shaw, etc. -- and I'm sure you can concoct something dubious about each of them.
We don't have capitalism. We have a planned economy. We have economic interventionism. We have central economic planning by a central bank. We have a welfare state. We have inflationism. We have a belief in deficit financing. Consider studying economic theory and monetary policy. It'll do you good. Perhaps sped a little time studying Civics, too.
There are fewer than 100M landowners, and each is a monopolist because they do NOT compete with each each other, each land parcel is unique, there is no perfect substitute for any of them, and the supply cannot be increased. No doubt millions of people also own original artworks. Yet each of them is a monopolist because the work is unique, there is no perfect substitute, and the supply cannot be increased. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT A MILLION PEOPLE EACH SELLING A DIFFERENT THING IS NOT THE SAME AS A MILLION PEOPLE ALL COMPETING TO SELL THE SAME THING???
you are joking??? if you buy a house you have only one to pick from??? Insanity. Thank you for showing the insanity of liberalism
Today's mainstream neoclassical economists are practitioners of a pseudoscience. In 1909 economists knew there was such a thing as unearned wealth. Now, they do not. I see he understood perfectly. Each owned by a monopolist. No matter which parcel the manufacturer obtains, he has to pay the monopolist for the unique combination of advantages that government, the community and nature provide at that location. Fact. I.e., among the honest, intelligent, and informed. Idiocy.
