Tony Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It'd be common land for housing, if it isn't being used, somebody else could use it, in that sense it would be common land. If you can explain to me how to create work without land (or sea), then I'll give you £100. You'll be able to inherit the earth! Take a bucket and sponge to your neighbours and offer to wash their car for a quid. When can I pick up my £100? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 So 10 minutes after it had been declared it wouldn't be common land anymore. How can you be against the right to buy, but want the government to give away land for free... It's nonsensical. Whilst being used for housing, it is used for housing. If no longer being used, the land can then be used by somebody else. Right to buy deprives the people of a communal resource. You have to work somewhere, I'll give you that. But personally I could be working in starbucks at the moment, or the library, or given how sunny it is, the park. I don't require the ownership or even rent of any land in order to work. Of course any profitable business plan will be capable of renting any space required, if the business can't just be started at home (we aren't talking about people living on the street are we?). Do you want to give me cash or a cheque? But you require the land, be it communally owned, privately owned or rented. You will get nothing, you even admitted that land would be required. Oh, so not only should land be available, there should be enough of it for everyone in the country to actually feed themselves. How exactly will the government magic up this extra land? Share the land. Turn over farms to allotments. Allotments are more land productive than farmland. Farmland is labour efficient, but we have too much labour, so it makes sense to produce more food by providing allotments instead. No, it's a subsidy to the people who need somewhere to live. Where do you think they'll live if it's withdrawn? It's the same thing. There is no such distinction. The people will be forced to live on the common land. The problem is the lack of common land and private ownership. The people must have their land back, the initial theft must be reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 Take a bucket and sponge to your neighbours and offer to wash their car for a quid. When can I pick up my £100? The car was made out of materials extracted from the land. The car is sat upon the land. Your plan is a failure. No £100 for you mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Unlike the previous government, this government is actually working on creating the conditions for jobs to be created in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The car was made out of materials extracted from the land. The car is sat upon the land. But you don't need to own the car or the land. Just the bucket and the sponge. And you'll get them from Wilco's, not from a patch of land. Your plan is a failure. No £100 for you mate Looks like you owe £100 to several people now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 But you don't need to own the car or the land. Just the bucket and the sponge. And you'll get them from Wilco's, not from a patch of land. Looks like you owe £100 to several people now. I said "If you can explain to me how to create work without land (or sea), then I'll give you £100." Not the ownership of the land. The bucket cometh from the land, the sponge cometh from the land, the car cometh from the land. It is with the land that we create employment. The ownership of land, or more to the point the lack of ownership/ability to use it. That is the problem. The people should collectively own the land, we can allow for private ownership, but they must pay a rent unto the people, payable as a basic income. It is the only way we can achieve full employment, it is the only way we can achieve peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Whilst being used for housing, it is used for housing. Well done for stating the obvious. If no longer being used, the land can then be used by somebody else. When did you last see a piece of land with a house on it stop being used? Once it's been built on it won't ever become available again. It's gone, no longer in common ownership. Unless you mean to say that the house built on it also doesn't belong to the person that paid for it to be built? Right to buy deprives the people of a communal resource. Much like allowing people to build on common land (the village green for example, or the recreational ground, or the local park). But you require the land, be it communally owned, privately owned or rented. You will get nothing, you even admitted that land would be required. You don't require the ownership of land, which is what you're saying. Obviously the fact that you exist in space means you 'require land' to be somewhere. You don't require ownership though. If you're going to play silly word games then we can close this requirement, everyone has land, unless they have no physical existence and aren't taking up space right now. Share the land. Do you mean steal the land? Turn over farms to allotments. Allotments are more land productive than farmland. Farmland is labour efficient, but we have too much labour, so it makes sense to produce more food by providing allotments instead. The people will be forced to live on the common land. You're having to force people now, this doesn't sound much like a utopian dream to be honest, more like a communist boot heel. The problem is the lack of common land and private ownership. No, it really isn't. The people must have their land back, the initial theft must be reversed. What initial theft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I said "If you can explain to me how to create work without land (or sea), then I'll give you £100." Not the ownership of the land. The bucket cometh from the land, the sponge cometh from the land, the car cometh from the land. It is with the land that we create employment. The ownership of land, or more to the point the lack of ownership/ability to use it. That is the problem. The people should collectively own the land, we can allow for private ownership, but they must pay a rent unto the people, payable as a basic income. It is the only way we can achieve full employment, it is the only way we can achieve peace. I wish you'd make your mind up... Full employment is an unachievable and undesirable dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Unlike the previous government, this government is actually working on creating the conditions for jobs to be created in this country. ha ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 Well done for stating the obvious. I'm amazed that I have to. When did you last see a piece of land with a house on it stop being used? Once it's been built on it won't ever become available again. It's gone, no longer in common ownership. Demolition, for example the land now available after the demolition of housing all across Sheffield... Unless you mean to say that the house built on it also doesn't belong to the person that paid for it to be built? He can occupy it, he will never own it. Much like allowing people to build on common land (the village green for example, or the recreational ground, or the local park). It's private ownership, that deprives the people. Not communal land used for housing. You don't require the ownership of land, which is what you're saying. Obviously the fact that you exist in space means you 'require land' to be somewhere. You don't require ownership though. If you're going to play silly word games then we can close this requirement, everyone has land, unless they have no physical existence and aren't taking up space right now. Private ownership of land deprives the people. Do you mean steal the land? No, the land was stolen in the first place, it should be returned to the collective, the species. You're having to force people now, this doesn't sound much like a utopian dream to be honest, more like a communist boot heel. No, it really isn't. What initial theft? You've just misquoted me there... No, it's a subsidy to the people who need somewhere to live. Where do you think they'll live if it's withdrawn? It's the same thing. There is no such distinction. Referring to me, when I said, "housing benefit is a subsidy to landlords". In return I said, that, "they would then be forced to live on the common land.". Housing benefit pays money to a person who 'owns the land', to allow another to live on it. It is a subsidy for the landlord. The initial theft.... -Do you assume land ownership has been around since the big bang cyclone? Or did somebody lay a claim of ownership upon the land and steal it from the collective? (That's a rhetorical question, explaining the theft for you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.