chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 I wish you'd make your mind up... Full employment is an unachievable and undesirable dream. It is when the land is in the hands of but a few and access is denied to the collective. If the collective owns the land. One can employ oneself as an "explorer". We don't need full employment, but it is not unachievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The government hinders people from housing, employing and feeding themselves! When it does that, then it should provide people housing, employment and food. i bet most on the march are rich kids....on a jolly...like dale farm protest....youth unemployment has always been around. but in our day we blagged ladders and cleaned windows to make our money... instead of studying for fake degrees.... hope they enjoy the stroll.....better than working for a living Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Dear oh dear chem1st, you're only accepting work on land owned by the people? OK, go and stand on the Town Hall steps stark naked shouting "a quid a kiss, get it while it's hot". There you go, that's the easiest £100 I've ever earned. I'll pick it up at 5pm today when you go to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'm amazed that I have to. Demolition, for example the land now available after the demolition of housing all across Sheffield... He can occupy it, he will never own it. So you expect people to pay to build a house that they won't own. I can't see that being very popular. It's private ownership, that deprives the people. Not communal land used for housing. Your ideas about communal ownership aren't workable. Private ownership of land deprives the people. No, the land was stolen in the first place, it should be returned to the collective, the species. Stolen from whom? It never 'belonged' to the species, so it can't have been stolen from them. You've just misquoted me there... No, you used the word force. 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. It's a payment to the occupier who otherwise wouldn't be living there. The landlord is paid by that occupier to allow the occupier to do so. The initial theft.... -Do you assume land ownership has been around since the big bang cyclone? No, and since it hasn't when someone originally claimed a bit as his, it can't have been theft can it. Thanks for proving my point. 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). It isn't, it's rhetorical nonsense. You've just said that ownership hasn't been around since the big bang, but then you imply that some sort of collective ownership has and that private ownership is thus theft. All nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 Dear oh dear chem1st, you're only accepting work on land owned by the people? OK, go and stand on the Town Hall steps stark naked shouting "a quid a kiss, get it while it's hot". There you go, that's the easiest £100 I've ever earned. I'll pick it up at 5pm today when you go to work. Your having to stand on the town hall steps... Your using the land. No £100 for you 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. ha ha ha No really Mister M, they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 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. Referring to; 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. Referring to; 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 my assertion housing benefit is a subsidy for landlord. No, you used the word force. The people will be forced to live on the common land. And that as referring to your question, where will they live if housing benefit was not paid. Housing benefit is paid in order to enable them to live on private land (in a private house). Tis not I that am forcing them, it is the theft of the land, and the resulting ownership. You imply that I would force them. I wouldn't be forcing anyone. The ownership of the land is forcing them to do so. And the lack of common land for them to live would be the problem. I've only addressed that one point, as you've chosen to merge my points and selectively respond to them, and it's hard to tell which points you are responding too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It is when the land is in the hands of but a few and access is denied to the collective. If the collective owns the land. One can employ oneself as an "explorer". Huh? You're well off the beaten track now aren't you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Referring to; The people will be forced to live on the common land. And that as referring to your question, where will they live if housing benefit was not paid. Housing benefit is paid in order to enable them to live on private land (in a private house). Tis not I that am forcing them, it is the theft of the land, and the resulting ownership. We've established that no theft has taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Your having to stand on the town hall steps... Your using the land. No £100 for you We've also established that you're either trying to play word games or you were simply stating the obvious and it isn't an impediment to anyone working. Land is available for you to work on. So what's your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.