ProhibitionKilz Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 Land ought to be rented out to owners of property residing upon them for naturally we are all co-owners of the earth. For the sake of Justice, an initial one-time 50% of an established equal land value to be paid into a General fund by current owners of landed property. I.e. if I had a house 40% paid off I would owe 20% & the other owner 30%(of the land's value only). Afterwards for the sake of being able to live free, land rent ought to be 20% of the land value to be paid after current property owner’s death by the fortunate that inherit the renters property. Renters that die without anyone to inherit their property shall be auctioned off to the public & added to the General Fund. Natural resources sold by land renters shall pay 50% of their profits into the General Fund. The General Fund shall be distributed monthly & equally to all citizens 21 years of age & over for social security. Unclaimed funds shall be added back into the General Fund after 31 days. A simple plan as such would end hunger, homelessness, petty crime & add security for the wealthy in society. Special circumstances easily handled by civil courts. Equal opportunity would be a reality & expensive social programs unnecessary. If you can, tell me why this would not work.
D.D. Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 4 hours ago, ProhibitionKilz said: Land ought to be rented out to owners of property residing upon them Welcome first time poster! My understanding is that you don't own land, the government is the perpetual owner of said land unless conquered by another government entity. The government, Canada and USA as far as I understand it, issues land titles/deeds which gives title/deed holder exclusive use of land as per title/deed provided property taxes are fulfilled - sometimes the trees &/or mineral rights remain under the governments ownership. As for the rest of what you wrote, researching the internet will be more fruitful than here since others (referring to non-FDR members) have proposed similar ideas regarding land ownership. Georgism is one economic philosophy that incorporates land distribution. Perhaps you'll share why this topic is important to you, you're level of experience researching said topic, and what does "justice" mean to you. That's a lot of questions, right.
Jsbrads Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 The biggest problem is that people already own land without digressing further. if anyone read Noziak - Anarchy, State, Utopia. You may better understand the argument for renting land from the government. The only idea that I have been able to come up with is a return of land to the state on a time horizon that would not devalue the current land. My best guess balancing demand and ownership was 80 years. Ie All land remains in the hands of the current owners and their rights exist for the full 80 yrs after which current owners have first right to lease land from government which would be for the unimproved value of the land. Thereafter, they then have right to transfer to another renter to recover any fixed improvements or they can quitclaim to state. Selection of new rent is by open bid.
ProhibitionKilz Posted July 27, 2017 Author Posted July 27, 2017 On 07/26/2017 at 0:55 AM, D.D. said: Welcome first time poster! My understanding is that you don't own land, the government is the perpetual owner of said land unless conquered by another government entity. The government, Canada and USA as far as I understand it, issues land titles/deeds which gives title/deed holder exclusive use of land as per title/deed provided property taxes are fulfilled - sometimes the trees &/or mineral rights remain under the governments ownership. As for the rest of what you wrote, researching the internet will be more fruitful than here since others (referring to non-FDR members) have proposed similar ideas regarding land ownership. Georgism is one economic philosophy that incorporates land distribution. Perhaps you'll share why this topic is important to you, you're level of experience researching said topic, and what does "justice" mean to you. That's a lot of questions, right. Ill look into Georgian thank you for your input. This topic is important to me because there is an injustice created in society by the idea of landed property, while the person has every right to any improvement they have made upon the land, naturally we are all co-owners of the earth & ought to be given something from the land that would provide us sustenance naturally. When most or all of the land in a given society is owned by persons they are already at an advantage compared to an orphan or person born into poverty & as Thomas Paine argues any person ought to be better off being born into society than they would be if they were born in nature. This creates a form of indentured servitude to those with landed property that in part shouldn't exist for in nature we could use the land's produce to survive. I have only read Paine's Agrarian Justice & applied my own thoughts to it, it is his plan in my words for the most part. Justice to me means many things depending upon context. Righting a wrong is the most general definition for me. In the title of my post righting a wrong in societie's current precedent using principles from the nature of people & societies. It is my opinion there is no justice for harm already done on a personal level excepting perhaps genuine correction of the wrong person's behavior & understanding.
D.D. Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 5 minutes ago, ProhibitionKilz said: Ill look into Georgian thank you for your input. This topic is important to me because there is an injustice created in society by the idea of landed property, while the person has every right to any improvement they have made upon the land, naturally we are all co-owners of the earth & ought to be given something from the land that would provide us sustenance naturally. When most or all of the land in a given society is owned by persons they are already at an advantage compared to an orphan or person born into poverty & as Thomas Paine argues any person ought to be better off being born into society than they would be if they were born in nature. This creates a form of indentured servitude to those with landed property that in part shouldn't exist for in nature we could use the land's produce to survive. I have only read Paine's Agrarian Justice & applied my own thoughts to it, it is his plan in my words for the most part. Justice to me means many things depending upon context. Righting a wrong is the most general definition for me. In the title of my post righting a wrong in societie's current precedent using principles from the nature of people & societies. It is my opinion there is no justice for harm already done on a personal level excepting perhaps genuine correction of the wrong person's behavior & understanding. I could be wrong but the impression I get from your position is that the land ownership/use issue is an exterior for a deeper issue. The deeper, and perhaps not the deepest or only, issue that I see here is equality - some have more than others. Maybe that's an over-simplification as I try to break down a more complex situation - let me know if I deviate. If so, then maybe a podcast on the topic of "The Ought from the Is" might help add a foundational block to your rational mind when pondering human disparity even though this podcast is under the context of morality. I was unfamiliar with the term "landed property". Based on my understanding of this term after searching, the government is the largest beneficiary of landed property. They achieve this by violating the NAP, which Eudaimonic has referenced above. When I looked into Georgism philosophy as an economic ideology that could be applied to land I own *cough: Bribe the local mofia off for monopoly of*, I realized, perhaps incorrectly, that I would simply become the middle man between land renters and the government. Plus the multiple decades long tax kickback from property devaluation (buildings, etc.) comes from taxpayers such that the taxpayers are basically reimbursing property investors for their investment until they see a 100% return on investment. I figured I completely misunderstood the ideology because that seemed too good to be true.
Recommended Posts