>Roads are made, streets are made, railway services are improved, electric light turns night into day, electric trams glide swiftly to and fro, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people. Many of the most important are effected at the cost of the municipality and of the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is sensibly enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare; he contributes nothing even to the process from which his own enrichment is derived
Socialist Churchill???
The landlord’s property is his own. Anything beyond this point is irrelevant cope. You do not have the right to someone else’s property. Pay up for the privilege. Otherwise, buy your own home.
Herbals.
soon
Again, we can debate the detrimental effects of allowing corporations to own property, but this has nothing to do with the central point. At the end of the day, one’s property is their own and they may do with it as they see fit in accordance to the law. If you don’t like it, you can either abolish the right of the individual to his property, pay for the privilege to enjoy it, or purchase your own.
I think his point is that land rights are a privilege. You're not entitled to them because they are in the commons, therefore all land should be held in precarium. It's basically correct. No one needs more than a few acres for residential purposes.
>in precarium
This is already de-jure the case in commonwealth countries, the Crown is the supreme owner of all lands.
Nevertheless, as I elaborated on here
, one is free to petition the government to eliminate this “privilege” and institute what you mention at the end. Until you have achieved this, anything else is simply cope for someone exercising the rights the state has given him or her.
>This is already de-jure the case in commonwealth countries, the Crown is the supreme owner of all lands.
As it should be everywhere. The state head, not the government head, should be determining the course of action to keep the distribution allowable. Not equitable, not equal, but permissible. If it's not then the majority of people living in a land would of course be required to either relocate out of it or demand it for themselves and there's nothing immoral about that whatsoever.
>one is free to petition the government to eliminate this “privilege” and institute what you mention at the end
Obviously.
>he thinks landlords own most of the useful property on which assets and infrastructure are built
lmaoing @ this naive golem of Black Rock
Care to point out where I said any of this you troglodyte?
He's pointing out that you're being disingenuous. Communism is one mega corporation owning everything, like blackrock and others are trying to do.
Yup. He'll fall for anything the media tells him.
>you have to le contribute to society even though you were born into it without being asked
>le property is sacred even though property only makes sense in the context of a wider society
amerimutt suburbia mindset
>>le property is sacred even though property only makes sense in the context of a wider society
Either you have poor comprehension skills or are purposefully misrepresenting my argument. The law dictates property owners have certain rights to their property. Lambasting them for making use of their rights is futile cope. Go petition your government as has been done for centuries in the context of property law if you wish to see change in the matter, instead of coping like Sir Churchill here who accomplished seemingly nothing in the matter as can be seen by landlords still being in existence in the UK.
damn you're moronic.
underaged?
Awesome refutation. Keep at it.
You're just a b***h and would let a Black person break into your house.
>The landlord’s property is his own.
Look, this is not some natural truth
This is just something humans have decided. People can change their mind about it.
See what I said in:
Disingenuous in what way? I simply stated a fact, you do not have a right to someone else’s property. The matter of whether it is good or not to allow corporate entities the same right is not an argument I have written an opinion on. It seems you AND the poster have misunderstood or chosen to misunderstand.
That's why land should be one of the primary sources of taxes.
Stellar solution, finally an anon that has thought of something that isn’t some moralistic cope. Property taxes incentivize use of land and prevent large-scale hoarding of land due to the financial disincentive, especially should that land be vacant or otherwise unused. Should the tax be sufficiently high, those who cannot afford to put it to good use will forfeit it to the state, returning it to the commons.
>Property taxes incentivize use of land
not for the super rich, they can afford to be idle
>Should the tax be sufficiently high, those who cannot afford to put it to good use will forfeit it to the state
when the tax is high, only the super rich will buy it
and it's immoral for civil servants to get rich by taking money by extortion from the population to begin with
How about when the tax is 10% of the land's value annually?
what a fat fricking homosexual pig ass glutton