Who Gets What Land?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Now we have a system where a special class of elites own all land and will destroy you if you try to assert a claim of ownership against their opinion. Therefore, the current system of land ownership is "we the elite own all land, and we decide who the official rightful renter-owners are who must pay rent using property taxes".

I'd like to hear ideas on what would be good or at least better system of property ownership. Should everyone have the right to a certain amount of land? What method should define land ownership? Should one organisation be granted ownership of all land and then in turn decide who can use the land (the system we have now)? What ways should there be that can change land ownership?

Normally I have *extremely strong* positions on every imaginable topic in the realm of politics. I'm entirely undecided on this topic and will begin to form my beliefs on the topic based on this thread. Although I'm best pigeon-holed politically as a voluntaryist, it would be interesting to develop an opinion that everyone has a right to a certain amount of land as that could pretty well destroy my pigeon-hole.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
You're right. We (in the US) live under a feudal system of land ownership.

The government actually owns all the land. People just pay for the privilege of occupying a piece of land. Anyone that doesn't pay their "rent" (taxes) soon finds that out. They will be quickly evicted and occupation privilege sold to someone else.

In my opinion, land for personal use shouldn't be taxed. Land being used for commercial purposes should be taxed as income property.

Just my first thoughts. Hope this will give you something to build on.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Fact is property tax is the only thing that prevents people from land grabbing. If everyone could defend their land properly, then people would own land, but when you have people owning land like that it turns into the wild west all over. So instead of teaching structual sentences in school, we should be taught how to hunt, fish, grow fruits and vegetables, be able to identify plants/herbs, build shelters, taught martial arts, and have the availibilty in technology to make me entirely self-sufficent. That's what needs to happen for people to own land properly that way no one ever has to worry about their house being stripped from, but should they have the knowledge and resources to move another location and do it all over again and or gather people up and fight for his house back.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by agentofchaos
Fact is property tax is the only thing that prevents people from land grabbing. If everyone could defend their land properly, then people would own land, but when you have people owning land like that it turns into the wild west all over. So instead of teaching structual sentences in school, we should be taught how to hunt, fish, grow fruits and vegetables, be able to identify plants/herbs, build shelters, taught martial arts, and have the availibilty in technology to make me entirely self-sufficent. That's what needs to happen for people to own land properly that way no one ever has to worry about their house being stripped from, but should they have the knowledge and resources to move another location and do it all over again and or gather people up and fight for his house back.


So by your beliefs, the property ownership systems in place now cannot be improved upon? Yes/no?

Do you not consider The United States of America is one giant land-grab? That one corporation owns what, 30% or more of all land in the US? The way the US government owns virtually all hills and mountains means what to you? The government likes nice scenery? Think about it... what is the value of hills and mountains?

I'm not really sure what you are seeing in the wild west that was bad. I suppose a lot of people got a lot of cheap land. I know the violent crime rate was extremely low to to high gun ownership rates. I know people went out looking for gold. Thats about the extent of what I know of the wild west. Please tell me more.

And sure hunting and fishing are more valuable than learning history propaganda about what never really happened, or more valuable than learning how to play football in gym class, but I'm not really sure I know where you're going with that.

The system we have now is that a large corporation has siezed control over all land by force. It then takes an extraordinarily large swath for itself, and rents out the remaining land. You seem to believe renting is the best way to own land. Who should get the money and under what circumstances? How about if you tell the government you agree to pay the price, but you'll give it to the middle-class welfare charity of your choice instead of the government middle-class charity program that you have no choice over? Is that better or worse?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
There's no "fair" distribution of property ownership. Private monopolies aren't fair to private citizens and public monopolies aren't fair to them either.

Say you equally distribute all the land to the entire population...you will eventually run out of land or you will force people to reduce their land to account for new ownership.

The idea that property ownership was somehow better during the wild west doesn't take into account the fact that most of that land was forcefully taken from the indians. The unexplored territories were 'free' to the first person to build a house there. Read some history on the homestead act and you'll get a better understanding. If you could move onto a piece of land and live there, the government considered it yours...even if it belonged to an indian tribe first.

Modern society can't sufficiently provide for all land for individuals, it must be shared. "This land is my land, this land is your land, from California, to the New York islands..."

Once we can establish that all land is shared equally and no one should own any parcel of land themselves we can better understand the question; who gets what land?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
The government actually owns all the land. People just pay for the privilege of occupying a piece of land. Anyone that doesn't pay their "rent" (taxes) soon finds that out. They will be quickly evicted and occupation privilege sold to someone else.
Except for "Homestead Exemption". If it's under a certain value, you're not renting from the state because you pay no taxes on it.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


I'm pretty sure thats not how that works, there's a tax break but no exemption...



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


My beliefs follow more closely with Natural Law, in that you cannot own land. You can only use the land that is directly under your feet, and only for the moment that your feet are on it. Beyond that, to expect additional "rights" to a land is to defy the intent of our Creator, as displayed in the way in which we lived when we were created.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by seachange
 


My beliefs follow more closely with Natural Law, in that you cannot own land. You can only use the land that is directly under your feet, and only for the moment that your feet are on it. Beyond that, to expect additional "rights" to a land is to defy the intent of our Creator, as displayed in the way in which we lived when we were created.


So, should you be able to sell your house then? I believe ownership is just another word for control. And surely people can control land to one degree or another.

But I agree with you that the basis of ownership is actually not some deed or title, but rather the simple fact that one is using the land. So, I think if someone find an unused plot of land and starts to use it, the "official" title owner as defined by the current system has no right to complain because in point of fact they are not using the land.

There are all kind of problems with a deed-less property ownership system, but I think they may end up being less problematic than a deed-based property ownership system. For example, we now have a problem with property-hoarding. Governments across the world all basically own all the natural resources. That property hoarding is actually a socialist hoarding of property, not a capitalist hoarding of property, given that its the government who owns such huge swaths of land and does nothing with it but sit on it and then grant it to their corporate buddies in return for campaign contributions and bribes of various sorts.

If deed-based ownership were wiped out overnight, how do we handle parks? I value the idea of being able to walk through forests now considered forest preserves. I use the forest preserve. Yet some guy may want to waltz onto that forest preserve and cut down the trees and block the trail with a house. I live near a forest used for natural-growth lumber farming. With the deed no longer enforced, I could start chopping down the trees myself. Or I could clear out some of the forest and grow something that I think would be better to grow there. Of course that is similar to someone waltzing into a strawberry farm, tearing up all the strawberries, and planting tomatoes.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by seachange
 


Selling my house is selling the labor put into producing and gathering the parts that goes into it. The work is an investment in and of itself. The land that the house sits on should have no rights attached to it, other than perceived territorial rights based on a "squatter"mentality (since I am there, i claim use of it as my territory).

I also support the closest thing to anarchy that you can find. I do believe in recourse for crimes in which a person is harmed, as well as civil proceedings to gain said recourse. But I also think that our right to punch someone in the nose when they are screwing us over should be guaranteed. It is "natural law".

What I want would never be possible on this planet, with its current inhabitants.
I firmly stand by the Pythagorean statement of "When free men require laws, they are no longer fit for freedom".



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I own land, and I am not an elite... just a country boy that did OK for himself.

I have land in 3 counties... some is for pleasure, some is for a farm, some is for timber and income.

I pay property taxes on the land...they are county taxes. These taxes pay for the roads and upkeep of the county so I can get to my land... bridges, right of way maintainance, pot holes, sheriff's patrol, etc. I don't mind paying them, they are reasonable...

One years taxes on any one piece of property is way cheaper than me paying someone to snowplow a 17 mile stretch so I can get to town.... most heavy equipment operators charge at least $100 bucks an hour...and that is from the time they get in their truck...at their house. It is also cheaper than having to pay a private security firm to patrol my community...

Federal Taxes...in NC, property owners pay no Federal Taxes until they sell their property, and then it is only on the Capital Gains on the profit...this does not include Residential Property that one has a s a primary residence for at least 5 years...then you pay NO Federal Taxes on the Capital Gains.

Maybe I missed something in your OP... you can afford property...the key is to buy low and sell high and be willing to sit on it until you can sell it...maybe years or even decades.

Do your research and look around and learn everything you can...you can buy land. If you are willing to move, there are some good bargains. I bought 3 acres 14 years ago...got a 15 year loan, and the monthly payments amounted to less than 5 dollars a workday per month...less than a happy meal... next year the property will be paid for...and it parallels a county road that by 2014 will become a 4 lane highway into the country of north central NC.

As for land use, when you see land just sitting there, it is being used. it is a private piece of property and it is a commodity. It may look useless, but it may be a tree farm. I have some timberland that will be ready for harvest by the time I retire.... at today's market value...it will bring between $2000-3000 dollars an acre. Until then, I am fencing it in and am raising goats... two commodities or crops on the same land.. adds a new meaning to going "green."

My point is, YOU CAN DO what I did and not be an elite. You just have to use your money wisely. You don't have enough money? Well, you could do what this "oppressive capitalistic corporatist dictatorship" forced me to do... get a part time job or jobs in addition to your regular job. Also go to night school and take a real estate class..

Look around...in southside Va and north central NC there are houses for sale for 29,000-39,000-49,000 dollars.... 20-30 acre farms for sale under 100,000 dollars....small acreage for under 10,000.

I bought coastal property on the Pamlico Sound for about what a new pick up costs....

Land ownership is possible...save, learn, do your homework...and you can be one of the "elite" also.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Selling my house is selling the labor put into producing and gathering the parts that goes into it. The work is an investment in and of itself. The land that the house sits on should have no rights attached to it, other than perceived territorial rights based on a "squatter"mentality (since I am there, i claim use of it as my territory).


What about the labor and material put into caring or developing the land? Should a person not be reimbursed for the value added there?

Ex: Added trees or plants, fertilizer, water, kept out the critters etc.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Selling my house is selling the labor put into producing and gathering the parts that goes into it. The work is an investment in and of itself. The land that the house sits on should have no rights attached to it, other than perceived territorial rights based on a "squatter"mentality (since I am there, i claim use of it as my territory).


What about the labor and material put into caring or developing the land? Should a person not be reimbursed for the value added there?

Ex: Added trees or plants, fertilizer, water, kept out the critters etc.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)


ummmm.....



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by seachange
 


Selling my house is selling the labor put into producing and gathering the parts that goes into it. The work is an investment in and of itself.





posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I guess I misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying that the land itself was not something that had a value regarding its sale, only the home or structure.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join