Is land ownership a birth right?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: toysforadults

The truth is the ones who can afford it will own land and the ones who can't wont.

The truth is we have in place a system where if you work for it, you can own land.

There are several other systems in the world where you will never be given the opportunity do so.

Let me tell you a story, sister.

I was in a place in the early 90's where I was out of the military, really screwed up in my head, living on the streets with nothing to my name. I had lost my family, lost everything. I was a needle or two away from dying. And I didn't care.

I had a friend pick me up, dust me off and give me a year to think about my life.

I thought about it, applied myself and fast forward to now.. I have a few hundred acres, I am off-grid with a nice garden. I make six figures in a job that I really like. I have good friends, good company and a family again. I am currently getting my orchard up to 40 trees.

I have goats.. lol.

What I did really isn't possible in other places in the world... I have lived on three continents and poked around the other 3. So I think I know.

While I had my year off I started really studying America, the history, how it happened and why it is different from other places.

This is the last best place. You can turn your life around here if you just try.

That is why I dislike people who slam what America is supposed to be and dislike people who want to change it.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
South Africa is using the tribal ethic to claim land in the name of the Republic.
Everybody understand?
Me neither.

I certainly do.

Bad governance.

Otherwise known as greed.
The ANC said they would put the land confiscated under state control.
Huge bribes and cash in on mining interests.
China has been receiving 54% of the world's strategic minerals.
More than Europe, the US, Japan and Korea put together..

I get why the thread devolved from the original topic to Africa.. it is a real-world example of what a government can do to destroy property rights.

It wasn't the actual topic though... just sayin.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

You miss the point entirely - it isn't about everyone having a piece of the planet - it's about no one personally owning the space and resources of any land. The idea being that the land is 'held' in common for all.

and to further your point, we have the problem of the oligarch empires such as the Rockefeller's and the Rothschild's. i have a very difficult time understanding that by virtue of the fact that these persons arrived on this planet some 90-100 years before me....

.... they lay claim, government sanctioned, to vast sums of property and resources that i (nor any other) will ever comprehend.

just because i was 90 years late to the game is not a valid reason for why i should be excluded from prosperity.

late to the game... got shafted.

no, no. we ALL OF US share the resources of the planet no matter their provenance or age. all wealth is derived from these resources. yes, this is progressivism. i am a proud champion and will levy a powerful argument that the naughty 'P-word' is 100% American ideal, hard boiled into the constitution, itself. indeed, capitalists are the entitled bunch....

.... the majority of us just want to get along, capitalism be damned.

"spare a penny, kind sir?"


thanks,
dkp

socialism as natural law.

the United States Declaration of Independence starts as follows: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....

equal rights under the law is an post-modern concept, a full century ahead of its time; it is the foundation of the liberal ideal. sadly, in our post modern society, liberals have been doing a terrible job of minding their task.

to show that socialism is as natural to the human mind as is capitalism, i wish to submit a short metaphor... please endure me.

every day, as you drive the on-ramp of your local interstate, you are entering the two-dimensional political battleground of capitalist vs. socialist.

we understand that the most effective way for the majority of us to make it safely to our destination is to 'Share the Road'. the road is a shared resource and if any of the drivers around us are sharing unequally, it puts ALL of us at risk....

.... enter the capitalist, whom has acquired a shiny new speedster in bright red or silver. it seems to happen at least once per day that the man who knows the game and abuses of the road, does actually appear to think himself 'better' than the mini-van-mother-of-five. he OWNS THE ROAD, itself; he cares not the danger he risks upon all of us by claiming as his own property that which is manifestly and necessarily a shared public resource -- the Road.

--end metaphor--

to bring it back home, just like the interstate, the value of our money supply is a shared resource: we ALL depend on its surety, and most of the American humans use the dollar as it is meant to be. in simplicity, the value of the dollar is socialism in action.

but wait! there exist corporations, conglomerates, bankers and securities brokers who have figured the game and its abuses (re shiny car that owns the road). these financial entities are in the daily engagement of subverting and extracting the value of the dollar. this is how they "make money" (a disgusting enterprise). the make money by debasing our money supply.

they think because they know their esoteric rules and regulations, that they are endowed to dictate its value to the rest of us. THEY DO NOT OWN THE MONEY SUPPLY... any more than the fancy car, dangerously weaving thru traffic, owns the road surface, itself. THE CAPITALISTS ARE PUTTING US ALL AT RISK!
__________

and finally, to the OP. this world is a shared resource that, as shown above, far too many feel entitled to exclusive resource extraction rights.

yes, it is your birthright to be inducted into the human family and enjoy all the benefits that membership allows. if you have express interest or desire to improve the land and your relationship with your human family, believe that there are far more safe-drivers than not, whom have no interest in the exclusionary extraction of security in our daily lives.

far fewer of them. we just tryna get by.

"spare us a penny, kind sir."


thanks,
dkp

a reply to: tgidkp

Allow me to correct that metaphor...

The interstate is not the property that is shared under a scenario as posed in the OP. Under current land ownership policy, no one owns (or gets to act like they own) the entire planet, just like the guy who thinks he owns the road will soon be paying a ticket. But we each have our own little slices of it, some more than others, yes, but most people at least have a place to live. Likewise, a person on the Interstate may be driving a Ferrari, or he may be driving a worn-out Yugo. Some are driving Cadillacs, some Mercedes Benz, some Rolls Royce.

So when someone exits the Interstate and stops, perhaps to use the restroom or buy a cold drink before getting back on the road, do they just walk outside and hop into the first car they see? Or do they have their own car with their own CDs in the stereo and their own seat settings?

They go to their own car. So does everyone else. Then they drive on to their destination. The turmoil that would ensue if no one owned a car, but just picked one and took off in it, would be astronomical. The nicer cars would soon cease to exist, because why take care of something that is going to be driven by someone else in a few hours? What happens if you walk outside the store and there are no cars yet... you have to wait for one, and there's no way to know how long that would take. Why have repairs made? It's easier to pull over in the next parking lot and just get another car that doesn't need repairs.

Want proof? Look at how rental cars are treated. Now look at how rental property is treated. See the pattern?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

i admit that especially in text form, the metaphor is a bit confusing. but, my dear sunburned-midwesterner, you have extrapolated your way out into the forbidden wasteland.

it's pretty simple. socialism is the mutual cooperation among drivers. yet there are those whom take advantage of the situation (the bankster, corporate entity) by driving a badass and endangering all persons on the road.

in the metaphor, the shared resource of road is the value of the fiat dollar and credit system. the Ferrari driver manipulates the value of dollar in their favor. causing the total population to pay for his dangerous and selfish behavior.

simple point: in both cases of highway safety and in protecting the value of the dollar, honest collaboration is needed. but there is always an jerkface or two that cause the demise of all.

this is, in my best assessment, the story of socialism and how it is equally valid as 'natural theory' and land acquisition as a birthright.


but i do enjoy your analysis, you harmonica playing sh!t kicker (all respect].

a reply to: tgidkp

it's pretty simple. socialism is the mutual cooperation among drivers. yet there are those whom take advantage of the situation (the bankster, corporate entity) by driving a badass and endangering all persons on the road.

And herein lies the primary problem with socialism (and communism). No matter what form of economic distribution of goods we choose, there will always be those who will try to game the system. That is simply human nature. The difference between capitalism and socialism is that it is more difficult for them to do so under capitalism. Under capitalism, the people still have the ability to affect even those in extreme power positions. Under socialism, there must exist a class whose position allows them to distribute goods as needed, and there is little realistic check on someone in such power.

Both are flawed systems at heart, because humans are flawed creatures. Socialism is flawed because someone will always rise to power who does not have the best interests of society at heart and once in power, these people by definition have the ability to manipulate markets... it's their job. Capitalism is flawed because those who are wildly successful are able to manipulate markets and accomplish the same nefarious goals, and because those who find themselves in abject poverty can be unable to simply exist, much less thrive.

The former issue can be corrected by limiting monopolies through government oversight...something we used to do quite regularly but have abandoned lately. The latter can be corrected through socialism, ensuring that those in extreme need have the basics to allow upward mobility... something we try to do, but with limited success. I believe our lack of success in this is primarily due to the over-bloated bureaucracy that seems to grow like mold around any government program.

There is no way to correct the flaw in socialism; it is inherent in the system.

In the end, the best methodology is a combination of capitalism and socialism, by using socialism to correct one of the ills of capitalism and government to correct the other. The argument seems to be how much of each we need. I like to liken capitalism to a potato and socialism to salt. By itself, the potato is a dull, bland food source. But deep fry that thing and add a little salt, and you have French fries! Delicious, mouth-watering French fries! Add too much salt, and those fries become inedible, worse than the potato itself.

Your base points, as well as the points in the OP, are valid. Not far from me, a new house was recently built in the dead center of a field with a winding driveway. They have a ten acre yard that was just recently ten acres of prime farmland, and have ignored the areas right next to them where a few hours with a chainsaw would have yielded a great building spot nestled between trees that was not being used for farming. I see that as a waste; I tend to build inside the treeline when possible. But others could see my mountain as a waste as well, for reasons I have earlier laid out. Therefore, I must either accept that our present method, while imperfect, is as equitable as humanity makes possible, or I must reject everything that centuries of social development have shown to be workable.

I have seen the abject failure of one attempt to overthrow those centuries of development in my lifetime: the hippie movement of the 1960s. The new idea was communism back then: groups of like-minded individuals living in a tribal setting free of restrictions of ownership woes, economic duty, and social stigmas. These utopian communes sprang up all across the country, and just as quickly fell apart. Human greed and avarice destroyed them before they could take hold. The concept was sound - most family units are actually communistic in nature - but their implementation was beyond what the system could support.

I choose to stay with capitalism until such time as a smaller-scale experiment shows it to be inferior to the new concept.

TheRedneck