Land Ownership Makes No Sense
wired.com
Land Ownership Makes No Sense
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#2Another quality wired article that makes no sense. Someone is going to own land. Either you or the government. So it is immoral for the private citizen to own land, but moral for the historically corrupt, ruthless, and often-times tyrannical government to own it?
This circle doesn't square.
I often ask myself where wired writers get their weed. If I had to guess, it is from a private grower who owns his own land.
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#3The alternative is assignment of space by government appointment. We all know the government is corrupt and the best spaces will go to the best connected people.
Purchasing the rights to the land in a free market is imperfect, but it's certainly an efficient and tamper resistant mechanism.
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#4Wired coming out swinging with an actual socialist/leftist/communist article? Color me impressed.
In the states, the Democrats are often mislabeled as a lefty party, or mislabeled as socialists. People will call CNN Marxist. They really, really aren't.
It's fascinating to see a major publisher going out on a limb to publish something like this.
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#5Another quality wired article that makes no sense. Someone is going to own land. Either you or the government. So it is immoral for the private citizen to own land, but moral for the historically corrupt, ruthless, and often-times tyrannical government to own it? This circle doesn't square. I often ask myself where wired writers get their weed. If I had to guess, it is from a private grower who owns his own land.
[flagged]
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#6It makes no sense in a world where collectives of people can make sane decisions in a timely manner.
We don't live in that world - for anything to get done, there must be a very small group of people with authority to decide what color to paint the bike shed. Land ownership is important exactly because it gives responsibility over what happens in a geographic area to a single entity, and excludes most people from providing paralyzing "input".
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#7Another quality wired article that makes no sense. Someone is going to own land. Either you or the government. So it is immoral for the private citizen to own land, but moral for the historically corrupt, ruthless, and often-times tyrannical government to own it? This circle doesn't square. I often ask myself where wired writers get their weed. If I had to guess, it is from a private grower who owns his own land.
It should be easy to provide a high quality rebuttal then.
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#8"You'll own nothing and be happy." - Ida Auken
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#9> In New York City, 46 percent of a typical home’s value is just the cost of the land it’s built on. In San Francisco its 52 percent; in Los Angeles, 61 percent.
In my neighborhood, it's > Similarly, on planet Earth at least, occupying space necessarily implies occupying land.
> The problem with the right to land is that it’s all been taken.
> Economists call this “rent seeking,” and most of us call it “immoral.”
This feels like it was written by a passionate 11th grader.
Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense
#10Another quality wired article that makes no sense. Someone is going to own land. Either you or the government. So it is immoral for the private citizen to own land, but moral for the historically corrupt, ruthless, and often-times tyrannical government to own it? This circle doesn't square. I often ask myself where wired writers get their weed. If I had to guess, it is from a private grower who owns his own land.
For most of human history, no one owned land. There are systems beyond individual ownership and central government ownership.