Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Land Ownership Makes No Sense

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#61

Post by engineer_22 »

206lol wrote: post #12
engineer_22 wrote: post #3

The 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.

There are other alternatives. For instance land held in common by small communities that care for and live on the land. Not everything needs to be individually owned or owned by some large central government.

Small communities do indeed own land and utilities.

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#62

Post by engineer_22 »

seventytwo wrote: post #26
engineer_22 wrote: post #3

The 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.

We’ve done the free market system before. It’s called feudalism.

Feudalism is right-by-might. Lands and titles granted by a sovereign.

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#63

Post by 206lol »

hersko wrote: post #40
206lol wrote: post #4

Wired 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.

I'm old enough to remember when Wired wrote interesting tech articles. I don't think we need another left-wing rag.

Me too, our difference is that I see relatively few leftist publications in tech. There's plenty of writing out there that supports Democrats, but the Dems are not leftist in any meaningful way.

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#64

Post by 206lol »

engineer_22 wrote: post #61
206lol wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other alternatives. For instance land held in common by small communities that care for and live on the land. Not everything needs to be individually owned or owned by some large central government.

Small communities do indeed own land and utilities.

[dead]

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#65

Post by bryanlarsen »

peteradio wrote: post #33
bryanlarsen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be easy to provide a high quality rebuttal then.

Haven't they already? Land ownership makes sense to beasts and man. Someone is going to take advantage of a plot of land and historically use it to reproduce or otherwise propagate their living will. Even electrons can't occupy the same space at the same time.

That Manhattan Island was sold for $24 shows how unnatural land ownership is. The natives making the sale had some concept of ownership, but did not comprehend that they were giving up perpetual, fully exclusive rights to the land.

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#66

Post by peteradio »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #65
peteradio wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't they already? Land ownership makes sense to beasts and man. Someone is going to take advantage of a plot of land and historically use it to reproduce or otherwise propagate their living will. Even electrons can't occupy the same space at the same time.

That Manhattan Island was sold for $24 shows how unnatural land ownership is. The natives making the sale had some concept of ownership, but did not comprehend that they were giving up perpetual, fully exclusive rights to the land.

I don't understand this. Presumably the natives thought it was a good deal? Or were they sold a lie? Like "yea buddy come back anytime?" Either way doesn't preclude that we can peaceably transfer ownership. I mean if the natives are pissed because they got hoodwinked then the rule doesn't need to be "noone shalt own land" it could be "don't fraudulently do business". If we are saying nobody owns land then I suspect that means I'm crammed into a tin can and somebody out there owns a whole fuck load of land.

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#67

Post by readthenotes1 »

legitster wrote: post #31

In the broad context of history, I acknowledge that land ownership is kind of a myth. I kind of think of the little bit of land that I own as almost sort of a "lease" from the government. I really only get to "own" it so long as we have a functional government and market. While I broadly agree with the ideas of Georgism as well as LVT, I hate the framing of this article. It largely devolves into false moralisms and c…

Try not paying property taxes for a while and you'll find out who owns your land.

Actually, pay property taxes to the wrong state and you'll find out (distant relative owned land on an island in a river. The river changed course and the land belonged to a different state, unbeknownst to distant relatives who then lost their land)

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#68

Post by bryanlarsen »

peteradio wrote: post #66
bryanlarsen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That Manhattan Island was sold for $24 shows how unnatural land ownership is. The natives making the sale had some concept of ownership, but did not comprehend that they were giving up perpetual, fully exclusive rights to the land.

I don't understand this. Presumably the natives thought it was a good deal? Or were they sold a lie? Like "yea buddy come back anytime?" Either way doesn't preclude that we can peaceably transfer ownership. I mean if the natives are pissed because they got hoodwinked then the rule doesn't need to be "noone shalt own land" it could be "don't fraudulently do business". If we are saying nobody owns land then I suspect t…

You asserted that "Land ownership makes sense to beasts and man". If so, then saying "I'll buy this land for $24" is a straightforward transaction where being hoodwinked is basically impossible.

I "own" 1/6 of an acre of land. But there are many things I'm not allowed to do to my property. So do I truly own it?

I possess the right to do certain things to my property, and possess the right exclude others from doing certain things. I can resell that right. Those rights would be largely unaffected whether you call what I have ownership or not.

In practicality ownership of land is a semantic game, but it's an important piece of semantics.

Re: Land Ownership Makes No Sense

#70

Post by flashgordon »

You know call me whimsical. I also dont care about land ownership if I can live rent free without risk of eviction or uncertainties and in the kind of house that I am comfortable with. Ok rent free is wishful - atleast no more rent than all mortgage+property tax / life of mortgage.
Post reply on HN