Ah, so the town council wouldn't actually be landlords even though they control all the land in the town. Got it.
That would be a different town. In my town, Joe is paying the community full market value (less the individual exemptions for him, his family, and anyone else living on the place as a tenant) for secure, exclusive tenure and the economic advantages that go with it. Joe informs Karl that he's on privately tenured land, and if he wants to settle in the community and have the same right as any citizen to free, secure, exclusive tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of his choice to make himself a home (or pay the market rent for more than that, if he wants), he'll have to go through the proper channels to ensure everyone's equal rights to life, liberty and property in the fruits of their labor are respected.
So Karl is prevented from using what nature provides unless he pays the landlord. Got it. Good system you got there. So much better.
Obviously, you could call them landlords as a way of deceiving readers about their role. But that would be disingenuous, to put it charitably. First, they only ADMINISTER POSSESSION AND USE of all the land, but it is CONTROLLED by its various private users. Second, unlike landlords, the town council don't get to just POCKET the rent, they have to spend it in ways the people think will be of benefit to all. Third, unlike landlords, the town council are ACCOUNTABLE to all the people for how they administer the land, not just themselves. But then, you already knew all that, didn't you?
I see. So the whole town is one big landlord. Gee, I hope nobody want to us their land that nature provided.
No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. First, you are makin' $#!+ up because he doesn't have to pay anyone anything as long as he doesn't want to deprive others of more than his equal exempt share of the valuable land. All marginal land can be used for free, and enough of the available good land of the user's choice to have access to opportunity. Second, you are makin' $#!+ up because the people you are incorrectly and disingenously calling "landlords" provide SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE out of the rent, not just what nature provides, and it is access to THOSE that he also pays for to the extent that he wants to deprive others of it. Third, you are makin' $#!+ up because if the "landlords" don't serve him and his fellow citizens well enough, he can vote them out at election time and choose someone he thinks will do a better job. You're ******n right it is. No matter how much $#!+ you make up about it.
No, that's just you disingenuously saying that I said something I explicitly denied, just as I predicted you would because you always do. Why not? It will be worth justly paying the community for depriving them of it. And people can use all that nature provided they like, for free, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T WANT TO DEPRIVE OTHERS of more than their equal exempt share. As you know perfectly well, but have to make $#!+ up about because you know it proves your beliefs are false and evil. Anyone who wanted it would get free, secure tenure on good land under my system, never under yours. You know this.
So let me get this straight, so I understand. The town of Brington has a monopoly on a swath of land, but some outsider would not be prevented from using their land? Someone could just enter their land and begin using what nature provided?
you said they would pay huge rents to govt for the land?? I guess your crazy commie lib idea is always changing?
It administers possession and use of the land within its jurisdiction, as any government does. As long as no one else was paying the community for exclusive tenure on that location. Yes, assuming no one else was paying for exclusive tenure at that location. Not only that, but unlike under your favored system of landowner privilege and parasitism, they could do it for free as long as they used land no one else was willing to pay to use, and no more of the more advantageous land than the exempt amount for them, their family, and anyone else living with them as their partners, employees, tenants, etc.
Only if they wanted to deprive others of huge value that would otherwise be available to access. No. I've refined my ideas over a number of decades, and am always open to better ones, but any rational person would be, wouldn't they?
So the town of Brington has exclusive control of that land. That sounds like ownership. That sounds like monopoly. So, if someone did have exclusive tenure at that location, then he (and the state) could deny our friend Karl access to what nature provided?
So if farmer wanted land to grow food, that could not used by others while he was growing food on it, said farmer would pay huge rents to libcommiefascist govt that owned land? and thus charge huge prices for food. insanity?
Only to someone who doesn't know what ownership is. Ownership includes four points: control, exclusion, benefit, and disposal. Trustees have control, exclusion and disposal, but do not get the benefit, so they are not owners. The town of Bringiton only gets exclusion and benefit, as it secures control to private users and cannot dispose of the land. Of course. Land is a canonical example of monopoly. Right. That's the trade-off needed for an economy above the nomadic herding stage. Like everyone else, Karl gives up his natural liberty to use all land non-exclusively in exchange for living in a civilized society; and in Bringiton, because it is a just society, he is compensated with free, secure tenure on enough of the available advantageous land of his choice to have access to economic opportunity. In private landowning societies such as you favor, Karl is simply forcibly stripped of his right to liberty, without compensation, and must then pay a private landowner full market value for permission to work, or even to exist.
No, he would pay the market rent, the same as farmers do now for land they want to use but don't own. The just land tenure administration office has no motive to charge more than that, as it would just lead to vacancy and reduced revenue. See how silly your silly silliness is always so easily proved to be? <sigh> Do farmers who rent land charge more for their crops than farmers who own land NOW? See how silly your silly silliness is always so easily proved to be? Silliness, at any rate.
In reference to the OP topic, debt only proves one has bills that are unpaid. Wealth is proven by the ability to pay ones bills in full.
False. It cannot dispose of land. Private landlords take -- steal -- publicly created land value for themselves, acting as filthy, greedy, thieving parasites. The public recovering publicly created land value for public purposes and benefit, by contrast, prevents that theft.
they buy; not take or steal land from people who want to unload it because other things are more valuable to them. So much for your goofball argument.
What prevents the town of Brington from choosing to dispose of some of its land? The town of Brington is one big multi-person landlord. If you disagree, then please tell me what the town of Brington would do if someone tried to make use of their land that was provided by nature.
If home buyers are filthy greedy thieving parasites then home sellers, who encouraging such activity, must be equally guilty ? Probably no one in the world believes that so why is such a stupid idea even allowed here to waste our time?
No, they are continuously stealing it from all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Buying a license to steal from the previous thief does not mean they aren't stealing. So much for your attempt to evade the truth.
They don't own it. They only have a government office that administers its possession and use in trust for, and to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of, all the people. Government's job, duty, and purpose is to secure and reconcile its citizens' equal rights. To dispose of land, such as by granting title to a private individual, would forcibly remove the people's, and all future generations', rights to liberty, and would therefore be an atrocious betrayal of the government's duty to secure all the people's rights. No, that's false, of course. It's a bit like a landowning cooperative in that its goal is to serve its members, but there are still important differences: 1. it cannot dispose of the land; 2. new arrivals are automatically entitled to land use rights without having to buy shares; 3. those who leave can't sell their land use rights; 4. etc. "Their" land? There is no "their" land. There is only the land provided by nature, and the need to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to use it when exclusive tenure is desirable. All exclusive land tenure is obtained by force, and Bringiton is no different from a capitalist or socialist community on that score.
