Forum Political Identity Poll

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would expect democractically within the community. There are plenty of issues we both face where there is no clear inflection point, not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this just boils down to a complete absence of private land. If the social norm is such that the allocation of land to individuals is decided democratically, then an individual does not own land in any meaningful sense; the majority always has eminent domain. "Private" land in such a system would be illusory; land can only appear to be private if the majority have elected for the "owner" to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private property is fine, to the extent that it is being used. If you have people with no home, and a house or factory that is abandoned, the people should be able to move in and claim shelter.

This is certainly better than landlordism, where a few people decide who lives where instead of the community as a whole.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would expect democractically within the community. There are plenty of issues we both face where there is no clear inflection point, not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this just boils down to a complete absence of private land. If the social norm is such that the allocation of land to individuals is decided democratically, then an individual does not own land in any meaningful sense; the majority always has eminent domain. "Private" land in such a system would be illusory; land can only appear to be private if the majority have elected for the "owner" to have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private property is fine, to the extent that it is being used. If you have people with no home, and a house or factory that is abandoned, the people should be able to move in and claim shelter.

This is certainly better than landlordism, where a few people decide who lives where instead of the community as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This topic deserves its own thread, but who decides whether some property is being used? If I park my car for an hour is it up for grabs? What if I park it for a day? A month? 5 years?

[neverforgetlol]

pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mentioned something about the "community" voting on it. Would the "community" be able to democratically take away the property of someone that hasn't agreed to submit to their decision?

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mentioned something about the "community" voting on it. Would the "community" be able to democratically take away the property of someone that hasn't agreed to submit to their decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, I can't think of a situation in which a community would deny someone a right to shelter. That's pretty terrible.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure i already answered that if you'd care to read the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mentioned something about the "community" voting on it. Would the "community" be able to democratically take away the property of someone that hasn't agreed to submit to their decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, I can't think of a situation in which a community would deny someone a right to shelter. That's pretty terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]
You and nietz should do thread about it so we stop cluttering this one up.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The landlord is analagous to the capitalist. It's "pay me rent or freeze to death on the street" just like "let me take part of what you produce or you'll starve to death with no job."

[/ QUOTE ]
People have different needs. Most people that live in apartments don't have the money to just buy (or put a downpayment and pay off) houses. They may also only need the place temporarily. So they agree to just pay for temporary usage of someone elses property. I see no reason to outlaw this mutally beneficial agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the landlord have the right to own more property then he needs for his own use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone else have a right to determine how much he needs and deny him any more than that?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
You and nietz should do thread about it so we stop cluttering this one up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. It's a very interesting subject.