Poll: Should Land be a commodity?
Poll Options
View poll results: Should Land be a commodity?
Yes
102 56%
No
47 26%
Sort of/Other
19 10%
Unsure
14 8%
Voters: 182.
Page 1 of 6
#2
Yes. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from sleeping in my yard and walking in my house?
Check out my band Disturbed
#3
Should be divided in a fair way.
Quote by DieGarbageMan
can i get a tl;dr up in this bitch?

A mod makes a joke and hi-jacks a thread...

Quote by paintITblack39
usually, this is often discussed in the political threads ...

let's change the question: are you pro or antti niemi?
#4
I say no by principal, but unfortunately I dont see it working any other way.
So come on in
it ain't no sin
take off your skin
and dance around in your bones

#5
Quote by StewieSwan
Yes. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from sleeping in my yard and walking in my house?



get a guard lion. you can get past a dog, but nobody ****s with a lion.
#6
well how would you pay taxes on land that no one owns? not owning the land you live on would destroy our economy more than it already is.
#7
yup. think of Los Angeles. +1 Million ppl in one city. it cant be divided equally without people complaining so buy your own dam place
E-married to BlessedRebel15
Most Attractive Female 2011 ^^
Dark Black Rivers in the WinterTime
Quote by CrunchyRoll
I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but everything is against the rules at UG
#8
There would be complete disorder if it wasn't.
LARGE TEXT
#9
Yup.

People are too stupid to do without it being one.

My things:
Bowes SLx7
Washburn WG587
Washburn X40Pro
Washburn X50
Washburn HM24
Washburn WR150
Laguna LE200s
Arietta Acoustic
First Act
Valveking 112
VHT Deliverance

#10
No. It doesn't make any sense.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#11
No, it's silly and you're being silly if you think so.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#12
Yes. It makes perfect sense.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#14
Quote by Kumanji
How so? I would argue the perfect opposite.


He's probably being contrary because me and Kensai said no.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#16
Quote by Meths
He's probably being contrary because me and Kensai said no.

I would not be surprised.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#17
Quote by Meths
He's probably being contrary because me and Kensai said no.

I'll have you know I've been firmly socialist on this kind of issue long before you were messing around in the primordial jelly.

Lloyd George's contribution to the Yellow Book in the 20s has an extremely measured and sensible theory-in-practice for the nationalisation of land; it's not just a pipedream.
#18
Quote by Metalology
Should be divided in a fair way.

How about the people who want the most land pay the most?

Quote by rickyj
well how would you pay taxes on land that no one owns? not owning the land you live on would destroy our economy more than it already is.

I really wish people wouldn't pick my side if they're just going to spout nonsense.
Last edited by captaincrunk at May 29, 2010,
#19
Quote by Kumanji
How so? I would argue the perfect opposite.
Go ahead.
Quote by StewieSwan
Yes. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from sleeping in my yard and walking in my house?
Bingo.
Quote by Metalology
Should be divided in a fair way.
Who decides what's "fair"?

"No, I want that piece, not the one you gave me. It's unfair for you to keep me from having it."
Quote by ICOG
I say no by principal, but unfortunately I dont see it working any other way.
Sounds about right.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#20
I don't know, but I have a feeling that I'm going to learn something from this thread



stratkat
#22
Quote by Kumanji
I'll have you know I've been firmly socialist on this kind of issue long before you were messing around in the primordial jelly.

Lloyd George's contribution to the Yellow Book in the 20s has an extremely measured and sensible theory-in-practice for the nationalisation of land; it's not just a pipedream.

Meths was talking about SYK
#23
Quote by ICOG
I say no by principal, but unfortunately I dont see it working any other way.

^This one.
Quote by Butt Rayge
Pretty sure Jesus was decaffeinated.


I'm just a hedonist without happiness
#24
For those of you who said no: How would you prefer we do things? If we were to stop buying and selling land, how would it be distributed?

EDIT:Thanks Seesaw for pointing that out. I really need to start proofreading my posts for shit like that.
Last edited by GRiMM94 at May 29, 2010,
#25
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Go ahead.

Right. To begin with, within a predominantly agricultural society it is an absolute no-brainer that to increase equality (and therefore to decrease poverty) the link between dominance of the arbitrary 'landowner' when compared to tenants must be broken. Dependency and wage-slavery is the root of poverty in these cases, since the tenants receive a fraction of the profits that they create.

Land reform is within a much wider context of tackling wage-slavery. It is perhaps less pressingly relevant in modern, developed societies in which the means of production and wealth are more and more divorced from geographical boundaries; yet still there is a pressing need to emancipate agricultural labour from the bounds of landlordism and arbitrary, often inherited, property.

I suppose it's less relevant, as I say, in industrialised nations where large amounts of wealth can be generated in small areas...

See: Georgism on Wikipedia, the universal property movement, whatever.
#27
Quote by Kumanji
Right. To begin with, within a predominantly agricultural society...
I thought you were gonna apply this to the real world. My mistake.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#28
Quote by Kumanji
Right. To begin with, within a predominantly agricultural society it is an absolute no-brainer that to increase equality (and therefore to decrease poverty) the link between dominance of the arbitrary 'landowner' when compared to tenants must be broken. Dependency and wage-slavery is the root of poverty in these cases, since the tenants receive a fraction of the profits that they create.

Land reform is within a much wider context of tackling wage-slavery. It is perhaps less pressingly relevant in modern, developed societies in which the means of production and wealth are more and more divorced from geographical boundaries; yet still there is a pressing need to emancipate agricultural labour from the bounds of landlordism and arbitrary, often inherited, property.

I suppose it's less relevant, as I say, in industrialised nations where large amounts of wealth can be generated in small areas...

See: Georgism on Wikipedia, the universal property movement, whatever.

Quote by EuBoat
I have a feeling that I'm going to learn something from this thread

#29
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
I thought you were gonna apply this to the real world. My mistake.

Oh aye, because the only place in the universe is Averageville, MI. Besides, what I've said is just as applicable to most of the developed world.
#30
Quote by Kumanji
Oh aye, because the only place in the universe is Averageville, MI. Besides, what I've said is just as applicable to most of the developed world.
Wrong.

You haven't "said" anything substantial about how land would be parceled out "equitably". You only bitch about what you perceive as being inequitable about the present system. Whining about what you think is wrong doesn't create a system that functions.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#31
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Wrong.

You haven't "said" anything substantial about how land would be parceled out "equitably". You only bitch about what you perceive as being inequitable about the present system. Whining about what you think is wrong doesn't create a system that functions.

Identifying the problems within society is one hell of a lot of the battle.

No, I don't know exactly how land should be divided up, I can just see that the present inequality stinks.
#32
Quote by Kumanji
No, I don't know exactly how land should be divided up,
Figure it out. Then we'll talk.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#33
Quote by Kumanji
Identifying the problems within society is one hell of a lot of the battle.

No, I don't know exactly how land should be divided up, I can just see that the present inequality stinks.

No it's not, it's easy to point to something and say this could be better. The hard part is thinking of how it could be.
all I ever wanted was to pick apart the day
put the pieces back together my way
#34
Quote by Kumanji
Right. To begin with, within a predominantly agricultural society it is an absolute no-brainer that to increase equality (and therefore to decrease poverty) the link between dominance of the arbitrary 'landowner' when compared to tenants must be broken. Dependency and wage-slavery is the root of poverty in these cases, since the tenants receive a fraction of the profits that they create.

Land reform is within a much wider context of tackling wage-slavery. It is perhaps less pressingly relevant in modern, developed societies in which the means of production and wealth are more and more divorced from geographical boundaries; yet still there is a pressing need to emancipate agricultural labour from the bounds of landlordism and arbitrary, often inherited, property.

I suppose it's less relevant, as I say, in industrialised nations where large amounts of wealth can be generated in small areas...

See: Georgism on Wikipedia, the universal property movement, whatever.


Sounds like complete bullshit. But Okay, whatever makes you think you're better than everyone else just because you can say something that most people won't understand because it makes no sense in the first place.

In every scenario in which property has been socialized, GDP plumits. In every country where private property is allowed (U.S., every other 1rst world country) The GDP has Skyrocketed.
#36
Quote by Aeolian Harmony
Georgism is about as applicable as Objectivism.

Don't make me hurt you.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#39
No, it shouldn't.

I'm not even going to bother contributing to the "debate" because both sides have already managed to act completely irrationally towards each others points.
#40
Quote by Thrashtastic15
No, it shouldn't.

I'm not even going to bother contributing to the "debate" because both sides have already managed to act completely irrationally towards each others points.

That's not a very good reason for not contributing. Just because a few people from both sides have supposedly been irrational doesn't mean you have to be.