Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can afford 2500 sf land. I am prohibited from purchasing 2500 sf land because 2500 sf is not a lawful lot size. Therefore I am prohibited from purchasing what I can afford, and I can afford something I want to purchase.
Whose lot? A lot comes from a legal claim which by definition comes from government. All land starts as public. Its governments that create private property, and is none other than a government granted monopoly not unlike the king granting toll collection rights on a river. The entire value comes from government enforcement. Otherwise why not just seize the property? That is how it all started anyway since the landed gentry were nothing but the decedents of the military. Britain was "owned" by the Norman conquest.
The last time I calculated, I figured I was entitled to 5 acres of land. This is regardless of whether I can "afford" it. This is by virtue of being.
The problem is "which 5 acres"?
It's always been about the land though.
The truth is, those who dominate the land, dominate it all. And those that do dominate the land, they don't really rely on "title deeds" or other pieces of "paper" or "laws" to protect their own.
Or if they do...if it's not backed up otherwise, it tends to not be theirs after a while.
I've read a bit about georgist type taxes, and I can see the logic behind it.
Property values do not simply rise quickly right before selling.
You were asleep during the housing boom? Wake up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
And often, it's not even mere want of INCREASED values, but merely PROTECTED values... and no DIMUNITION in value.
Protecting like now since home values are down from the artificial highs because of government regulating the housing industry. Any wonder why home values soared while the cost to build them decreased, AND demand did not outstrip supply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
In my county for the lifestyle you want you would have the right to live in the unincorporated parts where acreage properties, huge garages, livestock, multiple car collections and messy yards can be commonplace. You'd also potentially be buying land which was subject to a lawsuit, where one adjacent owner of property was accused of operating business which allegedly leached harmful chemicals into the ground.
And thats where government comes in. This is one of their defined roles. Protecting rights. No one has the right to pollute anothers property. They are damaging that property and that property owner has recourse for damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
But, as you say, it's not like land gets up and walks over to the neighbor's house, right?
Yep and you did nothing to disprove my point. But keep asking questions, otherwise how will you learn?
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 12-27-2012 at 12:07 PM..
Governments give owners certain rights and imposes certain obligations.
Government does not give you your rights. Government can give you privileges such as driving a car. Privileges are different than rights. The right to life is the most important right. Without that right the rest are meaningless. I haven't met a person alive that asked government if it was okay to be born.
Government through the use of force denies and controls our rights. That's different than granting them.
Involuntary renters need property values to NOT rise so that they can afford to keep a roof over their head, as well as to maintain ANY hope of ever being able to buy a home.
Government should not be in the business of picking winners (homeowners) and losers (renters). One more example of top-down class warfare in this country. It should be up to the market not to government.
A couple houses around me rent for 1600 a month, one is ~1500 sq ft. Horrible schools, not too much violent crime. I couldn't believe rent was so high. The house could sell for 125k at the most.
The last time I calculated, I figured I was entitled to 5 acres of land. This is regardless of whether I can "afford" it. This is by virtue of being.
The problem is "which 5 acres"?
It's always been about the land though.
The truth is, those who dominate the land, dominate it all. And those that do dominate the land, they don't really rely on "title deeds" or other pieces of "paper" or "laws" to protect their own.
Or if they do...if it's not backed up otherwise, it tends to not be theirs after a while.
I've read a bit about georgist type taxes, and I can see the logic behind it.
A couple houses around me rent for 1600 a month, one is ~1500 sq ft. Horrible schools, not too much violent crime. I couldn't believe rent was so high. The house could sell for 125k at the most.
Sadly, my first guess in this case is that these houses might be Section 8, which subsidizes rents up to the metro area median rent (calculated annually by HUD). Section 8 landlords often like to buy properties in low-rent neighborhoods and charge inflated (but not higher than the metro median) rent.
It's also possible that these might be unsubdidized, non-Section 8, fair market rents. In many areas, rents have soared the past couple years, as many homeowners lost their homes to foreclosure, those houses are now vacant (owned by banks and not yet put back on the market), and those people have to live somewhere, so they are competing for a smaller number of available rentals.
Currently, owning is cheaper than renting in almost all of the 50 largest housing markets.
Government does not give you your rights. Government can give you privileges such as driving a car. Privileges are different than rights. The right to life is the most important right. Without that right the rest are meaningless. I haven't met a person alive that asked government if it was okay to be born.
Government through the use of force denies and controls our rights. That's different than granting them.
Considering that there is such thing as death penalty, I wouldn't call it a right to life. There was no right to property to anybody either... only protected class (and as late as 20th century, I might add).
Would you then agree that poor Americans live in an unjust country?
The U.S. poor have more opportunities than most places on earth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
