On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:17:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



That depends on whether somebody owned it in the first place. If you
want to subscribe to the idea that land acquired centuries ago having
been "owned" by the common people is theft then you are at liberty to
take that position. Present day law does not support that premise
and neither do I.

The law can always be changed.

Possibly, but not very likely.


The problem is that once you start
on that principle it is a slippery slope.

More like an uphill slope.

It is a downhill slope to anarchy

The anarchy has already occurred in the greed of grabbing common land.

Relative to the way we see ourselves today as being civilised, most
aspects of life for our distant ancestors could be described as
anarchic.


because there is no way to define
what is "legitimate" and what is not. Do you do it on who the owner
is, how much land they own, the value, how long they have owned it,
whether they have a title? It's all very arbitrary and where would
one draw the line?

It can be worked out.

Easy to say. Impossible to do.



No need to take it away. re-distribute
land and they have to sell, or
introduce LVT.

That's doing exactly the same thing by stealth.

Not so. they have to "sell" their land. Note the word "sell". I find it
distasteful that the descendants of thieves profit. though.

I am sure that if we were to dig deeply enough, we are all the
descendents of thieves.

By today's definition of ownership, theft has not taken place since
nobody legally owned the property in the first place. If you want to
take the view that property "owned by the people" should be returned
"to the people" then fine. The law doesn't support that notion and I
don't either.


I also don't believe that the risk to the
perturbation of the economy
by such measures as Land taxes
are justified.

LVT will improve the economy and not
be just moving the furniture around.

It has never been done in a macro economy
so would be a huge and unjustifiable risk.

It is not a risk. LVT is implemented in any places around the world.

Can you name a country where it is implemented on a national scale?



All eminent people no doubt. It's easy to pontificate when you
don't have responsibility for your actions.

Firstly the basic backbone has to be firm and sound. It is.

The trouble is that it really isn't.


Stop babbling about dismantling
the economy for God's sake.

OK, so would you be prepared to put
your money where your mouth is?

Let's say that we put you in charge of
implementing these reforms that
you think are so important.

Would you take the job?

Yes.

You couldn't have said anything else, of course, but marks for having
the courage of your convictions. It is all hypothetical, of
course.......



They obviously decided that there was
no capital to be made from it
and no upsides. That should tell us something.

No. they just didn't counter them, as it takes time and effort and money.

There's no point in defending a government that is well past its
sell-by date.




We will get there eventually. But in land we
need revolution not evolution.

I think that this last sentence summarises
your position completely.

And what might that be?

Revolution, not evolution - you said it yourself.


The problem, to quote George Orwell
as you have done, is that

"Some animals are more equal than others"

Land large land owners, Oxbridge, Harrow & Eton, etc. Yes the pigs are more
equal than others.


The trouble is that when you get into this it snowballs.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl