"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

Nonsense!

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.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Much of the current land can be traced to
when it was stolen. The theft should be brought to justice.

By today's definition of ownership,
theft has not taken place since
nobody legally owned the property
in the first place.

It was owned by the state and used by all.

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.

So you condone theft.

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?

Not yet, but many towns and cities. The UK nearly adopted it, but WW1 got
in the way .

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.

It is and many great brains say so. I don't count you as a great brain.

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

The Tory Little Middle Englander coming out.

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.

Go away!

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.

Not really the aristocracy, Oxbridge, Harrow and Eton, Lords Ladies The
Monarchy, large landowners.. all in the same boat. Read what I recommended.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003