As usual you are wilfully being ambiguous conflating the tangible and intangible definitions of "property" to support your argument. So let’s assume "property" by definition as tangible ie. dwellings, houses, flats, just as a fleet of vehicles must be produced property must also; bricks and mortar do not form into dwellings by themselves, to declare properties into existence is a ridiculous notion.

If you then switch to refer "property" as intangible, ie, ownership, legal title, incorporeal, and say it is declared, then yes, through payment, ownership and title and rights of the dwelling transferred. You voluntarily entered into an agreement with the landlord in you paying rent in return to give you sole rights and continuation of access and accommodation to this dwelling, thereby preventing others from using the same dwelling for the term of the tenancy.

To then your backward notion of saying that you pay rent so that the landlord doesn't kick out is like saying your employer pays you so that you don't stop drilling holes in the ground. If your employer stopped paying you, you would take your trade elsewhere because that is your right. Your argument would be analogous to you exploiting your employer by you "renting" out your trade and you accepting a payment of wage to stop you from sacking your employer.

You have confirmed that renting is a necessity and provide you temporary dwellings should you to a need to work away from your normal place of resident. Landlords facilitate a means for you to do this and you take advantage of this "service" through the transaction of a rental agreement/contract for a fixed term there by facilitating your future earnings through your future labour.

 

TDW I am still wondering if you have EVER bought a lottery ticket.

 

You can tell he's a student


( he isn't up yet )

 

but it is not quite as simple as that is it

"Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality … Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations (not a communist btw)

 

Plus the fact he's picking the brains of more intelligent people than himself.

All his socio economic gobbledegook isn't a reflection of his own personal views but a Devil's Advocate stance to engage others. Time to get myself enrolled on one of them there Sociology courses.

 

Yes but drilling holes in the ground involves work...labour...that is the difference.

Giving someone 'sole rights' (albeit temporarily, in return for rent) isn't actually doing anything substantial, it is just a legal or institutional move, which comes ultimately down to them not kicking you out, not exercising their power to exclude you from said land.

It's a legal necessity such but not an absolute one.

If I 'give' you a license to breath air would you say I was 'facilitating' you or 'providing' you with anything?

 

One reason for the Napoleonic codes too. In Britain though the vast estates of the nobility remain untouched.

Smith understood the difference between rent seeking and productive assets.

 

11 pages of ****e. , well done SN

 

That is not in contention, what is is the notion of paying rent so that landlords don't kick you out rather than you entering into agreement with the landlord so that you can use their property. You sought the landlord to use their property, not the other way round!

From land that the landlord owns. If you were given a car and it's keys, whether you have "legal" right or ownership to it, you would still lock it to deny others from using it, but if you did allow use of the vehicle, you'd expect the user to pay for the fuel they've used or for wear and tear.

You're not entitled to do so, you don't have ownership or have the sole rights to the air I breathe.

 

Yep thanks to Bona , lots of derelict properties for rich English / else landlords second homes.

Result.

 

yes - because I believe historically agricultural land has had little in the way of inheritance tax applied

 

I sought them because they own what is in effect the license to the property. Legally I must have their permission. I have to pay them rent if I want to use the land.

This doesn't contradict the fact the Landlord is paid rent for not doing something...minus costs for maintenance and such.

The building itself might suffer some wear and tear sure but the license itself can never depreciate so long as the law backs such licenses.

Paying for wear and tear is a separate issue.


But someone could do just by declaring such a property right through the law. This is what happened with the Enclosure Acts with regard to property in Britain.

I never said I was entitled anyway FFS, I was saying IF I was entitled.

 

I'm not sure exactly how that works but our big estates were never broken up per se, just converted into 'modern' private property and passed down by primogeniture ever since. I believe that in the US they do...or did...mandate that estates are split up equally between children of the deceased? It's one way to prevent every increasing concentration of wealth.

 

read the following

http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and...land-ownership

it explodes some myths over property and land in the UK

 

It's a good article, I think I read it a couple of years ago.

There is no appetite to change anything though because prices must be maintained.

 

yes, which is why I have said time and time again not under estimate the power of the status quo

 

Or the landlord is being paid for doing something,depending on your standpoint on renting property of course... There is no obligation to rent out a second property remember.

 

You haven't read what I've been saying, but I've exhausted the point now so will leave it at that.

 

Been a while since we've had a 10+ pager. What a load of bollocks being sprouted on this thread .

As for the spikes, I certainly wouldn't want a homeless person sleeping outside my front door or on my land, but I wouldn't install spikes to prevent this. I would give them a fiver and tell the person to clear off and to go find someone else's door to sleep on. If they came back again I would keep telling them to clear off.

 

I have no idea what point you are trying to make; a bank pays you money in interest on your savings/pension/investments for you to do nothing, ie. to stop you withdrawing your money. You didn't create or produce the money in your bank account, should your savings/pension/investments be accessible and open to everyone for people to use? By having an account you effectively "enclose" your investment and in the process denying other people (like the homeless guy sleeping on spikes) from using it and are quite happy to expect an return on your investments by doing nothing and watch it accumulate with interest are you not? Are you saying this is wrong for you to do this?

You have your basic necessity, a shelter, a dwelling, what difference does it make to you whether you rent it or buy. All that ideology and obfuscation does nothing but provides a thin veil to what you really want; something more than just a shelter and wanting to own a property like everyone else but for all the reasons I pointed out in my previous post.

...And on that bombshell....Goodnight!

 

On that contrary you are obfuscating - the very REAL fact that rent is a reward for not doing something - with your market ideology.

Where does the license that is property rights come from do you think?

It was simply declared. Someone got the law to give them permission to exclude other people from it. Based on that right they can charge rent or sell the 'license' on for cash.

 

Or the more likely option being the fact you're just wrong...

 

EFA

 

Renting out isn't doing a substantive something which is my point. It isn't a question of a 'point of view'. It's just a formal or a legal move.

 

It was only simply "declared" when the very first landowners declared "this is mine" effectively creating the law, and anyone who disagreed with that and wanted that land for themselves would have to fight to the death for it. And its pretty clear that God/mother nature/some alien life force/etc wasn't to perturbed about that.

Property rights may have originated from those orignial claims and stakes all those years ago but have come a long way inlaw since then and the "permission" to which you refer to exclude other people from that land currently arises, and has for some time arisen, from paying for it.

Just the same as when you buy a car, or pretty much anything. Your argument equally applies to the steel your car is made from and pretty much everything you own made from natural resources.

In your world, the oil that your employer extracts shoud also be freely available to all. What, under your arguments, gives anyone the right to profit from that oil? Let me think - oh yes, that would be those who "simply declared" that the oil was theirs and that all others should be excluded from its use without first paying for it.

That makes you equally as bad as the property owners/speculators/landlords you are so quick to berate.

 

Steel has to be dug from the ground and smelted, oil has to be drilled then refined. Both these 'resources' require the input of labour and capital to be available to be consumed as a 'good'.

They have substantive or real costs attached then in terms of labour.

As I said property..the license...requires no labour to produce, it has no substantive costs...so why are we paying for something which was originally created at no cost and out of thin air?

Let's hope there is no zombie apocalypse 'cos presumably you'd have nobody to pay rent to.

 

Dwellings have to be built.

 

According to TDW they just appear!

 

And don't forget the materials, where do they come from.

 

As do dwellings

As do dwellings

The land is there, and no one is stopping you sleeping in a field or a forest, for free, but if you want walls and a roof to keep you dry you're going to have to build something. And that certainly doesn't come at no cost and out of thin air