Refusing Asylum seekers and priveledges supplied to them and citizens on benefits(UK)

I feel this is something that requires adequate debate and I can only hope it turns out as well as the one I've been having on IRC.

Basically it started like this;

One person complains about immigrants and more specifically asylum seekers and all the freebies they get including luxuries like cars. Now I think witch hunts are totally fruitless so let's get that clear and not make this an immigrants get everything we get and are criminals to boot etc cause it's the same proportionally with welfare level british citizens.

Anyway lately the following things have occurred which seem awfully biased, Asylum seekers recieving luxuries like cars from the goverment and free driving lessons. Welfare level families in certain high, street crime districts being offered Free PC's and internet connections.

I'm sure we can see some of the good intentions behind these but is it in it's entirity fair in light of our competitive capitalism based society?

I argue the following points. Targeting asylum seekers as a cash leak from our economy is unfair. For every 100 illegal non valid asylum seeker there's prolly another 50 valid seekers just because there are more people trying to abuse something than there are validly using it doesn't mean we should stop it for all. If we were to support that case then surely we'd be hypocrites with consideration to our own benefits system and the massive defrauding and much more considerable cash leak involved with that. If we are going to refuse asylum seekers many of whom bring skills on the basis of finances then we must refuse people in our poverty bracket on benefits.

A quick look at history indicates Britain in the past has severely benefitted from asylum seekers and immigrants from the more recent carribean imports to take up jobs in the low wage bracket area's of nursing,public transport and cleaning. To the more greater influences of mass importing of highly skilled protestants(and equally unskilled but motivated ones) from France and Holland who were being witch hunted in their respective countries a couple of centuries back who provided us with more skilled methods of producing textile material goods and banking that funded important wars. Also another great import through immigration came from the Jewish community who virtually revolutionised a lot of consumerism as it is on the high streets of your local towns/cities (Marks & Spencers being the forerunner and a jewish creation later bankrolled by an englishman so they could expand).

This kinda of fortune one may call it put the UK as a forerunner economically on the global scale and advanced our civilization greatly. However in reflection now we must bare in mind that globally the playing field is no longer level and many of the asylum seekers/immigrants coming to Britain offer what has been provided on a scale in the past to our society.

Should we perhaps in that case encourage countries in a similar state as Britain pre empire to accept immigrants and asylum seekers as a solution to our current problem of our good will and nature?

Now to discuss the Priveledges, should the imigrants and the citizens in the poverty bracket on benefits be forced to earn luxuries like cars and PC's like the rest of society above those brackets do and unfortunately don't get in a lot of cases?

A Prime example at the moment is of the economic hardships of those who go on to obtain a further education endure. I'm sure many people in that economic situation of massing student debts could greatly benefit from a free home pc and a free car and perhaps go on to advance our society like universities should be trying to.

Equivocally it could be said that our society has this apathy to hard work that most nations that do not enjoy our economic status don't have. I have noted in countries like canada it is positively encouraged that citizens from the age of 16 should be persuing part time work and extra cirricular activities and people who don't are quite frequently frowned upon something that isn't so common here I've noticed. I have the fortune of knowing of a few motivated individuals in my life experience in the UK who have applied to this method in the UK and seem to be reaping v large benefits of it no matter what area's they applied themselves in at a young age and respectively not having gold tickets into employment through contacts. Now this could be described as being gifted and having acumen but is this really true?

I believe our Society provides all the opportunities we need and unless you are already happy with a different life direction that is not so economically successful then it's your fault if you don't achieve it. Hence I argue that people who do witch hunt against those who seem to be getting a free lunch are just embittered sun reading individuals who are still not wanting to blame their lack of motivation and correct their mistakes anytime in the future.

Finally from an economic viewpoint of the current goverment drives amongst the poverty bracket citizens and asylum seekers I think they are trying to work on a much larger unappreciated scale.

The free PC's drive to welfare area's especially in high street crime council area's was surely intentioned with trying to keep more people inside the home by providing them with said luxury hence trying to disappaite gang's and other criminal mentality that occurs when an unstimulated society inhabits the same area, hence relaxing demand on our underfunded police force. Also unlike the pioneer TV used to be PC's now take up the role of providing home education. TV these days has become more and more entertainment in a financially motivated world meaning less wisdom and knowledge is being dispensed to the general population that would benefit from it. PC's may v well help build a new workforce for what seems to be another industrial revolution that is coming upon us with the movement towards commercial over production.

As for the cars to asylum seekers it could be argued that the cost has still to be revealed to the public of these cars the goverment provides. It could be v well argued that giving them cars will help them transist over to the commercial society we exsist in and that all costs would be met back in fuel they would have to spend their benefits on that they may of otherwised save to send out of country to pay for families/friends. Likewise it also get's around the fact that most people are inconsiderate enough to assume they would know english and be able to use our Public transport system comprehensively. Our public transit system as it is, is v difficult to use if you are not even familiar with the area, something that I've experienced when travelling south to London.

Anyway I'm intrested to hear of any decent counter arguments or other agreeing arguments without specifically delving into any sub topics pls

p.s. Bet this get's moved to the debating forum(bad bad place) and never seen again as quite frequently those who don't consider themselves debater's sometimes have the most insightful(or inciteful :P) posts to make.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Paul, the debating forum doesn't exist any more.

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Paul, the debating forum doesn't exist any more.

Spank my ass and call me charlie that's a good thing that is.

Likewise please no one liner posts saying yawn etc. I know you think your cool and the rest of the community does too doesn't mean we agree with you or want to know

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Olive
Spank my ass and call me charlie that's a good thing that is.

Likewise please no one liner posts saying yawn etc. I know you think your cool and the rest of the community does too doesn't mean we agree with you or want to know

My mum says I'm cool, and the handsomest guy in school!

[Nodrog]

Scrap the welfare state, problem solved.

Giving free PC's and internet to poor people is absolutely hilarious.

Originally posted by Nodrog
Scrap the welfare state, problem solved.

Giving free PC's and internet to poor people is absolutely hilarious.

In said area's it was provided to in Glasgow the goverment had to take extensive counter measures to prevent them selling the PC's on and most of them didn't want it and complained for other more important facilities and better crime prevention.

How do you think a lack of welfare state will impact the UK on a society and economic level nod? I'm dying to know why your eager about this.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Olive
In said area's it was provided to in Glasgow the goverment had to take extensive counter measures to prevent them selling the PC's on and most of them didn't want it and complained for other more important facilities and better crime prevention.

It stems from people not phrasing the question properly in their heads. It isnt "Should poor people have computers?", it is "Is it ok to steal money from people who work in order to buy computers for poor people?".

Originally posted by Olive

How do you think a lack of welfare state will impact the UK on a society and economic level nod? I'm dying to know why your eager about this.

far too late at night.

Originally posted by Nodrog
It stems from people not phrasing the question properly in their heads. It isnt "Should poor people have computers?", it is "Is it ok to steal money from people who work in order to buy computers for poor people?".
far too late at night.

When you say not phrasing it properly I think your more saying not stemming it with a capitalist bias :P

Likewise if it's far too late at night for you compose one when you've rested it will be appreciated. Don't and I'll be disappointed.

[queball]

. Though this should really be about three seperate threads as I see it - immigrants and asylum seekers are very different issues, and the Freudian/Marxist aspects of the welfare state are another.

Originally posted by Olive
As for the cars to asylum seekers it could be argued that the cost has still to be revealed to the public of these cars the goverment provides. It could be v well argued that giving them cars will help them transist over to the commercial society we exsist in and that all costs would be met back in fuel they would have to spend their benefits on that they may of otherwised save to send out of country to pay for families/friends. Likewise it also get's around the fact that most people are inconsiderate enough to assume they would know english and be able to use our Public transport system comprehensively. Our public transit system as it is, is v difficult to use if you are not even familiar with the area, something that I've experienced when travelling south to London.

Is this just a wild assumption or is it based on your experience? I'd be surprised if an immigrant found it hard to get to know the area. It's just not convincing, I'm certain I could learn to use a foriegn bus service if I had to. Free maps would be cheaper - giving cars to London residents strikes me as particularly wasteful.

You could also compare public libraries with private computers.

[djcomplex]

I think Kumnaa can give us an interesting perspective on this discussion, after travelling from the hills of Iraq with his nan and 15 brothers and sisters i wonder how welcome he was made upon reaching the sunny shores of blighty!

So Kumnaa enlighten us!

[Kumnaa]

eu sou um ****** immigrant sujo, mim sugiro-o retrocedo-nos para fora

[Rids]

Let the poor die, survival of the fittest.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Rids
Let the poor die, survival of the fittest.

Under what criteria are the rich "the fittest"?

As to the other points :

- Do you have any sources / links for the claims made in the original post? Giving cars to asylum seekers? When/Where/Who? Was this the benefits office? The local authority? From which budget was this drawn? There are far too many myths on this subject, and if you don't counter them to begin with, no rational debate is possible.

- The government giving people free computers is actually a misguided effort to save money (while simultaneously make people more employable). Providing government services (e.g. social security queries, housing benefit status) is a hell of a lot cheaper to do on-line than have the oiks queing up or phoning up.

Besides, asylum seekers would find it easier to get by without benefits if we didn't have legal restrictions in place to stop them working. Also, one needs to look at why people leave their country of origin in the first place. Maybe if Albania (say) wasn't a **** hole then people wouldn't want to leave? Hmmm?

[JonnyBGood]

I'm a committed individualist and as such don't find myself under any obligation to do anything other than refrain from raping, pillaging and murdering. I don't condone any actions against the rights of man, even if it is to rectify a perceived or actual earlier wrong. Making a man content without having him do the necessary work is mind bogglingly daft to me. It strikes me as fundamentally wrong, similar to sitting there and denying reality off into eternity as you hope the fact that you can't live without food won't catch up with you. The fact that we can delude ourselves into believing many things, and in some cases everything, does not mean that what we can visualise will pan out in reality. Instead I'd much rather give each man the tools he needs and let him achieve as much as he can and be rewarded for what he achieves.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Olive
Olive

So basically you're giving a Milton Friedman type argument, i.e. lets have an open door immigration policy but no welfare state?

EDIT

one further thing to think about is the people who came to britain in the first 'waves' of immigration, or even people fleeing persecution (Ugandan asians etc) were british overseas citizens as such they had a right to come to this country since the empire had benefitted from them. I know the point has been made already but there is a difference between immigrants and asylum seekers.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Making a man content without having him do the necessary work is mind bogglingly daft to me.

What is "the necessary work"? Also, what about the disabled?

Don't get me wrong, I quite agree, which is why I oppose inheritance.

[Kumnaa]

Originally posted by Flavius
you are a dirty immigrant, and then the rest of teh sentence just went into pure crap

you are racist

[Deffeh]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I oppose inheritance.

why? and how on earth could you properly stop it?

My opinion is like my knowledge; limited. It seems a little bit ridiculous to me providing ott luxuries such as PCs. If someone is genuine asylum seeker they should be given a chance, not a ready made life imho.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Deffeh
why?

The fact that it rewards a person, no matter however lazy, slothful, or general shiet as a person could be one reason, probably Nod's. Mr Hicks would probably argue against it on the grounds of it creating a system of hereditary capital or summat.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Deffeh
why? and how on earth could you properly stop it?

By not having "wealth" in the first place.

As for my reasons, see my spokersperson MM's post.

[Deffeh]

i understand that, but this is still a capatalist world. My dad works hard so that my life will be a little easier. I will work hard so that my childs life will be a little easier. I kind of like the ability to leave something behind.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Deffeh
i understand that, but this is still a capatalist world. My dad works hard so that my life will be a little easier. I will work hard so that my childs life will be a little easier. I kind of like the ability to leave something behind.

People will always be able to leave things behind. The issue is when entire social stratification is built around who you were fortunate to be born to. Anyway, most of the wealth that get's transmitted between generations I dispute their right to hold the wealth in the first place.

As for this being a capitalist world, that's kind of my point.

[W]

Let the poor die, survival of the richest!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
What is "the necessary work"? Also, what about the disabled?

Don't get me wrong, I quite agree, which is why I oppose inheritance.

The necessary work is the work a man must do to achieve his goals without favouritism or prejudice from others. A slightly abstract principle to be honest.

[Kumnaa]

Rights for Whites. Us dirty immigrants must be expunged!

Dropping inheritance seems like the single best theory on these boards. Actually trying it out in practise would prove impossible.

Humans are greedy by nature. It's the way we are, and you can't change that. Someone will always be on top. If we actually had worked for a common global goal we would have been without war, without unjustice, without illness and probably a few settled colonies in near solar systems.

[W]

If everyone was guaranteed an equal share, there would still be people willing to give their share away to someone else, thus making that someone else twice as rich as the guaranteed minimum. What you gonna do, ban gifts?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Deffeh
I kind of like the ability to leave something behind.

try parenting.

i'd contend that one of the reasons so many people in my generation are useless ****tards is their parents spent all their lives trying to make their kids lives easier instead of teaching them how to make their lives easier for themselves (it goes without saying that the principle of inheritance creates this problem).

another explanation is MTV, but that could also be stopped with proper parenting so the point remains.

Originally posted by W
If everyone was guaranteed an equal share, there would still be people willing to give their share away to someone else, thus making that someone else twice as rich as the guaranteed minimum. What you gonna do, ban gifts?

you assume property then.

with that assumption, yes, gifts would be banned.

a dad could still buy his kids a playstation two, but it would be licensed under the dad's name.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
If everyone was guaranteed an equal share, there would still be people willing to give their share away to someone else, thus making that someone else twice as rich as the guaranteed minimum. What you gonna do, ban gifts?

You're thinking in conventional terms still. Don't think "Everyone is given three acres of land to own", think "No-one owns the land now". Obviously, yes people can still give their posessions away, but that wouldn't have much of a long-term effect on anyone.

The point is to guarantee as much individual freedom as possible. Owning land basically means depriving others the right to walk across it, etc. Owning posessions are another matter. Someone having five billion playstations doesn't recreate the cycle of wealth accumulation again. Sure, there are business ventures you can imagine through accumulation of possesions (e.g. charging kids to play on your five billion playstations) but I don't really see how without property (in the form of land or premises) or legal protection of ideas (IP).

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

stuff

what is the stimulus in your society?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
You're thinking in conventional terms still. Don't think "Everyone is given three acres of land to own", think "No-one owns the land now". Obviously, yes people can still give their posessions away, but that wouldn't have much of a long-term effect on anyone.

The point is to guarantee as much individual freedom as possible. Owning land basically means depriving others the right to walk across it, etc. Owning posessions are another matter. Someone having five billion playstations doesn't recreate the cycle of wealth accumulation again. Sure, there are business ventures you can imagine through accumulation of possesions (e.g. charging kids to play on your five billion playstations) but I don't really see how without property (in the form of land or premises) or legal protection of ideas (IP).

Does that mean I dont own my house, and I have to let other people into it as the land it is built on belongs to them too, and thus not letting them use it would be theft? Or is there some bizarro post-hoc justification to dodge this?

Out of interest, if someone is allowed to own a house, are they allowed to run a business out of their bedroom/garage? If not, why?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
try parenting.

i'd contend that one of the reasons so many people in my generation are useless ****tards is their parents spent all their lives trying to make their kids lives easier instead of teaching them how to make their lives easier for themselves (it goes without saying that the principle of inheritance creates this problem).

another explanation is MTV, but that could also be stopped with proper parenting so the point remains.

Do you have a point of reference for this? What generation(s) do you think was/were "better" than the current one, and what do you base this on?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by BarbieKen
Dropping inheritance seems like the single best theory on these boards. Actually trying it out in practise would prove impossible.

Humans are greedy by nature. It's the way we are, and you can't change that. Someone will always be on top. If we actually had worked for a common global goal we would have been without war, without unjustice, without illness and probably a few settled colonies in near solar systems.

If your ancestors hadnt been "greedy", youd probably still be picking fleas out of your friends hair in the jungle. Humans arent "greedy by nature"; there are many cultures throughout the history of humanity which havent been motivated primarily by "greed". None of them have came particularly close to colonising space or eliminating world hunger as far as I know.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
The fact that it rewards a person, no matter however lazy, slothful, or general shiet as a person could be one reason, probably Nod's.

I've not got a problem with inheritence of possessions/assets (land is slightly different, and obviously IP cant be inheritable). Perhaps the children "might not deserve to get it", but then who does? The government? Other people who havent worked for it either?

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

Mr Hicks would probably argue against it on the grounds of it creating a system of hereditary capital or summat.

This isnt an argument against inheritence; an argument against inheritance would have to go on to explain why heriditary capital is necessarily bad for society, paying particular attention to how wealth tends to create more wealth, the effects of having businesses essentially dissolve when their founders die, and the theories of trickle down economics in general.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Does that mean I dont own my house, and I have to let other people into it as the land it is built on belongs to them too, and thus not letting them use it would be theft? Or is there some bizarro post-hoc justification to dodge this?

"Tenancy". I don't own my current home (a flat), the lease belongs to a man named Mr Smee. He cannot enter the property without due notice (or a posession order) despite him owning the flat. Even beyond him he doesn't own the land anyway, the building belongs to someone else - and the land (freehold) may belong to yet another party. Even the person who owns the plot of land my flat sits on cannot enter the property (without going through a massively drawn out legal process of terminating leases, etc, etc). In short, the legal right to enter a property has almost nothing to do with legal ownership. If I had a gas supply and there was a suspected gas leak Transco could kick down my door (presuming I wasn't there) - despite them holding no ownership of my home.

And yes, a tenant could do what they want out of their home/garage - excluding activities which might be dangerous (e.g. refining of petrol or something). It's their home, they can do what they want so long as they don't affect the freedoms of those around them. Running a nightclub out of their home would submit their neighbours to (possibly) intolerable levels of noise. But running a web company (say, I can't really think of anything else) from your flat wouldn't affect anyone indirectly or directly, so obviously that would be OK.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
what is the stimulus in your society?

The stimulus of every society is the same : individuals pursuing their goals. As Marx & Engels said :
'History does nothing, it “possesses no immense wealth”, it “wages no battles”. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; “history” is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.'

Men pursuing their aims. What these aims might be (to increase their nobility, wealth, self-development, altruism, education ro whatever) would vary - and to be honest I'm not really bothered. Ideally I would hope for it to be self-development of the self in a spirit of solidarity and fraternity with his brothers.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by BarbieKen
Humans are greedy by nature.

The vast majority of individuals are not motivated by greed on a day-to-day basis. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure they want billions of pounds, or 500 supermodels to pleasure them, but the reason why they act they do cannot realistically put down to greed.

I would class "greed" as something seperate to "wanting more". A man who goes to work every day is doing so for money (often). Does that make him greedy? I'd say no. He may be doing so to make sure his family doesn't go without, or that his kid can go to a good school, or even so he can enjoy a few beers on the weekend with his mates. If we class this as "greed" then the word loses all meaning.

Even where individuals act in a way to get more money/status I wouldn't realistically call it greed. If an individual get's to the stage (as some people do) where they have more money then they can realistically ever spend, and they still act in a way to maximise income (at the expense of other things) then sure, that can be greedy. But if we are calling the actions of the mass of humanity in trying to do the best for themselves, their families and their friends as "greed" then sure, you can sign me up for greed too.

Greed in that way, is certainly good.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Do you have a point of reference for this? What generation(s) do you think was/were "better" than the current one, and what do you base this on?

Hmm. If other generations were significantly better than this one, without a major cultural disparity, it would contradict my thesis, wouldn't it?

Thesis: due to the institution of inheritance, many parents who really do care about their kids spend their time working instead of parenting, and their kids turn out crap because of it.

To my knowledge, inheritance was also an institution for previous generations, and so the effect would be the same (by my theory). I used our generation solely because of my experience with it, not because I thought we were different and special.

Originally posted by Nodrog
I've not got a problem with inheritence of possessions/assets (land is slightly different, and obviously IP cant be inheritable). Perhaps the children "might not deserve to get it", but then who does? The government? Other people who havent worked for it either?

Even your super-minimal government is going to need some level of income (won't it?), and as I see it estate money is a "free" source of income for it, in that it costs nothing to those top-enders who I'm sure you think provide much for society.

[W]

If I do not have the freedom to enter whatever building I like, how does your system give me more freedom? What can't I do now, that I can do in your system? And from what I understand, a plot of land to have for myself is out of the question in your system; even if it's smaller than everyone elses plots of lands, so in fact, you take away my freedom.


PS; In Norway we do infact have a legally guaranteed right to enter and stay on others' property, with certain limitations.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
If I do not have the freedom to enter whatever building I like, how does your system give me more freedom?

Well, there would be more land that would be under "the commons", so you would be freer to visit a higher proportion of the world, if you want to see it like that.

Obviously you would have the freedom to enter whichever building you wished except for that would be violating the rights of those who dwell in the buildings. There obviously would be exceptions obviously (like squatting rights which exist in some countries)

And yes, you would be "allowed" a plot of land to do whatever you want, of any size. However, this would be a private agreement between you and the residents of the area the land is. If there are no residents (e.g. unoccupied land) then you can do whatever you want and file for occupier rights (or whatever). What areas with populations in (i.e. most of the world) would do is up to the citizens of that area. I presume a proportion of land would be given over to housing, some to tenanted commercial buildings.

Basically if we see that land is a component of freedom, and land is a scarce resource, this means that unfortunately freedom in this way is unavoidably (in some senses) scarce. The advantage I would personally see to a non-owning system is that in an owner/property system it is permanent, so in theory one set of people are indefinitely "free" and another set are indefinitely unfree.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
"Tenancy". I don't own my current home (a flat), the lease belongs to a man named Mr Smee. He cannot enter the property without due notice (or a posession order) despite him owning the flat. Even beyond him he doesn't own the land anyway, the building belongs to someone else - and the land (freehold) may belong to yet another party. Even the person who owns the plot of land my flat sits on cannot enter the property (without going through a massively drawn out legal process of terminating leases, etc, etc). In short, the legal right to enter a property has almost nothing to do with legal ownership. If I had a gas supply and there was a suspected gas leak Transco could kick down my door (presuming I wasn't there) - despite them holding no ownership of my home.

Who are you leasing it from?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Well, there would be more land that would be under "the commons", so you would be freer to visit a higher proportion of the world, if you want to see it like that.

Obviously you would have the freedom to enter whichever building you wished except for that would be violating the rights of those who dwell in the buildings. There obviously would be exceptions obviously (like squatting rights which exist in some countries)

And yes, you would be "allowed" a plot of land to do whatever you want, of any size. However, this would be a private agreement between you and the residents of the area the land is. If there are no residents (e.g. unoccupied land) then you can do whatever you want and file for occupier rights (or whatever). What areas with populations in (i.e. most of the world) would do is up to the citizens of that area. I presume a proportion of land would be given over to housing, some to tenanted commercial buildings.

What happens when a talented individual becomes wealthy from a business he is running out of his own house, and the people realise that it is in their long term best interest to allow him to 'lease' even more land off them? What about in 100 years time when most of the wealth is back in the hands of the productive few; are you going to arbitratily 'revoke' their leases?

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

And yes, you would be "allowed" a plot of land to do whatever you want, of any size. However, this would be a private agreement between you and the residents of the area the land is. If there are no residents (e.g. unoccupied land) then you can do whatever you want and file for occupier rights (or whatever). What areas with populations in (i.e. most of the world) would do is up to the citizens of that area. I presume a proportion of land would be given over to housing, some to tenanted commercial buildings.

What's so great about "residents"? We already recognise the impact of land ownership on local residents, this is why we have planning permission, and why we have common law and easements. Do these residents join together into council meetings and vote on propsals?

This all seems vague and unhelpful. Landlords are one of the true success stories of capitalism. I'm all for representing groups of people to combat public goods problems but we already do this fairly well today. But we also make sure that no collective has rights that an individual can't.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Who are you leasing it from?

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean in a Danteist state? Or now?

Now the pattern of ownership is basically :

Me (Tenant) => My Landlord => Mortgage Company => Freeholder => Land Owner => The Crown (since the monarch technically owns everything)

With an owner-occupier it's something like : Owner => Bank => The Crown (if the mortgage still is ongoing)

Or : Owner=> The Crown (if there is no mortgage)

Under a Danteist state the pattern of dwelling would be :

Tenant => Community

Originally posted by Nodrog
What happens when a talented individual becomes wealthy from a business he is running out of his own house, and the people realise that it is in their long term best interest to allow him to 'lease' even more land off them? What about in 100 years time when most of the wealth is back in the hands of the productive few; are you going to arbitratily 'revoke' their leases?

This is why it's a lease not a deed of ownership. Leases would be of a set period (except for housing tenancies which would be life-long in most cases). Think of it as a continuous check or balance. The lease/tenancy might be for ten years and as it's a contract between the community and an individual (or enterprise) it wouldn't be something which one could count directly as an asset.

Obviously this is a fairly complicated issue, and I'd imaigne it would develop quite a bit. Most of the legal terms I am using here are current terms, while a socialist legal system might look quite a bit different to a bourgeois legal system.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean in a Danteist state? Or now?

Under a Danteist state. If noone owns the land, how can it be leased from someone? If the community owns the land, cant someone permanently 'buy' it off them?

If the community owns the land, then that means I partly own it, as a member of the community. Will I personally be receiving money from the person leasing it? If not, what incentive do I have to respect the terms of the lease? Couldnt the community just 'refuse' to let someone they dont like (or more likely, someone belonging to a group of people they dont like) lease land from them? Where are the checks and balances?

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
This is why it's a lease not a deed of ownership. Leases would be of a set period (except for housing tenancies which would be life-long in most cases). Think of it as a continuous check or balance. The lease/tenancy might be for ten years and as it's a contract between the community and an individual (or enterprise) it wouldn't be something which one could count directly as an asset..

So I've got this land 'leased' from the community for 10 years, and I've spent many many many hours of my time developing it and making it productive. It is now the most productive piece of land in the whole community, as a result of my work, and noone elses. Am I expected to simply walk away from this and give it back to the community with no benefit to myself when said lease expires? Would I be morally justified in destroying all my work at the end of the lease and returning the land to the community in the barren state I received it in, to avoid people stealing it from me and profiting from it when I'm not allowed to? If I chose to do the destroying option, surely the community couldnt take any action against me (its 'my' land until the lease runs out after all). If so, how on earth do you expect your community to survive, as this is the option almost everyone with any degree of integrity whatsoever woudl pursue.

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Under a Danteist state. If noone owns the land, how can it be leased from someone? If the community owns the land, cant someone permanently 'buy' it off them?

If the community owns the land, then that means I partly own it, as a member of the community. Will I personally be receiving money from the person leasing it? If not, what incentive do I have to respect the terms of the lease? Couldnt the community just 'refuse' to let someone they dont like (or more likely, someone belonging to a group of people they dont like) lease land from them? Where are the checks and balances?

So I've got this land 'leased' from the community for 10 years, and I've spent many many many hours of my time developing it and making it productive. It is now the most productive piece of land in the whole community, as a result of my work, and noone elses. Am I expected to simply walk away from this and give it back to the community with no benefit to myself when said lease expires? Would I be morally justified in destroying all my work at the end of the lease and returning the land to the community in the barren state I received it in, to avoid people stealing it from me and profiting from it when I'm not allowed to? If I chose to do the destroying option, surely the community couldnt take any action against me (its 'my' land until the lease runs out after all). If so, how on earth do you expect your community to survive, as this is the option almost everyone with any degree of integrity whatsoever woudl pursue.

In an utopia, there are never people who do not agree and cooperate fully with that utopia.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

all you need now is homo sapiens v 2.0

[FSW]

This is why our government sucks and why I should rule the world.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
all you need now is homo sapiens v 2.0

Sorry, is there an argument to answer here? Fair enough, my posts are fairly boring and probably ludicrous, but it's a bit hard to answer a vague accusation of "lol, you forgot human nature dude". That doesn't actually constitute any argument...

Originally posted by Nodrog
Under a Danteist state. If noone owns the land, how can it be leased from someone? If the community owns the land, cant someone permanently 'buy' it off them?

In the same way that you can be given a contract to "look after" a foster child, but you can't buy or sell children. Basically I'm saying that "owning" land is an invalid category. The land "belongs" to humanity in an abstracr sense. In a more concrete sense, the individuals who live in an area are "in charge" of it, but they don't own it, so they can't make permanent assignation of it. To manage, maintain and extract value from it they obviously can assign a lease to an individual for a set period.

As for what happens at the end of the lease, that would be up to the specifics of the contract. Some housing tenancies in place now compensate a tenant for any capital improvements (e.g. kitchen works, new bathroom) the tenant undertakes on their own back. So if you improve the water infrastructure (say) on your plot of land, you could be given 70% of the cost back (after depreceation, etc) once your lease terminates - depending on what the original contract says.

The idea of fixed term leases isn't that extraordinary - most businesses operate out of leased (rather than owned) premises, and yet this doesn't that many problems. Sure, an individual who leases the land could **** it up when his tenancy ends (to undo any investment he's put in) but since this could (a) jeapordise compensation as listed above and more importantly (b) drastically reduce their chances of getting another tenancy either here or elsewhere. (since a reference system would presumably operate in a similar way that it does now). Who would you assign tenancy of a shop unit which has become available to? A corporation which deliberates undoes their investment, or one that makes lasting contribution to an area.

The issue is accountability, an owner is accountable to nobody and so excluding state intervention (or lawsuits) there is little direct intervention against negative corporate behaviour (excluding bad PR, which doesn't affect all companies). Free-marketers are supposed to be pro-incentive, think of this as another level of incentive towards "good" behaviour.

[queball]

In the same way that you can be given a contract to "look after" a foster child, but you can't buy or sell children. Basically I'm saying that "owning" land is an invalid category. The land "belongs" to humanity in an abstracr sense. In a more concrete sense, the individuals who live in an area are "in charge" of it, but they don't own it, so they can't make permanent assignation of it. To manage, maintain and extract value from it they obviously can assign a lease to an individual for a set period.

Ownership is just another type of right, you could say HM Queen Elizabeth II owns the land. The rights a land owner actually has are limited. The issue is purely transferability and whether it's permanent. Permanent rights are useful and that is their justification; some Rousseauian argument doesn't change that.

As for what happens at the end of the lease, that would be up to the specifics of the contract. Some housing tenancies in place now compensate a tenant for any capital improvements (e.g. kitchen works, new bathroom) the tenant undertakes on their own back. So if you improve the water infrastructure (say) on your plot of land, you could be given 70% of the cost back (after depreceation, etc) once your lease terminates - depending on what the original contract says.

The idea of fixed term leases isn't that extraordinary - most businesses operate out of leased (rather than owned) premises, and yet this doesn't that many problems. Sure, an individual who leases the land could **** it up when his tenancy ends (to undo any investment he's put in) but since this could (a) jeapordise compensation as listed above and more importantly (b) drastically reduce their chances of getting another tenancy either here or elsewhere. (since a reference system would presumably operate in a similar way that it does now). Who would you assign tenancy of a shop unit which has become available to? A corporation which deliberates undoes their investment, or one that makes lasting contribution to an area.

What if I have a good idea and can't convince the local residency? I'll bet they'd rather lend the land to someone who won't do anything than to someone who'd take a risk. Generic office space is only a small part of land and hopefully one which will go away soon.

What problem are you trying to solve? Is it just that you believe land should belong to some nondescript humanity? If someone can pay their rates and obey the law they can do what they like as far as I care.

The issue is accountability, an owner is accountable to nobody and so excluding state intervention (or lawsuits) there is little direct intervention against negative corporate behaviour (excluding bad PR, which doesn't affect all companies). Free-marketers are supposed to be pro-incentive, think of this as another level of incentive towards "good" behaviour.

So corporations will go to huge corporate cities - it's just the locals that have a say isn't it? Or the whole world?

What's wrong with lawsuits? They actually provide a straightforward reliable incentive (if A times B times C is greater than the cost of a recall...). The whim of the public is not a good thing.