How to fix the housing problem?

False statement. I have proven it multiple times that your theory cannot be supported and is not sustainable, much less that you yourself to do not attend to it its tennents.

You have laid yourself out there, and the sad attempt of discrediting what has been proven multiple times, is not evil. Your position is not sustainable, and you have failed multiple times to support it.

Period.

 

My statements are objectively true.

No, that statement is false. I have demonstrated the accuracy of my analysis many times, and you have never offered any facts or logic that would contradict it. Most of what you say is true but irrelevant, nothing but red herrings. Some I prove to be fallacious, usually by reductio ad absurdum. The rest consists of objectively false claims and personal attacks.

If that meant anything (it doesn't), it would be wrong.

More meaningless noise.

I have demonstrated multiple times and in multiple ways that my position is unassailable, and have proved that your "arguments" are all either irrelevant, immoral, fallacious, or objectively false.

Period.

 

You're attempt at validating your 'argument', which provides no support, links nor contradicts what I have repeatedly stated, is become rather amusing. Your claim is subjective opinion, nothing more. Time has proven it unsustainable, and incompatible with a free society.

Personal attacks? Really?? So where does calling me 'evil' fall in that subject? IF I were to call you a twit, then you might have an argument, but I repeatedly discuss the subject, which you are incapable of, if one is to judge by what you post in response.

May the road rise up to meet you.

 

I don't need "links" to prove that land is not a product of human labor, that its unimproved value does not come from its owner, or that owning it deprives others of their liberty to use it without just compensation.

I don't need to contradict your repeated irrelevant red herrings because I identify the fact that they do not contradict the facts that prove me right.

That is just another bald falsehood from you. The FACTS that land is not produced by human labor, that its unimproved value is produced by government, the community, and nature and not by its owner, and that the landowner forcibly deprives others of their liberty to use it are not subjective opinions. They are self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove me right and you wrong. That is why you have never been able to address them, and never will.

Like all the rest of your substantive claims, that is false and absurd. You have never offered any form of evidence for it, and you never will. OTOH, I have identified the FACT that there has been no private landowning in Hong Kong for over 160 years, yet it has often topped lists of the freest societies in the world.

It's another objectively false claim on your part. I never said you were evil, only your beliefs.

No, you do not. The only facts you post are irrelevant red herrings, which I identify as such, and what little you offer that is relevant is demonstrably false.

 

And solar companies have no right to resell what is created by nature. And hydro-electric companies have no right to resell what is created by nature. And hunters have no right to harvest the herds to sell for food and clothing, and farmers have no right to the soil to grow your food, and woodsmen have no right to harvest the timber to sell for homes or firewood, because nature bestowed it upon this planet.

If you cannot fathom the absurdity of your claims based on the above, then perhaps the relic of the theory you claim to support is more an issue for a professional to help you with.

 

1) No, property is a personal liability as long as you own it. Whether it generates wealthy or not is beside the point. Most generate very little, if any, wealth.

2) On the contrary, I DESPISE the idea that we should all become renters. I would much rather see the little people all owning their own homes, so that they can retain agency and independence against a monolithic State which would decrease their independence.

3) You don't have a right to property. You only have the right to choose to rent it or buy it.

4) So be that property owner, and pay yourself.

5) What parasites? You have volunteered to pay off your landlord's mortgage.

6) Well they can't be poor, can they - since they chose to pay off someone else's mortgage (at double the cost!!), rather than their own cheaper mortgage. You haven't thought about this at all, have you.

 

See? You have no facts or logic to offer and never will, so you simply make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me. It's always the same. Nature does not create 60Hz AC electric power, it only provides electromagnetic radiation. The solar power companies EXTRACT the EM radiation nature provides, and CONVERT it into a valuable product by their labor.

See? You have no facts or logic to offer and never will, so you simply make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me. It's always the same. Nature does not create 60Hz AC electric power, it only provides flowing water with gravitational potential energy. The hydro power companies EXTRACT the gravitational potential energy nature provides in flowing water, and CONVERT it into a valuable product by their labor.

See? You have no facts or logic to offer and never will, so you simply make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me. It's always the same. Nature does not create food and clothing, it only provides wild animals that hunters EXTRACT from nature and CONVERT into food and clothing by their labor. It does not provide lumber or split and seasoned firewood, only trees that woodsmen EXTRACT from nature and CONVERT into firewood and lumber by their labor. The workers in question have a right to extract those resources as long as they are not scarce in the economic sense: i.e., as long as others are not thereby deprived of the opportunity to do likewise. If they are scarce, then excluding others from access to the resource requires just compensation from the excluders to the community of those excluded, which is why such resources are typically managed by the community as commons, so that all may have equal opportunity to benefit from them.

Now, the case of fertile soil for farming is slightly different, as it is already known to be scarce and has been converted into private property. Farming requires the farmer to exclude others from it, though he does not extract it to convert it into food, just uses it temporarily as a growing medium. Under a just institutional land tenure framework based on voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transactions, he would make market value compensation to the community of those he excludes from access to the advantages nature provided.

The absurd and disingenuous claims you offered above are yours, not mine. You simply made them up based on ignoring what I said and falsely claiming I said something else, as proved, repeat, proved by the indisputable facts of objective physical reality I identified above, which you falsely claim are merely my opinions. It's always the same. But thank you for helping me prove to readers that all the "arguments" you offer, have offered, or ever will offer against my analysis are fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous.

Still waiting for any evidence from you that facts become false through being known for a long time, or that my proposed exclusive land tenure arrangement has ever failed or been proved unsustainable.

 

Such claims are always false as a matter of objective fact. Property is by definition an asset, the opposite of a liability. You are just objectively wrong. OBJECTIVELY.

The fact that most is not used to generate income does not mean it is not an asset or does not increase in value with no effort or productive contribution the part of the owner.

No. If you wanted the little people to have the opportunity to become homeowners, you would advocate reducing the subsidies that make buying a home financially unattainable for them, as I do. The monolithic state decreases their independence by legally requiring them to pay rich, greedy, privileged parasites full market value just for permission to exercise their rights to liberty, and that is what you advocate, not me.

No, dear heart, YOU don't have a right to forcibly remove others' rights to liberty without just compensation and convert them into your private property.

GET IT????

No, YOU don't have a right to make me pay you rent or a purchase price just for your permission to access the locational advantages government, the community and nature provide.

GET IT???

After first paying off the parasites....

The privileged who take but do not contribute commensurately, or at all.

GARBAGE. My right to liberty and thus my bargaining power was forcibly stripped from me without just compensation and made into his private property, and I will thank you to remember it.

Disgraceful. A choice made under duress, as already proved, is not a voluntary choice. "Oh, you can't be poor, you voluntarily chose to give the thief all your money instead of resisting and being killed." What atrocious, despicable, blame-the-victim filth.

I proved above who hasn't thought it through at all -- or more likely is being despicably disingenuous.

 

1) There is NO privilege in doing the hard yards to buy a modest home in a cheap area (which is what the vast majority of property owners end up with). There is immense privilege in paying (via rents) to avoid those hard yards. At double the price I'm shocked that this needs explaining. Again, I don't think you've thought this through.

2) This is HUGE effort in securing property for 90% of us. Whether it increases in value is beside the point .. and in any case, sometimes it doesn't.

3) Yes, I want to see more working and welfare class people recognise that they can't afford the luxury of renting, and they can't afford to throw away their independence by refusing to buy property.

4) What duress? We all have a choice. We choose to spend every cent we make by living in an unsustainable way, or we choose to endure the deprivations needed to buy property. Any 'duress' is our own choices. Once again, if you're willing to pay double (over a lifetime) that which would otherwise be spent on your own property .. you're either wealthy, or have made a deliberate choice to spend on the luxury of renting. The math doesn't back up your argument, it backs up mine. You yourself admit that rent is twice as expensive as owning ... ergo choosing it is an act of privilege of mind or means.

 

Pay LIVING WAGES that ENABLE hardworking Americans AFFORD the American Dream of owning their own home.

Yes, that means that the MEGA wealthy will get SMALLER returns on their investments but their interests are SECONDARY to what is in the best interests of We the People.

 

Nothing has been attributed to you, and nothing has been made up. On the basis of the theory that man cannot own, therefore resell what nature has made, it is 100% in line with that theory. Apparently you don't like that logical expansion of the theory, which means it disproves the theory.

Physical reality is that mankind needs shelter, food and clothing. To produce any of it, land must be used. People pay a market value for the land, while paying taxes during the initial transaction, and annually (or more often) for the services entailed to that land. That transaction and the ongoing transaction allows them to do one of the three imperatives I previously listed.

FACT: People need shelter.
FACT: People need food.
FACT: People need clothing.

If no one can use land for the production of the three imperatives because it prevents other people from using the land, then perhaps you have a better source for them?

Your opinions do indeed litter the posts on this subject, otherwise the theory you support would be the process by which this country lived. It doesn't, because it cannot be supported, and it is not sustainable.

Very simple. While you have called me evil, I have simply hamstrung an extremely flawed theory. It's unfortunate that you cannot accept that and must continue attacking me, rather than trying to actually support the theory.

 

<yawn> As I have informed you many times and you always disingenuously ignore and pretend I have not said, the hard yards must be done BECAUSE they lead to ownership of privilege. It's called, "rent seeking behavior." You could look it up if you were interested in knowing any relevant facts, which you are not.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. Privilege (from the Latin for "private law") in the relevant sense is a LEGAL ENTITLEMENT to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation.

Having to pay double for a safe place to sleep is self-evidently and indisputably not the privilege. Only paying half is. I'm not shocked that this needs explaining to you: you have always disingenuously refused to know the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality, and that will not be changing.

You are aware that I have thought it through very, very thoroughly.

As there was in securing ownership of slaves 200 years ago. So what? You cannot rightly earn ownership of others' rights to liberty no matter how hard you work for them.

It's not beside the point. The increase in value proves the owner can expect to take more from the community than he paid the previous owner. True, sometimes land value decreases temporarily, as happens in the vicissitudes of any market. Again, so what?

"Refusing to buy property"?!!?? That is nothing but more of your grotesquely disingenuous and despicable blame-the-victim filth.

The forcible removal, without just compensation, of their rights to liberty, thus their options, and thus their bargaining power.

Sure we do: including when a kidnapper demands you choose between paying the ransom and never seeing your child alive again. A choice made under duress is precisely a choice between having one thing taken from you and having something else taken from you. And that is precisely the choice landowners give everyone else who wants to exercise their liberty right to use what nature provided for all: having the rent taken from them or the purchase price.

GET IT????

But we do NOT choose to have our liberty rights forcibly stripped from us without just compensation and given to the privileged, especially landowners, as their private property. So we only "choose" between the alternatives you described in precisely the same way that a slave chose between spending every cent he acquired "by living in an unsustainable way," or to endure the deprivations need to buy his right to liberty back from its legal owner.

That is just another bald and disingenuous falsehood from you, as proved above.

Renting is not a luxury and you know it. What an absurd, disingenuous load of filth.

Garbage. You could with equal "math" and "logic" -- and equally disingenuous rationalization of naked, smirking evil -- claim that a slave who "chooses" not to buy his right to liberty back from its owner has chosen to be a "privileged" sybarite indulging in "luxury." I'm not sure the rich expressive resources of the English language are adequate to the task of expressing just how disingenuous, despicable, disgraceful, and evil such claims are.

GARBAGE. Pocketing a payment in return for nothing is self-evidently the privilege, not having to pay twice so that someone else can pocket one of your payments in return for nothing. Give your head a shake.

 

No, that is false, as proved in my post, and I predict will be proved again, below. You made $#!+ up and falsely attributed it to me because you have no facts or logic to offer. And you are going to do it again. Watch:

See? As I already proved to you in my previous post, I did not say, and my theory does not say, that nature made 60Hz AC current, or food, lumber, firewood, clothing, or any of the other products of human labor that you identified as having been produced by nature. You simply made that up and falsely attributed it to me, and you have now done so again, just as I predicted you would. It's always the same.

It's not a logical extension of my theory. Your theory that 60Hz AC current, food, lumber, firewood, clothing, and other products of human labor are products of nature rather than human labor is a quite different (and entirely absurd) theory, one that you made up and falsely attributed to me.

Congratulations!!! You made a statement that is not false, and is actually relevant to the issue! See? You can do it if you try!

Whoa!! Wait, what?? Our remote ancestors never had to pay anyone any market value for land before using it to produce the food, clothing and shelter they needed to survive. Why should we? And if we should, exactly whom should we be paying for it, and why?

Such mysteries. To you, that is....

Whoa, wait just a minute, there. What initial transaction? Nature indisputably provided the land for free. Why would there be any sort of initial transaction involved in exercising one's liberty right to use it?

Wait a minute. Are you talking about repaying the community the subsidy that it gives the landowner by providing desirable public services and infrastructure accessible from that location? Because just to clarify, that is what I am advocating, not you. Remember?

Yet somehow, our remote ancestors did all those things quite well, thank you very much, with no such transactions needed.

Such a mystery. To you, that is....

FACT: People who obtain those things by demanding that producers pay them just for permission to use what nature provided for all are parasites. And if they are legally entitled to enforce such demands, they are privileged parasites.

I've never said or implied that no one can use land for production because it prevents others from using it. You just made that up and falsely attributed it to me. Our remote hunter-gatherer and nomadic herding ancestors indisputably used land for production without preventing others from using it. Indeed, I've never even said or implied that no one can use land exclusively, depriving others of their liberty to use it, by paying its market value in a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transaction. I just advocate that they pay the community that creates the land's unimproved value for the secure, exclusive tenure to it that it provides, rather than paying a privileged private parasite for what government, the community and nature provide.

False. Reread the above carefully, and identify even a single declarative sentence of mine that is not a fact of objective physical reality.

I'm waiting.

What?? On what basis do you make such a claim? When, in all of human history, have the individual right to liberty, self-evident justice, and economic efficiency ever been sufficient to overcome the greed of the powerful? YOUR OWN INTRANSIGENT OPPOSITION to my theory despite being repeatedly demolished and humiliated for it is itself sufficient proof that your claim above is false.

You have never offered any factual or logical evidence for that claim, nor will you ever be doing so.

Quote or retract. Now.

No, I have comprehensively and conclusively demolished and humiliated you for your fallacious, absurd, and disingenuous rationalizations of landowner privilege. And everyone reading this knows it, including you.

Still waiting for a factual or logical argument from you that is not trivially easy to demolish.

 

Since you seem to think any reference I make to the theory is being attributed to you, then apparently you have no ability to separate yourself from the actual subject.

I have listed facts, you have called me and my thoughts evil, and you are entirely unable to support the theory as being sustainable or even realistic. Attempting to declare yourself the 'winner' by saying so, doesn't make it so.

To actually have an intelligent discussion on the subject, a person needs to be grounded in reality of society, imperatives of survival, and how a failed societal theory from the 1800s is not applicable in modern day civilization.

Other than that, you have yourself a wonderful day.

 

Such small minded republican thinking... As if the Bankers whom receive BILLIONS are not using it to drink, smoke cigars, buy boats... Yet, you want to chase the black couple that bought a pack of Newport. Thank you for being so WHITE, so Republican, So gullible, so Trumpish...

 

No, you are the one who makes $#!+ up and then falsely claims it is my theory. What you make up and falsely attribute to me is so absurd and irrational that it constitutes an insult to my intelligence as well as that of your readers.

You have only identified two different kinds of facts: relevant facts that do not contradict anything I have said, and facts that are entirely irrelevant. Neither kind of fact constitutes an argument against my position. The rest of what you say is not factual.

I have stated that your beliefs are evil, not you, so kindly remember it.

I have identified the indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove my theory is factually correct, realistic, and sustainable.

I am simply informing you of the fact that I am aware, as you are, that I have comprehensively and conclusively refuted all your "arguments."

So, do not dare challenge the status quo or oppose existing societal injustices...?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

You have not identified any imperative of survival that I have denied.

You have offered no evidence that my view is a failed societal theory, nor will you ever be doing so.

Other than that, you have yourself a wonderful day

 

You failed on every point. LOL .. that's embarassing

 

The marketplace determines the price of homes. You can't manipulate this in order to force profits and affordability.

Everyone does not need to buy a home. You've got some percentage of Americans who live with others, you've got some percentage who rent/lease, and some percentage who buy.

Everyone who wishes to buy does not need 2000+ square feet of home. Why don't we build 400 square feet homes? 600 square feet?

What about the zoning in our urban areas? Why don't city planners designate areas for smaller and more affordable homes?

IMO owning a property is not a right...

 

Of course you can. Both supply and demand can be changed.

They're called, "slums," and planners do designate areas for them.

What about liberty? Is that a right? What happens to your right to liberty when someone else owns the natural opportunities that you would otherwise be at liberty to use?

 

As long as we operate in a capitalist economy, there are no rights to anything. All people do not have a right to own a home! All people do not have a right to own a $100,000 vehicle.

Liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Has nothing to do with buying a home??

 

Right. So you agree that capitalism -- specifically, the forcible appropriation of land as private property -- forcibly removes people's liberty rights. Good.

As you can see, you immediately have to change the subject from land to products of labor. It's always the same. As I have told you many times and you always have to ignore and pretend I have not said, private property in products of labor does not deprive anyone of any liberty right they would otherwise have; but property in land does.

Like forcibly restraining individuals from using land to survive, as our ancestors were at liberty to do for millions of years, by arbitrarily and unreasonably declaring it to be someone's "private property"...?

See? You always have to try to change the subject from land to products of labor. ALWAYS. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

offer government run apartment complexes - other renters would need to have reasonable rents then

 

And who qualifies? The rich guy who blew all his money gambling? The junkie who blew his dough on dope? The gambler? The middle class kid who refuses to work minimum wage jobs because she has a degree (in feminist dance theory)? The single woman who kept having kids knowing she couldn't afford them?

 

Biden, not the GOP, is the one that wants to kill menthol cigarettes.

 

All diatribe...