Quote from: dinofelis on January 08, 2015, 03:12:03 PM

Quote from: NotLambchop on January 08, 2015, 02:48:41 PM

Not even wrong. If you work for me, draw pay, and return all of that pay in exchange for rent on the house (that you also rent from me), can you say that you're not getting paid?

The point is that if you want to pay me for something, you want some PRODUCED VALUE in return. If I am paid by the state, I don't have to produce any value (except on paper).

The state expects value in return for pay, that should be obvious. If you knowingly fail to provide value, you are a crook. Stop stealing taxpayer's money, dinofelis.

Quote

Quote

It's infrastructure, the land beneath it, the services provided, whole package. Like living in a country.

Land is not infrastructure. It is nature. The building is infrastructure.

You are paying the property owner for the right to be on that land. A right that he, in turn, has paid the state for, as you've suggested.

Quote

Quote

So the state owns the land? Good. Finally getting somewhere.
You have no right to dictate to the state what it does with its property. Get off my lawn

No, you didn't understand my proposal. The state doesn't own the land, in the sense that "ownerless land" is public land on which anybody can do anything, and there is NO right of exclusivity. Which makes it unproper for building investments on it, as one cannot enforce exclusivity on that land, and hence on those buildings. Un-owned land, being public, can be used by me to build a house on, but tomorrow you can come there in the house I build, and I cannot invoke any exclusivity and require the state to force anybody OFF that land or out of that house.

However, the state receives the income of the bid for the right of exclusivity during a certain lapse of time (50 years, 20 years... whatever is the bid). In return, the state will enforce the exclusivity during that lapse of time. In other words, the bid goes over the right to require from the state to enforce exclusivity.

This should be the sole income of the state, and with that, the state does as it pleases.

If the state doesn't own the land, what right does it have to "enforce exclusivity"?
Curiouser and curiouser...