Quote from: Alpaca John on May 18, 2013, 09:09:14 AM

Ah, so you're actually saying land should NOT be defined as property then? It seemed like you argued the exact opposite in the initial (misspelled) post. In this case I absolutely agree!

Although, I would actually like to propose an alternative. (I think.)

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

By having the government manage it, we could have the good aspects of the market (incentive to contribute to society in exchange for a nice place to live) without the bad (the posed problem of surplus value of land a.k.a. neo-feudalism).

For this to work we obviously need to get money out of politics first, since governments are privately owned at the moment, which would therefore completely defeat the purpose of making land 'public' property.

In the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite thermonuclear Pentagon-Communist's Federal Reserve Printing Company empire of the Union of ZioNazi Socialist Republics all land ALREADY IS "public" (FedResCo) property, this is why you must pay tax-rent to the imperial Federal Reserve Printing Company to hold onto it. Otherwise one of their state or city corporations must evict you and repossesses it for them.

Not only that there is now the precedent of "Eminent Domain" which permits local corporate-soviets to appropriate land not only for "community" Trotskyite FedResCo projects but the fancy private projects of their elite-Menshevik minions as well.

Permanent war is the old fashioned term for "communism", that's why they used to call normal, temporary wars "acting in the common defence". Of course none of the preemptive permanent offensive wars of the ZioNazi Communists are "defensive" any more. This is why once-heroic warriors have now become commodity "war fighters" since that mundane job is now a permanent standing commodity export.