So what form does the resistance take?

[Olmstead]

Not aimed at you but on the posters who implied that owning any Land was basically immoral

Can you make a non-utilitarian case for owning land?

 

[Susheel]

if you meant Cleo, Cleo probably did not look much like Liz Taylor, but she did not look much like Zendeya, who is rumored to up for the role.

Why? In fact, I think Zendaya might be a better match for Cleo than Liz ever was.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Not aimed at you but on the posters who implied that owning any Land was basically immoral

It's not so much immoral as it is insane. Land was there before we claimed it, it'll be there after we're dead, and it can change without warning or permission on our parts. An earthquake can shift the fence six feet to the side, a flood can wipe it away entirely, sinkholes can swallow everything. Farms uphill can cause underground salt rivers that render barren neighboring lands. This whole idea of owning a space is from the animal need to stake out and defend a territory from others of its species, where the same area is claimed by every different species without interest in what other species are doing, resulting in multiple overlapping layers of non-interacting animals (like the lizards that live under our AC unit and eat the ants which also don't care about us).

What we can't control we can't truly own, and we can't control the earth.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ownership is really nothing more than reserving the use of a thing while denying the right of others to use that thing without your agreement. It's getting people to agree on how they can behave in regards to a thing, in this case land. It's a social construct, like almost everything else humans do collectively. Which means we can change it, collectively. It's all just people agreeing how to behave.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What I will 100% own is that I'm quite clearly NOT PROGRESSIVE. Not because I oppose progress, but because most of what gets framed as progressive policy is horribly limiting, oppressive, authoritarian, and pretty much looks like a great path to becoming a People's Republic of Marxist Idiocy.

What I will own is this: The main reason I do not say I'm progressive or conservative is

1. Both of those adjectives refer to honorable characteristics that should be present within any reasonable person's political philosophy.
2. I have not earned the right to claim those honorable traits. Others have, but I have not.

A secondary reason is that, in the United States as it exists today, malign gasbags routinely abase their opponents by using those words as pejoratives. As consequence, some well-meaning folk now assume those adjectives describe dishonorable characteristics, as in the words I highlighted above.

Look, if you want to attack and argue against Trump, Republicans, Kirk, or anyone else, go for it. All I ask is that you do it based on actual information, supported by evidence, and without hyperbolization and out-of-context snippets that completely alter the meaning of the words.

Unfortunately, the historical meanings of words such as progressive and conservative have already been altered, to such extent that far too many now accept the pejorative semantics promoted by malign gasbags.

 

[lobosrul5]

Ownership is really nothing more than reserving the use of a thing while denying the right of others to use that thing without your agreement. It's getting people to agree on how they can behave in regards to a thing, in this case land. It's a social construct, like almost everything else humans do collectively. Which means we can change it, collectively. It's all just people agreeing how to behave.

The problem is there are really only 3 alternatives to the present system of private ownership.

1) No one owns land. I go home tonight and find someone starting construction on a gas station in my front yard.
2) Might is right. I go home tonight and someone murders me for my house.
3) Marxism. The government owns all property and decides who lives where and what can be done with the property.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The problem is there are really only 3 alternatives to the present system of private ownership.

1) No one owns land. I go home tonight and find someone starting construction on a gas station in my front yard.
2) Might is right. I go home tonight and someone murders me for my house.
3) Marxism. The government owns all property and decides who lives where and what can be done with the property.

I don't have a problem with private ownership of land...within reason. I don't think individuals should be able to own enormous amounts of land while others have none at all. Although what the limits should be I don't know.

 

[steenkh]

3) Marxism. The government owns all property and decides who lives where and what can be done with the property.

I just found out that this is more or less how land ownership works on Greenland: you ask for, and describe what you want to do with a piece of land, and then you might get a lease from the Greenlandic government to do what you described on the land. This has apparently surprised a number of American investors who wanted to get an early piece of the action before the U.S. occupies the land.

I have never heard that Greenland is a Marxist land. It might have something to do with Marxism being more than just land ownership.

 

[lobosrul5]

I just found out that this is more or less how land ownership works on Greenland: you ask for, and describe what you want to do with a piece of land, and then you might get a lease from the Greenlandic government to do what you described on the land. This has apparently surprised a number of American investors who wanted to get an early piece of the action before the U.S. occupies the land.

I have never heard that Greenland is a Marxist land. It might have something to do with Marxism being more than just land ownership.

Sure, but thats part of it.

Greenland is rather a special case is it not? Its a protectorate of a very benevolent democratically elected nation who sends them money. And its population density is exceedingly low. If its a great idea in general, why isn't Denmark proper governed the same?

I don't have a problem with private ownership of land...within reason. I don't think individuals should be able to own enormous amounts of land while others have none at all. Although what the limits should be I don't know.

Increase property tax rates on land especially if used unproductively.

 

[mumblethrax]

3) Marxism. The government owns all property and decides who lives where and what can be done with the property.

This isn't really Marxism. It's more like Georgism^WP.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Increase property tax rates on land especially if used unproductively.

That might exacerbate the problem, as the very wealthy would be able to afford higher taxes and could then snap up the land sold by those who cannot. We'd end up with an even more uneven distribution with the oligarchs' share bigger than ever.

 

[bruto]

That might exacerbate the problem, as the very wealthy would be able to afford higher taxes and could then snap up the land sold by those who cannot. We'd end up with an even more uneven distribution with the oligarchs' share bigger than ever.

I can't remember the economist now, but this is a long-standing economic principle for some, that land should be taxed at its maximum potential value, and it's long seemed to me the wrong way around. Of course as usual here I address this from the rural standpoint, but I think productivity is not the foremost value of land. It's the law of edge cities, strip malls and industrial parks, where the rich get second homes and the poor rent trailers.

 

[dudalb]

Why? In fact, I think Zendaya might be a better match for Cleo than Liz ever was.

I see you buy into the Cleo and Ancient Egyptisn were black crap because it is fashionable to do so.

 

[dudalb]

This isn't really Marxism. It's more like Georgism^WP.

BS, that is exactly the way Marxist ecnomies operated.Russia and it's satellites, CHina under Mao, etc.
Read about Mao and Stalin;s collectivzation of agriculure..which amount to the forceful seizure of all land and what disaster that was.

 

[dann]

3) Marxism. The government owns all property and decides who lives where and what can be done with the property.

This isn't really Marxism. It's more like Georgism^WP.

BS, that is exactly the way Marxist ecnomies operated.Russia and it's satellites, CHina under Mao, etc.
Read about Mao and Stalin;s collectivzation of agriculure..which amount to the forceful seizure of all land and what disaster that was.

USA:
Eminent domain in the United States (Wikipedia)
Government-owned companies of the United States (Wikipedia)

Denmark:
Fra i dag ejer den danske stat 98,55 procent af aktierne i Københavns Lufthavn. (DR.dk, Sep 30, 2025)
From today, the state of Denmark owns 98.55% of the Copenhagen Airport stocks

China:
Property law in China (Wikipedia)

Cuba:
Law of Cuba: Private property (Wikipedia)
Anecdotal:
In a Swedish documentary about 'Missile crisis archeology', people from Swedish television visited the sites where the nuclear weapons were to be placed and the villages through which they had been transported. At one site, a former Cuban general who had taken part in the process talked with a farmer who complained that his family's land had been expropriated to make room for the rockets, something that he was still upset about.
The general asked the farmer: 'But weren't you compensated with other fields that were actually more fertile than the ones that were expropriated?'
– 'Yes, we were.'
– 'So why are you still upset about it?'
– 'That was not the same. What's mine is mine.'
The ex-general left shaking his head over the stupidity of the farmer's mindset.
I empathized with him.

But going broke and losing your land to agricultural conglomerates is much better, obviously. That's the market economy and thus what true freedom is all about!

Farmers are struggling under Donald Trump (Newsweek, Sep 13, 2025)
One farmer, Chris King, said: "Mr. Trump, you looked at me and said, 'I love you.' Mr. Trump, I need to see the fruit of your love." King added: "I have never been as worried as I am now about whether or not my kids and grandkids will be able to carry on."
Another, Scott Brown, said: "You are going to lose 25 to 30 percent of the farmers in this country if they don't do something... and it's not just here; it's everywhere."

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I can't remember the economist now, but this is a long-standing economic principle for some, that land should be taxed at its maximum potential value, and it's long seemed to me the wrong way around.

You are probably thinking of Henry George, who was referenced two posts above yours.

This isn't really Marxism. It's more like Georgism^WP.

 

[Susheel]

I see you buy into the Cleo and Ancient Egyptisn were black crap because it is fashionable to do so.

Zendaya has one black parent. I would have preferred someone from Egypt, but most are probably Arabs by now. Complexion wise she looks Mediterranean adjacent, so, yeah.

 

[bruto]

You are probably thinking of Henry George, who was referenced two posts above yours.

Yes, I realize in retrospect that it was indeed Henry George.

 

[theprestige]

USA:
Eminent domain in the United States (Wikipedia)

This is literally the opposite of Marxism*. In the Marxist system, all property belongs the state, and people have to petition the government for permission to use it for some purpose, which they must justify. Conversely, in the capitalist system, private property is the default, and it is the state which must justify seizing it. The whole concept of eminent domain only exists in systems which are capitalist, not Marxist.

---

*Really, statist totalitarianism, which isn't what Marx envisioned, but is what you get when you try to force Marxism in the real world.

 

[lobosrul5]

USA:
Eminent domain in the United States (Wikipedia)
Government-owned companies of the United States (Wikipedia)

Denmark:
Fra i dag ejer den danske stat 98,55 procent af aktierne i Københavns Lufthavn. (DR.dk, Sep 30, 2025)
From today, the state of Denmark owns 98.55% of the Copenhagen Airport stocks

China:
Property law in China (Wikipedia)

Cuba:
Law of Cuba: Private property (Wikipedia)
Anecdotal:
In a Swedish documentary about 'Missile crisis archeology', people from Swedish television visited the sites where the nuclear weapons were to be placed and the villages through which they had been transported. At one site, a former Cuban general who had taken part in the process talked with a farmer who complained that his family's land had been expropriated to make room for the rockets, something that he was still upset about.
The general asked the farmer: 'But weren't you compensated with other fields that were actually more fertile than the ones that were expropriated?'
– 'Yes, we were.'
– 'So why are you still upset about it?'
– 'That was not the same. What's mine is mine.'
The ex-general left shaking his head over the stupidity of the farmer's mindset.
I empathized with him.

But going broke and losing your land to agricultural conglomerates is much better, obviously. That's the market economy and thus what true freedom is all about!

I'm struggling to make any sense of your point.

USA has eminent domain... OK. I think most other countries have similar.

The Danish government owns most of an Airport... OK. I believe most airports in the USA are not privately owned... so?

Communist China has been de-collectivizing for decades... OK.

Whats happening now vis farming and tarrif's in the United States is not a market economy.