tony de wonderful

The surplus doesn't provide shelter. The land in question exists...is able to offer shelter...regardless of what someone produces. The surplus when given to the landlord just stops him kicking you off the property.

Chip

Tony, what do you do for a living if I may ask.

tony de wonderful

No you aren't giving them a place to live, you just aren't kicking them off.

Chip

Kicking them off what?

GlesgaKiss

The thing is that when slavery was abolished and former slaves were free it could be said that no one had ownership of them. The same can't be said of property. What you Marxists don't realise when you're dreaming of a utopia is that you replace one owner with another, i.e. you, in removing ownership under the current system and transferring it to a collective. You assume someone has the right to decide what happens to a piece of property, and that someone is you. It's a lowly political view for people who want easily the fruits of others' labour. It's very ironic the way you describe landlords when you bear that in mind.

GlesgaKiss

So who decides what happens with property in Marxist utopia land? And more importantly, WHY does that person or collective get to decide?

GlesgaKiss

That's not how it works at all and you know it. Come back to the real world, not the one of screwed theories. Very few people who are supposedly exploited in your view of the world actually see things in that way. But I suppose if they could only all think the same as you they would be much happier?

Dingdongler

The other massive flaw in his idea is he talks about the land already existing and not having been created as such by anybody.

But most people in this country don't just live on land they live in a property. That property needs to be built. Somebody will need to build it and they will only build it if it will be worth something and somebody is prepared to pay for it.

One of the reasons people are prepared to pay for a property is that it can provide a yield if rented. If it couldn't be rented people may not buy it and so it wouldn't be built in the first place. The logical conclusion of this is that people like Tony would be living in a cardboard box under a bridge rather than being able to rent a flat from his nice landlord.

dpb

Have you put your bid in Tony

hodgy0_2

you see this is where it gets confusing

I suspect people accusing TDW of being a Marxist have a very limited understanding of economics

I would view him as more and economic libitarian closer to the American Tea Party -- who were not Marxists last time i looked

dpb

He'll be down the allotment planting his cabbage

GlesgaKiss

You obviously have a very limited understanding of the written word if you've interpreted the views in this thread as being those of an economic libertarian.

hodgy0_2

maybe so

I am sure TDW will put us straight

tony de wonderful

What you are calling ownership and see as the only way things could be is contingent. In fact ownership is just a kind of theoretical abstract, a bit like the concept of money. For example during feudalism you didn't have private property as you have now. Feudal lands were not 'owned' as we understand 'ownership', although The Lord had certain rights and obligations attached to them. In feudal times it would have seemed crazy that land could exist without 'feudal ownership', just as now it seems natural and neccesery that land has to be 'owned' by someone.

tony de wonderful

Dwelling and homes were build long before Capitalist institution of private property especially over land.

tony de wonderful

John Locke understood land as coming from nature. He thought that a man had a right to enjoy it after he had 'won' it from nature by doing something like plowing a field and planting a crop.

dpb

If we you were a serf you wouldn't have been to school enough to come up with all this sociological ball****. Which would be a good thing.
Or maybe you fancy being the Lord and master

GlesgaKiss

I'm not talking about ownership in the narrow legal sense of a particular system. I'm talking about power: who decides what happens with something. Do you really think it's possible for ownership in that sense to be absent? For a start, you are saying, "remove the current owners and change the system to a better one". So you or those who are like minded now have power over the property. Whether it's a collective or not doesn't matter, the same thing is happening in principle.

GlesgaKiss

But you don't agree with that.

SouthWalesSam

iTrader: (1)

Tony,

Is "substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces" the same as when you...
· Earn interest on your current account?
· Save in a tax free ISA?
· Put money into a pension plan?
· Employ someone?
· Buy a share in a company?
· Draw a state pension?

(If so, then I’m guilty as charged, m’Lud).

Or, is being a BTL landlord specifically and heinously different?

And can I take it you’re not coming?

Sam

hodgy0_2

A "John Locke" quoting Marxist

I did say it gets confusing

But then simple minds find easy labels incredibly comforting

jonc

So does this all mean that the Tories are heartless then?

hodgy0_2

Lol, you write those as if they have been inscribed
on a tablet and been delivered by Moses from the top of mount Sinai

The worlds Muslims (xx% of the worlds population) would find that interesting (no pun intended)

It is a view that I or, and I know this for a fvcking fact, TDW would necessarily subscribe to

Boy this **** gets confusing

zip106

**** me, this place gets more tedious every day.

The resident Socialist Worker in 'not wanting anyone to profit from anyone else' shocker.

He's sucked you all in....... You've only yourselves to blame for feeding it.

David Lock

You're obviously intellectually inferior to these fabulous SN commentators. Surely you can see the connection between John Locke's teachings and heartless Tories (even if he can't spell his name correctly ). Nonetheless if they took their heads out of their ***** it would become easier to understand

dl

hodgy0_2

Sorry, yes let's get this back to a level that most of the idiots on sn can understand

Tory's BAD, labour GOOD (liberals gayers)


Hold on, no it's Labour BAD, Tory's GOOD (liberals still gayers)


Well I don't expect much from a forum full of builders, plumbers, IT technicians, photo copier engineers, bmw drivers, and closet homosexuals

And I am never disappointed

hodgy0_2

Dump valves are cool though

Turbohot

I think Tony brings landlords within the context of this thread hence the progression of this thread seems justified for what it is, no matter how right or wrong he might be. I mean if he has brought them in, he might as well explain why. If it fills pages because others are counter-arguing with him, it's bound to, isn't it.

I also think that Tony does give a painful ride to the ones who don't get his point by taking his time to explain it. I think he gets a sadistic pleasure by doing so.


Back to the Tory from Tony, it seems alright if he wants one to work for money.

hodgy0_2

Simply put, agree or disagree with TDW, he is arguing on a different intellectual plane than then pretty much 99.999% of posters have the cognitive ability to understand.

The Marxist label simply confirms this as a fact

Simple people need simple labels


SN is full of simple people

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

personally i think he was refering to the btl vultures with way to much money, who btl with the sole intention of renting to passengers on the dole or immigrants claiming thousands per week to live in large houses in london,at very inflated prices, if and it's a big if i had of kept my second house i for one would of rented it out to a working couple, for no more than the mortage, that way helping someone out and avoiding paying tax, and having something extra to leave to my kids when i snuff it,