Heartless Tories?
#91
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#93
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Tony, I worked hard to be able to afford my property, it wasn't just handed to me on a plate. I could of course just sat back and done nothing with my money but didn't. I spent many 1000's buying and furnishing it thus putting m,money back into the local economy. I also gave someone who doesn't want to buy a house (by choice) a lovely place to live.
Chip
Chip
#95
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
Now you aren't reading what I write. I was countering Glesgakiss's point that the ownership of something can be justified because the owner purchased it...i.e, may have worked for it. Clearly this isn't justified for slavery.
Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.
Anyway to own property and live off its rent is substantively to live off the surplus another human being produces. Rent is like a right to tax. The only difference is that the slave can't cancel their 'contact' of slavery, the tenent can move out. However the owner of property does exactly the same thing for their money as the slave owner, i.e, nothing.
#96
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
So who decides what happens with property in Marxist utopia land? And more importantly, WHY does that person or collective get to decide?
#97
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Lol1](images/smilies/lol1.gif)
#98
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#100
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
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
#102
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#103
Scooby Regular
#104
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#105
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
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.
#106
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
Or maybe you fancy being the Lord and master
#108
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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.
#109
Scooby Regular
#110
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
#111
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
A "John Locke" quoting Marxist
I did say it gets confusing
But then simple minds find easy labels incredibly comforting
I did say it gets confusing
But then simple minds find easy labels incredibly comforting
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 04 October 2013 at 07:59 PM.
#113
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
· 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?
?
Sam
· 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?
?
Sam
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
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 04 October 2013 at 09:56 PM.
#114
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
**** 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.
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.
#115
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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 ![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
dl
![Nono](images/smilies/nono.gif)
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
dl
#116
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
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
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 04 October 2013 at 10:21 PM.
#118
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Lol1](images/smilies/lol1.gif)
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.
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Back to the Tory from Tony, it seems alright if he wants one to work for money.
#119
Scooby Regular
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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
The Marxist label simply confirms this as a fact
Simple people need simple labels
SN is full of simple people
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 04 October 2013 at 11:12 PM.
#120
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
![Default](images/icons/icon1.gif)
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,