Altho I have to admit, my biggest fantasy would be to own thousands of acres of land and keep it as prime wildlife habitat, no hunting, no human development, no housing. Ted Turner did just that with a sizable portion of some of his land, but alas allowed regulated hunting.....some places without people are just better.
Thanks for commenting, Melissa, and for stating the problem so succinctly. It has been that way forever, but I can't help but believe that with a little tweaking of our current laws, and funds judiciously spent in the right areas, it will improve.
Quite obviously, I deplore the concentration of more and more land assets, as well as other forms of wealth, in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Your article made me recall the work of David Ricardo, a great British economist of the18th or 19th century.
RICARDO IS STILL RELEVANT TODAY.
Although David Ricardo was a capitalist, he was extremely critical of landowners.
Ricardo said that landlords would eventually suffocate the entire economy.
Ricardo explained that a landlord does not have to produce a damn thing to make money. All he must do is collect rent.]
Ricardo further explained that since land is finite, a growing economy, and a growing population, would lead inexorably to higher and higher rents.
There are so many myriad ways in which the economic, and ultimately political, power of landlords manifest itself. Consider three examples:
A) The tax structure gives land owners benefits and bargains -- or more accurately legalized steals -- that are the envy of all other businessmen.
B) Years ago, I worked for an organization known as the Fund For Modern Courts. I had to assess where Judicial candidates got their funds from. I found that 90 percent of the money, for candidates for judges of the various New York Courts, came from the real estate industry
C) In the 19th century, New York State enacted rules, still with us, regarding eviction proceedings. These rules expedited suits against tenants. Whereas ordinary suits often linger on for several years, a landlord suing a tenant, who does not know how to play hardball or does not have a lawyer, can throw that tenant into the streets in a little over a month.
Fascinating comment, David. I love the "follow the money" chain of donations to the NY judicial candidates...straight from the Real estate industry. A powerful force everywhere.
There is an interesting passage in Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Ineqality” that speaks to this very issue. Here it is: “The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, "This is mine," and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!” This illustrates a fundamental, basic truth, the land that composes the earth “belongs” to no one. “Ownership” in the case of land, as in any other case, is an invented concept. No one “owns” anything in any real situation apart from some sort of legal decree. And legal decrees are simply invented concepts. As I’m sure any animal (and we are basically all animals) understands, the use of territory on this planet is simply a matter of force; who, by virtue of their strength, can assert control of any space that they want. And the land within any territory on the face of the earth is assigned to those inhabiting it on the basis of the imperatives of the entity (the country) controlling it. Land use, basicly, is based on nothing more than force. (There is nothing more absurd in the contemporary political world than Israel’s assertion that their people were designated ownership of the land between the Jordan River and the Sea by “God.”)
In addition to this, there is one other aspect that needs to be addressed. Land trusts were established to protect farm land from urban development. To use these as an instrument to create individual housing on land that could be used for crop production is to bastardize the very nature of the concept. Yet another testament to how laws, and the lawyers, can twist anything to benefit the powerful.
I don't want to sound like a fossil who has arisen from the the days of Abbie Hoffman -- or the days of Vladimir Lenin -- but you are voicing that old time clarion call to socialism that is still so terribly relevant.
In what book did Rousseau write this ? I only read one of his works. I read the essay he entered in a contest held by the academy of Dijon. The academy wanted applicants to write an essay explaining how the arts and sciences had improved mankind. R turned everything on its head. He explained that the arts and sciences had made mankind more miserable and mendacious. He said that by refining and allegedly uplifting man, the arts and sciences made him increasingly alienated from his vibrant, virile primitive beginnings. He won first prize, which was 1000 Francs. That essay was the literary equivalent to the Rock N Roll hit "Born to Wild."
Thanks for appreciating my comment. But don’t mistake it for what ii wasn’t. It was by no means intended as an endorsement of “socialism.” Socialism, as well as capitalism, or authoritarianism, or any other “ism” you can name is simply a way of organizing how individual humans interact with one another. In that sense they are nothing more than religions, an attempt to prescribe and control how humans behave. And each is valid or invalid depending on your perspective, meaning none of them has any real claim to validity. I much prefer Rousseau’s approach, which is to critique the pieties that humans seem to hold dear and to show that they are groundless no matter their origin or their effect.
Also the work I referenced was his “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” also written for the Academy of Dijon.
I'll readily concede that socialism is a way of organizing human behavior and interactions, as is Capitalism or any other Ism. You seem to condemn them all as "religions." I don't know if I would call them all religions, but like religion the various isms can become stultifying, dogmatic and claustrophobic.
But even if the various isms can all become a bit of a pain in the butt, don't you have to organize a community or a nation along certain lines. And don't you have to decide if the economy will be governed by the roulette wheel of capitalism or a state managerial model. The fact that any sort of organization will have its drawbacks and limitations does not mean that we can dispense with all forms of organization. Chaos does not seem to be a meaningful option.
BTW,, I heard that Rousseau visited Catherina the Great, Tzarina of Russia, to relay his views. Is this true. You seem to be well versed in Rousseau. I try to imagine how such a meeting could have proceeded. After all, Rousseau and Catherine were antithetical to one another. Tzarist Russa denigrated human freedom. Landowners were permitted to beat their serfs to death. (Tolstoy related that his Grandmother, mad at a serf, simply beat him until he expired) Rousseau by contrast was the arch enemy of the tyranny of the State. How could they have remained civil.
Altho I have to admit, my biggest fantasy would be to own thousands of acres of land and keep it as prime wildlife habitat, no hunting, no human development, no housing. Ted Turner did just that with a sizable portion of some of his land, but alas allowed regulated hunting.....some places without people are just better.
It is disturbing that those with the most continue to profit from those with the least. Hasn’t it been that way forever? It is sad.
Thanks for commenting, Melissa, and for stating the problem so succinctly. It has been that way forever, but I can't help but believe that with a little tweaking of our current laws, and funds judiciously spent in the right areas, it will improve.
Quite obviously, I deplore the concentration of more and more land assets, as well as other forms of wealth, in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Your article made me recall the work of David Ricardo, a great British economist of the18th or 19th century.
RICARDO IS STILL RELEVANT TODAY.
Although David Ricardo was a capitalist, he was extremely critical of landowners.
Ricardo said that landlords would eventually suffocate the entire economy.
Ricardo explained that a landlord does not have to produce a damn thing to make money. All he must do is collect rent.]
Ricardo further explained that since land is finite, a growing economy, and a growing population, would lead inexorably to higher and higher rents.
There are so many myriad ways in which the economic, and ultimately political, power of landlords manifest itself. Consider three examples:
A) The tax structure gives land owners benefits and bargains -- or more accurately legalized steals -- that are the envy of all other businessmen.
B) Years ago, I worked for an organization known as the Fund For Modern Courts. I had to assess where Judicial candidates got their funds from. I found that 90 percent of the money, for candidates for judges of the various New York Courts, came from the real estate industry
C) In the 19th century, New York State enacted rules, still with us, regarding eviction proceedings. These rules expedited suits against tenants. Whereas ordinary suits often linger on for several years, a landlord suing a tenant, who does not know how to play hardball or does not have a lawyer, can throw that tenant into the streets in a little over a month.
Fascinating comment, David. I love the "follow the money" chain of donations to the NY judicial candidates...straight from the Real estate industry. A powerful force everywhere.
There is an interesting passage in Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Ineqality” that speaks to this very issue. Here it is: “The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, "This is mine," and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!” This illustrates a fundamental, basic truth, the land that composes the earth “belongs” to no one. “Ownership” in the case of land, as in any other case, is an invented concept. No one “owns” anything in any real situation apart from some sort of legal decree. And legal decrees are simply invented concepts. As I’m sure any animal (and we are basically all animals) understands, the use of territory on this planet is simply a matter of force; who, by virtue of their strength, can assert control of any space that they want. And the land within any territory on the face of the earth is assigned to those inhabiting it on the basis of the imperatives of the entity (the country) controlling it. Land use, basicly, is based on nothing more than force. (There is nothing more absurd in the contemporary political world than Israel’s assertion that their people were designated ownership of the land between the Jordan River and the Sea by “God.”)
In addition to this, there is one other aspect that needs to be addressed. Land trusts were established to protect farm land from urban development. To use these as an instrument to create individual housing on land that could be used for crop production is to bastardize the very nature of the concept. Yet another testament to how laws, and the lawyers, can twist anything to benefit the powerful.
I love your comment !!!
I don't want to sound like a fossil who has arisen from the the days of Abbie Hoffman -- or the days of Vladimir Lenin -- but you are voicing that old time clarion call to socialism that is still so terribly relevant.
In what book did Rousseau write this ? I only read one of his works. I read the essay he entered in a contest held by the academy of Dijon. The academy wanted applicants to write an essay explaining how the arts and sciences had improved mankind. R turned everything on its head. He explained that the arts and sciences had made mankind more miserable and mendacious. He said that by refining and allegedly uplifting man, the arts and sciences made him increasingly alienated from his vibrant, virile primitive beginnings. He won first prize, which was 1000 Francs. That essay was the literary equivalent to the Rock N Roll hit "Born to Wild."
Thanks for appreciating my comment. But don’t mistake it for what ii wasn’t. It was by no means intended as an endorsement of “socialism.” Socialism, as well as capitalism, or authoritarianism, or any other “ism” you can name is simply a way of organizing how individual humans interact with one another. In that sense they are nothing more than religions, an attempt to prescribe and control how humans behave. And each is valid or invalid depending on your perspective, meaning none of them has any real claim to validity. I much prefer Rousseau’s approach, which is to critique the pieties that humans seem to hold dear and to show that they are groundless no matter their origin or their effect.
Also the work I referenced was his “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” also written for the Academy of Dijon.
I'll readily concede that socialism is a way of organizing human behavior and interactions, as is Capitalism or any other Ism. You seem to condemn them all as "religions." I don't know if I would call them all religions, but like religion the various isms can become stultifying, dogmatic and claustrophobic.
But even if the various isms can all become a bit of a pain in the butt, don't you have to organize a community or a nation along certain lines. And don't you have to decide if the economy will be governed by the roulette wheel of capitalism or a state managerial model. The fact that any sort of organization will have its drawbacks and limitations does not mean that we can dispense with all forms of organization. Chaos does not seem to be a meaningful option.
BTW,, I heard that Rousseau visited Catherina the Great, Tzarina of Russia, to relay his views. Is this true. You seem to be well versed in Rousseau. I try to imagine how such a meeting could have proceeded. After all, Rousseau and Catherine were antithetical to one another. Tzarist Russa denigrated human freedom. Landowners were permitted to beat their serfs to death. (Tolstoy related that his Grandmother, mad at a serf, simply beat him until he expired) Rousseau by contrast was the arch enemy of the tyranny of the State. How could they have remained civil.