Topic: Progs want to abolish private property rights

[Libertas]

http://iotwreport.com/brilliant-new-leftist-idea-abolish-private-housing/

They've been wanting that under different guises for decades, centuries...for certain things.  I can understand them wanting to put everybody (but themselves of course, overseers are special!) in crack stacks and make it easier to control them and control what they are allowed to have, say, and do.

Like I always say, you don't have to scratch a progressive very hard to find the fascist within.

Molan Labe, fascists.

[Pandora]

Sick of them and their "brilliant" notions of how things ought to work, which, historically, have always proved disastrous when implemented.  They carry on as though history began the day they were born.

[richb]

Since public housing has worked out so well....................

If anything,  private citizens DON'T own enough of the real estate.    It blows my mind when I tell people and they don't know,(I don't live out west) how much property isn't privately owned in the US.   The federal government owns  85% of the real estate in the state of Nevada.   It owns 70% of Alaska as well.   The further west you go,  the less land is owned by the private sector.    Probably why many of those states stay underdeveloped and fairly low population,  since "public" lands are underused even when they are used (most aren't and do nothing).   And when they are used,  most of the deals of of the crony style.

National parks (bordered ones) are a small percentage of the overall total land (though the NPS is one of the top 4 federal agencies controlling land).   Plus the numbers don't include land owned by other levels of government (state, county, city etc).    I am guessing land under interstate highways are considered owned by the state the highway is in. 

I am guessing private ownership of real estate is under 10% in Nevada when you subtract local government ownership.

The reason you see energy development in North Dakota (only 3%) vs other western states is not because ND has more oil then those other states.   Its because it has higher private ownership then most so the energy can by pumped.   Most energy is locked away under public land just like the off shore energy is.

Frankly most of the land needs to be sold.   The federal government shouldn't own more the 2-3% of each state even if that.


It could kill two birds with one stone too if it was done right (I know I am dreaming).   The money raised by the sale of federal land could be used to pay the national debt (of course the overspending would have to stop first too).    Its really the only way to raise large amounts of cash that wouldn't be taxes or fees (or funny money).

At some point the creditors will force the issue,  and frankly real estate would be the prime target of those creditors since it would be the only thing of value the government would likely still have.   Then it would be a fire sale,  and it would go cheap and to mostly cronies. 

But back to selling land.   The economy would have to pick up finally if we had new land and resources to earn income from,  its just wasted now.

Real estate is the backbone of the wealth of our country.   Most millionaires that are created in the United States are due to ownership, investment,  and use of real estate.    Almost every wealthy person in the US has interest (and income from) in some sort of real estate.   I know if somehow I manage to become wealthy,  it will be built on real estate.   Even if I am doing something else for a "living".   

Three of my relatives are real estate millionaires that have other professions.   They all have made far more from real estate then their day jobs.  One was even a well paid doctor but yet earned more from his real estate business. 

Its no wonder why those a@@hats attack private land ownership.   If they can cut out real estate from people,  there would be far fewer rich people.   And probably no new ones.

This sh*t needs to be stopped.   And stopped now!









http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

[Libertas]

I'm with you Rich, people should own land, not government, if they bought what they needed like everybody else fine, they should not own such large tracts.  And barring cronies would be nice, not sure how you do that...maybe like auctions, pre-register requirement (weeks in advance and financing disclosed?), make it available for public review, put limits on corporations and uber wealthy maybe, I dunno...I hate anything that smacks of exclusion but I hate cronies getting everything too.

[richb]

I was in Orlando Florida a few weeks ago,   for a family thing.    We did the theme park thing of course.    Disney World is of course huge,  an area twice the size of Manhattan.    I imagine its one of the largest private continuous owned by one company.

But people are more concerned when a private company or person would own an entire continuous area but not bat an eye when a government agency owns an area many, many times larger.

Disney of course bought what was at the time virtually useless,  low value swamps.   Most people where more then willing to sell (not knowing they were selling to Disney).    An area,  by the way,  if the government owned it would still be a virtual wasteland (an area,  if they were starting now,  would never get off the ground,  since swamps are largely not allowed to be developed anymore).    If they hadn't built Disney world,  I doubt Sea World,  Universal and all that would have come to Orlando.   Remember Orlando is in the middle of the state,  no coast line to get people to come on vacation.   An area people drove past until 1971 when Disney opened its gates.

""""But that is the difference between people working for their own well being and those running governments.""""""

The Kennedy Space Center is an hour away.   It was built on prime coast land (along with the air force base).   It is a big employer,  but tiny employment wise,  compared with what Disney brought to the Orlando area.  Many more followed Disney to Orlando then to NASA.

Say what you say about Disney (yup some of things they do is odious),  but they employ thousands and if you don't like them,  you don't  have to deal with them.    That is not the case with the federal government,  they cannot be avoided.   

[Libertas]

All true.

About all they ever put up for auction is those old lighthouses and other smaller stuff.

How about opening vast tracks in the western states for like they did for settlers?  Talk about a gold rush, people would flock to get a piece of their own.

[BigAlSouth]

I had a friend once who was a full blooded Native American from Oklahoma. He got a monthly check from his tribe from the oil revenues. We were talking once about alcoholism and poverty rampant in the reservations where he grew up. He said every where you go, you can see a brand new, immaculately cared for pick-up truck parked in front of some ramshackle singlewide home. Terry said

The difference is, the tribe owned the land and rented out the trailers. You could own your own truck.

[Libertas]

The modern noble savage...not so different from the modern prog, eh?

[richb]

The thing with Indian reservations.   You can't get a normal mortgage of any kind for real estate on a reservation,  because the bank would have no right to repossess if defaulted on.   The land cannot be owned by a non tribe member, (or an entity that isn't a person),  not even temporarily.   I am guessing there are regulations (probably due to the federal government holding the real estate in trust for the tribe) that prevent tribe only reservation only mortgage organizations from existing,  as you would think SOME tribes would figure out a system to finance and own real estate.

 So even if you can own your real estate on the reservation (some can),  its value is going to be very limited,  as only other tribe members can be buyers.    You would think it would keep prices on the low side,  but most people on reservation are very low income (go figure). 

That's the problem with communal real estate.   In reality it's nobody's.   Or worse under the control of a corrupt chief or a small group of higher ups.    So the tribe member with ambition leaves and ends up buying real estate on the open market off the reservation.   Why would you ever come back?   The ones that stay will only look at you with contempt and call you greedy.   

[Libertas]

I've known people who have had grandfathered rights to vacation homes/cabins on reservation land, the white man is definitely a lower class citizen...things like break in's not always fully investigated let alone prosecuted...

Communal property didn't work out so well for the Pilgrims, that was quickly discarded.  It is an idea that should never see the light of day, especially from a state perspective.