You only thought you had the right to sunbathe there because the gov’t told you it was “public” property. You were lied to. Go take it up with the government. Like I said, they could distribute the cash equally.
And he only believes he has the right to build a shop there because he has bought something that was “public” property. He was lied to. I’ll give back the share of the money I received if it’ll make him feel better.
From your earlier posts you seem to believe that ‘productive’ use (in the sense of actually producing goods) somehow trumps ‘non-productive’ use, even when the person who is using the land non-productively is deriving rational pleasure from doing so. If this is an accurate statement of your position, then what is the basis for this? If it helps, we can imagine I was using my time spent sunbathing to write a novel, or even had a lemonade stand there, or was doing something similarly productive
The only way to do it would be to sell to the highest bidder and either pay off government debt or divide the money equally among all citizens. No majority voting to do it: the concept of public property is invalid and should not be allowed to continue to exist.
Noted.
Assuming we scratched the majority vote, abolished public property, then auctioned off the property with the $ going to the public (and now that I’ve thought it through, proportions are of no concern here, at least in relation to taxes…if an individual donated to the park however, they’d need to be compensated), would there be anything wrong with this?
I think the moment a country went completely laissez-faire all unowned property should simply be open to the first to claim it as theirs, and if multiple people or groups claim it, say Central Park, the courts should sort it out. Nobody should be compensated because nobody owns it, the claims that somehow the government owns national parks and whatnot are even at this present time completely invalid.
I think the moment a country went completely laissez-faire all unowned property should simply be open to the first to claim it as theirs, and if multiple people or groups claim it, say Central Park, the courts should sort it out. Nobody should be compensated because nobody owns it, the claims that somehow the government owns national parks and whatnot are even at this present time completely invalid.
Although land was claimed by the “first come first served” in the early stages of America, it would be complete chaos if we were to all the sudden abolish public property and have a race for the land–the courts would be overwhelmed. (not to mention the hospitals)
The only way I see fit to sell the land would be to have the buyer pay the public. (I know that the word “sell” is being used oddly here, as there’s no one to really sell the land–which is where the majority comes in. THe majority would have to agree to the land being sold–NOT b/c the idea of public property is absurd, but b/c it has been unfortunately established in the U.S.–and the public owns it, hence majority vote as to if the property can be sold) Someone or some group of people must claim (or be recognized) ownership of the land, otherwise there’s nothing to sell. If no group of people owns the land, then it seems like anyone can claim it…
You could say that were going to abolish public property on June 1, 2005, and the first person to claim Xamount of land will get X amount of land…but imagine the chaos and violence that would occur b/c of such announcement.
But…
Take public roads for instance. If we are to privatize them, shouldn’t the buyer be paying the government (i.e. the people) for the roads that were established by the public’s wealth?
The simple solution is for the government to auction off all public property save for what is required to operate government, courts, police, and military, with the money received going towards the operation of government, courts, police, and military.
And he only believes he has the right to build a shop there because he has bought something that was “public” property. He was lied to. I’ll give back the share of the money I received if it’ll make him feel better.
From your earlier posts you seem to believe that ‘productive’ use (in the sense of actually producing goods) somehow trumps ‘non-productive’ use, even when the person who is using the land non-productively is deriving rational pleasure from doing so. If this is an accurate statement of your position, then what is the basis for this? If it helps, we can imagine I was using my time spent sunbathing to write a novel, or even had a lemonade stand there, or was doing something similarly productive
No, you are not thinking this through right. After he BUYS it, it CEASES to be public property. If YOU wanted to continue to sunbathe, then you could have bought it YOURSELF. It’s not about “productive use.” The man who bought it could fence it off and bulldoze it into a mud pit, if he was the highest bidder.
What is your complaint about this arrangement? That you are hurt by it? How are you hurt by losing something you never had a right to in the first place? Listen, the fact is that “public property” is an invalid concept and it is hurting plenty of other people by costing them tax dollars. Anyone who pays for the park and DOESN’T sunbathe is being hurt right now.
