Is private home ownership to be encouraged?

[Colin Donoghue]

Greetings all, I'd like to offer my perspective on this discussion of
private land & home ownership, quoting several people without including
their names except for old Henry George.

"The very idea that anyone can 'own' land in any meaningful sense is wrong.
Yes you can have the right not to be evicted - along with accompanying
rights to graze nearby land, gather firewood etc etc But unless you get
away from this engrained concept of the greedy cheating 16th to 19th
century enclosers that a private person or company can actually claim to
own a piece of land as if it were a car or an overcoat you will be mostly
mostly wasting your time."

Owning a piece of land, in the sense of a just occupation for the purpose
of self-sufficiency and not for profit, isn't wrong but in fact the right
solution to the major problems of economic/social/political/environmental
injustice and destruction we observe. It is claiming your birthright as
human on the Earth, *it is not the right to take more than that*, as was
suggested must be the intention. You are referring to the entire economic
system as a whole when referring to private property ownership, which is an
inaccurate distortion, it's like saying growing an organic home garden is
bad because of Monsanto's GMO empire. The economic system IS unjust for
countless reasons, and that's why if everyone claimed their own
homesteading land, we wouldn't need that system, we could be free of
monetary-slavery and could replace that with voluntary gift-economy
communities, i.e. a natural and free society.

Claiming 2 acres of land for you and your family to establish a homestead
on is not at all equivalent to state enclosures! Again another
distortion/exaggeration, that's like saying the occupations of Occupy Wall
St. are equivalent to imperialist and genocidal occupations of colonization.

"[With] medieval copy hold tenure.. the bank can never take your home or
land off you!"

Never say never with an unjust system still in place. The laws that protect
this economic arrangement can easily be changed tomorrow. If we all claimed
land as a human right we would put the banks out of business! As I think
you all well know as long as the fascist/capitalist powers-that-be are in
power they will always find some way to return people back to servitude, if
they somehow found a loophole out of slavery; the state's very existence
depends on preventing people from living a natural and free life. And how
does medieval copy hold tenure address that problem? And how does it
address the problems of monetary slavery, lack of personal sovereignty, and
centralized power in forced "community" socialism? It doesn't, and it can't.

"The freehold was invented just for that purpose - to allow the creation of
property bubbles and negative equity and all that comes with the poverty of
land indebtedness."

Again you are talking about the economic system, not sovereign homesteads.
The system should be altogether rejected and not participated in because of
all the injustice that arises from it, like the examples you mention. There
would be no "property bubbles" if everyone had their fair share to cost/tax
free land, and were not accepting monetary-slavery through taxation.

We need to "ditch our present reliance on the banks", yes, but why do banks
even exist? Because we need money. As long as we need money we can never
really ditch the banks. Why do we need money? Again, because we are forced
into monetary-slavery via land control/cost and taxation. *The answer is
sovereign, not-for-profit homesteads that can only be owned by one
individual/family, it is private property, but not in the economic sense
that it can be bought or sold (you could trade 1-for-1 though), or that
people could have multiple homestead parcels of land. The answer is the* *same
amount of free land for everyone*, *and rejection of taxation and
money,*then we can end our dependence and support of this unjust
fascist
socio-economic system that is the real root cause of the worst problems in
the world, including property bubbles, evictions, rising-rents, wages,
monopolized land ownership, "hassle and expense of paying a mortgage and
the transactional nightmare of selling up when you want to move house",
etc.

Someone suggested that we beg for (or should I say vote?), and then rely
on, "fair" state housing facilities that are "affordable"... this ignores
the fundamental injustice of land control and monetary-slavery, along with
the endless falsities and injustices of "representative
democracy<http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Right-Revolution-Cruc-by-Colin-Donoghue-111018-588.html>
".

The Henry George excerpt that started this discussion is mostly irrelevant
and off-target in my opinion, trying unsuccessfully to rationally resolve
fundamentally unjust aspects of the economic system, but he did say
something exactly right towards then end:

"It is not the relations of capital and labor, not the pressure of
population against subsistence, that explains the unequal development of
society. The great cause of inequality in the distribution of wealth is
inequality in the ownership of land. Ownership of land is the great
fundamental fact that ultimately determines the social, the political, and
consequently the intellectual and moral condition of a people."

But he then goes onto make the common false assumption that:

"Everywhere, in all times, among all peoples, possession of land is the
base of aristocracy, the foundation of great fortunes, the source of power."

Inequality in the ownership of land IS the greatest cause of wealth
inequality, BUT it is also the greatest cause of centralized power ONLY
because of the economic system that allows for that. Henry could not
imagine something like sovereign homesteads existing outside of an economic
system, so having ANY land immediately gets equated with having LOTS of
land, and all the injustice that goes with that. Why someone would have
this narrow/false view is understandable (indoctrination), but it's not
really helpful, and seems to be the same exact view occurring over and over
again today, as seen in this discussion.

Someone else in this discussion said brought up this same view again, for
the 3rd time:

"Private property is not the guarantor of individuality...it is its
downfall..., pressing folk into rip-off rents and isolation."

Again this is the same thinking that having ANY private land must equate to
unjust monopolization; as I was just saying, having your own sovereign
homesteading land does not need to be a part of the economic system which
allows for that, nor does it have to give you the right to exploit/rent it
to anyone else, *and since everyone should have their own free land there
would be no need to rent from anyone.* To make this crystal clear again: *It
is your birthright to have your fair share of the land (about 2 acres of
arable land) but to have more than that is then the theft of the birthright
of others*. Also having private land in no way encourages isolation, these
urban wastelands do that a lot more effectively, haven't you noticed?
Having your own private space does not mean there would be no community,
the truth is the opposite, the community that would arise from a voluntary
gift-economy would be far more natural, wholesome and enjoyable than the
artificial and degraded/corrupted community we have through these unjust
social-systems that breed disharmony. On top of that isolation is really a
mute point anyway; if you did want to be isolated on your homestead, so
what? Why must you be forced into a communal dynamic that you don't want to
be a part of? This attack on the individual's sovereignty is often heard in
communist propaganda, supposedly advocating a virtue, but is really just
pushing for conformity to socialized tyranny.

As far as I can see the only proposal that has none of the problems brought
up in this discussion, solves the major problems of
economic/social/political/environmental injustice and destruction we
observe AND supports natural community AND respects individual freedom and
sovereignty is *SOVEREIGN* HOMESTEADS FOR ALL.

Peace.

CD


On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tony Gosling <tony at cultureshop.org.uk>wrote:

> **
>
>
> The very idea that anyone can 'own' land in any meaningful sense is wrong.
>
> Yes you can have the right not to be evicted - along with accompanying
> rights to graze nearby land, gather firewood etc etc
>
> But unless you get away from this engrained concept of the greedy cheating
> 16th to 19th century enclosers that a private person or company can
> actually claim to own a piece of land as if it were a car or an overcoat
> you will be mostly mostly wasting your time.
>
> The medieval copy hold tenure was perfectly adequate and that is what we
> should be pushing for a return to. One of the best things about copy-hold
> above and beyond freehold - is that the bank can never take your home or
> land off you! It works very well right now for the crofters in scotland
> where the traditional form of land ownership was enshrined in law in the
> 1880s.
>
> The freehold was invented just for that purpose - to allow the creatio of
> property bubbles and negative equity and all that comes with the poverty of
> land indebtedness.
>
> I can almost hear you saying  - but we will never get rid of freeholds - I
> beg to differ - as the housing & homelessness crisis gets worse we may HAVE
> to ditch the current system.
>
> IMO we will be forced to go forward to the good old system of land tenure
> which naturally emerged as land was settled. And ditch our present reliance
> on the banks.
>
> rgds to all
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> At 19:25 10/03/2012, you wrote:
>
>
> HI Simon,
>
> I think there's something instinctive and fundamental about owning your
> home that makes it different from accessing a service. I believe in
> socialised medicine because it works better than the alternatives. I think
> this is equally true of a number of areas of social provision, but not
> housing.
>
> You refer (as opponents of home-ownership often do) to the hassle and
> expenses of mortgages.  Given these difficulties, that most people still
> prefer ownership tends, if anything, to prove my point. If we could remove
> monopoly from the housing market, much of the difficulty and expense you
> describe could be reduced or eliminated, greatly to the benefit of the less
> well-off.
>
> You say that people may prefer to buy rather than rent because renting is
> insecure and makes others rich. Yes! I think the state currently spends £32
> bn making private landlords rich through rent support. The state is
> currently also sitting on 300,000 empty houses as a result of the
> ill-starred Pathfinder scheme. Instead of letting those houses stand and
> rot, how about simply giving them to people currently in private rented
> accommodation and using their rent subsidy money for renovation loans?
> These loans could be at a cheap fixed rate and deferred for the unemployed
> (just like student loans). This would result in much needed addition to the
> housing stock, democratisation of home ownership and have the additional
> and highly desirable effect of reducing public subsidy to landlords.
> Although this would lead to a short/medium term increase in expenditure,
> these would be one-time payments rather than the endless drain of rent
> subsidy. With repayments being secured against the properties in question
> they would also be sure to be paid back, thus actually reducing expenditure
> in the long run.
>
> I make this suggestion because we need practical, imaginative and
> politically possible solutions to the housing crisis. Dreams of a majorly
> expanded public housing sector are simply not going to happen, not just
> because we've got a tory government, but because most people would not
> support it
>
> Brendan.
>
>
> *From:* Simon Fairlie <chapter7 at tlio.org.uk>
> *To:* TheLandIsOurs at yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 March 2012, 0:13
> *Subject:* Re: [TheLandIsOurs] The Persistence of Poverty Despite
> Increasing Wealth
>
>
>
> "Most people in this country own their homes because that's the way they
> like it, geddit?"
>
> That's not necessarily true at all. Many (possibly most) people own their
> own homes because: (a) when you pay private rent you are buying someone
> else a house; (b) private renting is insecure; and (c) because it is
> impossible for most people to get council, social or affordable rented
> properties. If council houses were available to everyone, as the national
> health service and state schools are, at a not for profit rent, then loads
> of people would prefer that to the hassle and expense of paying a  mortgage
> and the transactional nightmare of selling up when you want to move house..
>
> The other reason so many people own their house in the UK is that Thatcher
> allowed them to buy council houses for a song and then flog them off at
> market rates.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> On 7 Mar 2012, at 21:31, Brendan Boal wrote:
>
>
> This really is to much Dave. Disagreeing with your interpretation of
> things does not make me "left cover for the political right".  That you
> perceive it as such says more about the narrowness of Marxist thinking than
> it does about me. Also, your constant assertion that home ownership must
> somehow be synonomous with 'the drudgery of mortgages' shows the same
> limited perspective. Most people in this country own their homes because
> that's the way they like it, geddit? I just want to extend that to everyone
> by breaking land  monopoly. You may not like that idea but it does not make
> me a right-winger, it just makes me not a Marxist.
>
> Brendan.
>
>
> *From:* david bangs <dave.bangs at virgin.net >
> *To:* TheLandIsOurs at yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, 4 March 2012, 13:43
> *Subject:* Re: [TheLandIsOurs] The Persistence of Poverty Despite
> Increasing Wealth
>
>
>
> Stop picking on council housing, Brendan. Go pick on private landlords
> instead.
>
> What makes you think that council tenants are peculiarly vulnerable to the
> vagaries of political climate ??...when mortgage re-possessions are at a
> new high, and folk trapped in the private rented sector are forced to play
> musical chairs becos they can no longer afford the rip-off rents...
>
> If council tenants can't pay their rent they'll get sympathy, help and
> time (even with all the shitty changes taking place)...If my mate doesn't
> pay her private sector rent she'll get evicted...short-shrift...
>
> Private property is not the guarantor of individuality...it is its
> downfall..., pressing folk into  , rip-off rents and isolation. The
> flowering of individuality is the product of mutuality and
> cooperation...not barricading behind private property boundaries. We grow
> becos others around us encourage us to grow. If *"ALL organisations goals
> are conformity and power"* then why do you support housing coops and
> social enterprises ?...Why do you support TLIO ?...or perhaps you only
> support it whilst it remains a loose network...without policies, elected
> officers, agreed projects, or accountability ??
>
> You are a lucky man, like me, to live in your own property free of
> mortgage or rent.
>
> Stop over-generalising from your own good fortune...stop acting as left
> cover for the political right...
>
> Dave Bangs
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brendan Boal <b_m_boal at yahoo.com>
> To: TheLandIsOurs at yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [TheLandIsOurs] The Persistence of Poverty Despite Increasing
> Wealth
>
>
>
>
> How about tackling land monopoly by diffusing land ownership downwards? It
> occurs to me that council tenants are vulnerable to vagaries of the
> political climate precisely because they do not have title to their homes.
> Poor people everywhere are being ripped of for want of legally enforcible
> title. When ownership is mediated through a political system or is not
> clear in law, it is always vulnerable.
>
> Remember, the essential thing is to maintain a distinctive individuality
> in a society and system that demands fundamental conformity. The political
> label could be public or private, corporations are as dangerous to
> individuality as any government. The goal of ALL organizations, private and
> public, is conformity and power.
>
> Brendan.
>
> From: Robin Smith <robinsmith3 at gmail.com >
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 3 March 2012, 13:51
> Subject: [TheLandIsOurs] The Persistence of Poverty Despite Increasing
> Wealth
>
> Quite an interesting weekend read... if you are into that sort of
> thing. Rest Sunday though.
>
> It needs translating for sensitive modern day readers still. But think
> about it. Things are no different in kind today.
>
>  http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp23.htm
>
> [snip]
>
> THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena
> that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over
> the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly
> tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in
> productive power:
>
> As productive power increases, rent tends to increase even more --
> constantly forcing down wages.
>
> Advancing civilization tends to increase the power of human labor to
> satisfy human desires. We should be able to eliminate poverty. But
> workers cannot reap these benefits because they are intercepted. Land
> is necessary to labor. When it has been reduced to private ownership,
> the increased productivity of labor only increases rent. Thus, all the
> advantages of progress go to those who own land. Wages do not increase
> -- wages cannot increase. The more labor produces, the more it must
> pay for the opportunity to make anything at all.
>
> Mere laborers, therefore, have no more interest in progress than Cuban
> slaves have in higher sugar prices. Higher prices may spur their
> masters to drive them harder. Likewise, a free laborer may be worse
> off with greater productivity. Steadily rising rents generate
> speculation. The effects of future improvements are discounted by even
> higher rents. This tends to drive wages down to the point of slavery,
> at which the worker can barely live. The worker is robbed of all the
> benefits of increased productive power.
>
> These improvements also cause a further subdivision of labor. The
> efficiency of the whole body of laborers is increased, but at the
> expense of the independence of its constituents. Individual workers
> know only a tiny part of the various processes required to supply even
> the commonest wants.
>
> A primitive tribe may not produce much wealth, but all members are
> capable of an independent life. Each shares all the knowledge
> possessed by the tribe. They know the habits of animals, birds, and
> fishes. They can make their own shelter, clothing, and weapons. In
> short, they are all capable of supplying their own wants. The
> independence of all of the members makes them free contracting parties
> in their relations with the community.
>
> Compare this savage with workers in the lowest ranks of civilized
> society. Their lives are spent in producing just one thing or, more
> likely, the smallest part of one thing. They cannot even make what is
> required for their work; they use tools they can never hope to own.
> Compelled to oppressive and constant labor, they get no more than the
> savage: the bare necessaries of life. Yet they lose the independence
> the savage keeps.
>
> Modern workers are mere links in an enormous chain of producers and
> consumers. The very power of exerting their labor to satisfy their
> needs passes from their control. The worse their position in society,
> the more dependent they are on society. Their power may be taken away
> by the actions of others. Or even by general causes, over which they
> have no more influence than they have over the motion of the stars.
>
> Under such circumstances, people lose an essential quality: the power
> of modifying and controlling their condition. They become slaves,
> machines, commodities. In some respects, they are lower than animals.
>
> I am no sentimental admirer of the savage state. I do not get my ideas
> of nature from Rousseau. I am aware of its material and mental lack,
> its low and narrow range. I believe that civilization is the natural
> destiny of humanity, the elevation and refinement of our powers.
>
> Nevertheless, no one who faces the facts can avoid the conclusion that
> -- in the heart of our civilization -- there are large classes that
> even the sorriest savage would not want to trade places with. Given
> the choice of being born an Australian aborigine, an arctic Eskimo, or
> among the lowest classes in a highly civilized country such as Great
> Britain, one would make an infinitely better choice in selecting the
> lot of the savage.
>
> Those condemned to want in the midst of wealth suffer all the
> hardships of savages, without the sense of personal freedom. If their
> horizon is wider, it is only to see the blessings they cannot enjoy. I
> challenge anyone to produce an authentic account of primitive life
> citing the degradation we find in official documents regarding the
> condition of the working poor in highly civilized countries.
>
> I have outlined a simple theory that recognizes the most obvious
> relations. It explains the conjunction of poverty with wealth; of low
> wages with high productivity; of degradation amid enlightenment; of
> virtual slavery in political liberty. It flows from a general and
> unchanging law. It shows the sequence and relation between phenomena
> that are separate and contradictory without this theory.
>
> It explains why interest and wages are higher in new communities, even
> though the production is less. It explains why improvements that
> increase the productive power of labor and capital do not increase the
> reward of either. It shows that what is commonly called a conflict
> between labor and capital is, in fact, a harmony of interests between
> them. It proves the fallacies of protectionism, while showing why free
> trade fails to benefit the working class.
>
> It explains why want increases with abundance, and why wealth tends to
> greater and greater concentration. It explains periodic recessions and
> depressions -- and why large numbers of potential producers stand
> idle, without the absurd assumption that there is too little work to
> do or too many hands to do it. It explains the negative impact of
> machinery, without denying the natural advantages it gives. It
> explains why vice and misery appear among dense populations, without
> attributing to the laws of God those defects arising only from the
> shortsighted and selfish decrees of humans.
>
> This is an explanation in accordance with all the facts. Look at the
> world today. The same conditions exist in different countries --
> regardless of the type of government, industries, tariffs, or
> currency. But everywhere you find poverty in the midst of wealth, you
> will find that land is monopolized. Instead of being treated as the
> common property of all the people, land is treated as the private
> property of individuals. And before labor is allowed to use it, large
> sums are extorted from the earnings of labor.
>
> Compare different countries. You will see that it is not the abundance
> of capital, nor the productiveness of labor, that makes wages high or
> low. Rather, wages vary with the extent to which those who monopolize
> land can levy tribute in the form of rent.
>
> It is well-known, even among the most ignorant, that new countries are
> always better for workers than rich countries. In new countries,
> although the total amount of wealth is small, land is cheap. Whereas
> in rich countries, land is costly. Wherever rent is relatively low,
> you will find wages relatively high. Wherever rent is high, wages are
> low. As land values increase, poverty deepens and beggars appear. In
> the new settlements, where land is cheap, any inequalities in
> condition are very slight. In great cities, where land is so valuable
> it is measured by the foot, you will find the extremes of poverty and
> luxury.
>
> The disparity between the two extremes of the social scale may always
> be measured by the price of land. Land is more valuable in New York
> than San Francisco; and in New York, the squalor and misery would make
> the San Franciscan stand aghast. Land is more valuable in London than
> in New York; and in London, the squalor and destitution is worse than
> in New York.
>
> The same relation is obvious if you compare the same country in
> different times. The enormous increase in the efficiency of labor has
> only added to rent. The rent of agricultural land in England is many
> times greater than it was 500 years ago.* Yet wages, measured as a
> proportion of total production, have decreased everywhere.
>
> The Black Death brought a great rise in wages in England in the
> fourteenth century. There can be no doubt that such an awful decline
> in population decreased the effective power of labor. However, less
> competition for land lowered rent to an even greater extent. This
> allowed wages to rise so much that land holders enacted penal laws to
> keep them down.
>
> The reverse effect followed the monopolization of land during the
> reign of Henry VIII. The commons were enclosed, and church lands
> divided among parasites who were thus enabled to found noble families.
> The result was the same as from a speculative increase in land values.
> According to none other than Malthus, a worker in the reign of Henry
> VII would get half a bushel of wheat for about one day's common labor.
> By end of Elizabeth's reign, it would take three days of labor to
> purchase the same amount. The rapid monopolization of land carried the
> speculative rent line beyond the normal rent line, and produced tramps
> and paupers. We have lately seen similar effects from similar causes
> in the United States.
>
> We may as well cite historical illustrations of the attraction of
> gravity; the principle is just as universal and just as obvious. Rent
> must reduce wages. This is as clear as an equation: the larger the
> subtractor, the smaller the remainder.
>
> The truth is self-evident. Put this question to anyone capable of
> consecutive thought:
>
> "Suppose some land should arise from the English Channel. This land
> will remain unappropriated -- like the commons that once comprised a
> part of England. An unlimited number of workers can have free access
> to it. Here, a common laborer could make ten shillings a day. What
> would be the effect upon wages in England?"
>
> They would at once tell you that common wages throughout England must
> soon rise to ten shillings a day.
>
> Ask, "What would be the effect on rents?"
>
> After a moment's reflection, they would tell you, "Rents must fall."
>
> If they thought out the next step, they would tell you that all this
> would happen without much labor being diverted to the new natural
> opportunities. Nor would the forms and direction of industry change
> much. The only loss would be the kind of production that now yields,
> to labor and landlord together, less than labor could secure on the
> new opportunities.
>
> The great rise in wages would be at the expense of rent.
>
> Next take some hardheaded business owners who have no theories, but
> know how to make money. Say to them: "Here is a little village. In ten
> years, it will be a great city. The railroad and the electric light
> are coming; it will soon abound with all the machinery and
> improvements that enormously multiply the effective power of labor."
>
> Now ask: "Will interest be any higher?"
>
> "No!"
>
> "Will the wages of common labor be any higher?"
>
> "No," they will tell you. "On the contrary, chances are they will be
> lower. It will not be easier for a mere laborer to make an independent
> living; chances are it will be harder."
>
> "What, then, will be higher?" you ask.
>
> "Rent, and the value of land!"
>
> "Then what should I do?" you beg.
>
> "Get yourself a piece of ground, and hold on to it."
>
> If you take their advice under these circumstances, you need do
> nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around
> like an idler; you may go up in a balloon, or down a hole in the
> ground. Yet without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota
> to the wealth of the community -- in ten years you will be rich!
>
> In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion. But among its public
> buildings, will be an almshouse.
>
> In all our long investigation, we have been advancing to this simple truth:
>
> Land is required for the exertion of labor in the production of
> wealth. Therefore, to control the land is to command all the fruits of
> labor, except only enough to enable labor to continue to exist.
> We have been advancing as through enemy country, in which every step
> must be secured, every position fortified, and every bypath explored.
> This simple truth, and its application to social and political
> problems, is hidden from the masses -- hidden partly by its very
> simplicity. And in greater part by widespread fallacies and erroneous
> habits of thought. These lead us to look in every direction but the
> right one for an explanation of the evils that oppress and threaten
> the civilized world.
>
> In back of these elaborate fallacies and misleading theories is an
> active, energetic power. This is the power that writes laws and molds
> thought. It operates in every country, no matter what its political
> forms may be. It is the power of a vast and dominant financial
> interest.
>
> But this truth is so simple and clear, that to fully see it once is to
> recognize it always. There are pictures that, though looked at again
> and again, present only a confused pattern of lines. Or, perhaps they
> seem to be only a landscape, trees, or something of the kind. Then,
> attention is called to the fact that these things make up a face or a
> figure. Once this relation is recognized, it is always clear. It is so
> in this case.
>
> In the light of this truth, all social facts group themselves in an
> orderly relation. The most diverse phenomena are seen to spring from
> one great principle. It is not the relations of capital and labor, not
> the pressure of population against subsistence, that explains the
> unequal development of society.
>
> The great cause of inequality in the distribution of wealth is
> inequality in the ownership of land.
> Ownership of land is the great fundamental fact that ultimately
> determines the social, the political, and consequently the
> intellectual and moral condition of a people. And it must be so.
>
> For land is the home of humans, the storehouse we must draw upon for
> all our needs. Land is the material to which we must apply our labor
> to supply all our desires. Even the products of the sea cannot be
> taken, or the light of the sun enjoyed, or any of the forces of nature
> utilized, without the use of land or its products.
>
> On land we are born, from it we live, to it we return again. We are
> children of the soil as truly as a blade of grass or the flower of the
> field. Take away from people all that belongs to land, and they are
> but disembodied spirits. Material progress cannot rid us of our
> dependence on land; it can only add to our power to produce wealth
> from land.
>
> Hence, when land is monopolized, progress might go on to infinity
> without increasing wages or improving the condition of those who have
> only their labor. It can only add to the value of land and the power
> its possession gives.
>
> Everywhere, in all times, among all peoples, possession of land is the
> base of aristocracy, the foundation of great fortunes, the source of
> power. As the Brahmins said, ages ago:
>
> "To whomsoever the soil at any time belongs, to him belong the fruits
> of it. White parasols and elephants mad with pride are the flowers of
> a grant of land."
>
> --
>
> The Robin Smith Institute. Good News! A roadmap to The Free State
>
> The SFR Group. Practical steps towards real reform
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
“To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men.” -Ella
W. Willcox
http://colindonoghue.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20120311/a8d87000/attachment.html>