[Ocassus]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Pretty powerful group of "not very many other people", however, and if we are ever to fathom a more equal society, that power needs to be weakened.

Why? That power is legitimate insofar as it has been a product of voluntary transfers of utility. An equal society for the sake of equality is a fruitless tautology and you know it.

Well the UN Declaration isn't law, it's a set of moral and philosophical values that we subscribe to as part of the international community. As such the facepalm is yours rather than mine.

Well not really, considering a vast swathe of the UNs own members do not follow that particular code. The philosophical principles behind it are 'Because morality' and morality, being subjective, is as flimsy as a wet paper bag.

I do call it greed because that is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. The fringe group is so insignficant to society that we expend rather large sums protecting them because they are not in a position to contribute. Either we artificially exclude people from welfare - which is the standard rightist position - or we reduce their need to be dependent on it. Either way, I'm pretty certain that reducing the welfare budget through a reduction in need is economically quite significant in the grand scheme of things.

Except the former position emphasises negative freedom whilst the latter emphasises positive freedom. Positive freedom is communitarian and therefore coercive and somewhat fascistic in nature, the reduction in 'need' relies on the coercion of others. By the same token I could reduce the 'need' for child welfare benefits by forcibly sterilising people as in that other (nuts) thread, but thats positively ridiculous. You are limiting autonomy to preserve an abstract ideological desire, this is a bad thing.

You just use the word 'greed' rather than actual philosophical terms such as expressions of utility so you can fit it into a framework of your own morality, you might aswell be arguing in a different language because the term 'greed' with negative connotation relies solely on the moral standpoint and perspective of the onlooker. (Just so you know, the negative connotations of greed come from Religion, I wouldn't use that to base a moral argument on as that makes it even weaker).

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Why? That power is legitimate insofar as it has been a product of voluntary transfers of utility. An equal society for the sake of equality is a fruitless tautology and you know it.

Well it's tautological, sure, but I'm afraid I disagree with "fruitless". Progress towards an equal society is at the very heart of socialist beliefs.

Well not really, considering a vast swathe of the UNs own members do not follow that particular code. The philosophical principles behind it are 'Because morality' and morality, being subjective, is as flimsy as a wet paper bag.

Well they may not follow it but it doesn't make it any less appropriate or right.

Except the former position emphasises negative freedom whilst the latter emphasises positive freedom. Positive freedom is communitarian and therefore coercive and somewhat fascistic in nature, the reduction in 'need' relies on the coercion of others. By the same token I could reduce the 'need' for child welfare benefits by forcibly sterilising people as in that other (nuts) thread, but thats positively ridiculous. You are limiting autonomy to preserve an abstract ideological desire, this is a bad thing.

And you're insisting on the autonomy of a few to preserve an even more abstract ideological desire. So some rich people suffer the ignominy of only being able to own one house, it all balances out in the long run.

You just use the word 'greed' rather than actual philosophical terms such as expressions of utility so you can fit it into a framework of your own morality, you might aswell be arguing in a different language because the term 'greed' with negative connotation relies solely on the moral standpoint and perspective of the onlooker. (Just so you know, the negative connotations of greed come from Religion, I wouldn't use that to base a moral argument on as that makes it even weaker).

I use greed because I don't need to cloak my language in pseudo-academic gob****e to get the point across. Negative connotations of greed come from religion and that's bad? Right, well who thought up religion? Human beings just like you and me. It's an alternative strand of thought and an alternative philosophical stance to you, but that makes it no less strong. If you are uncomfortable with religion what about Rousseau or countless other philosophers who have elucidated the same point of view. Are they weak too because they do not fit with your ideology?

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Any estimation as the number of properties you would appropriate?

Quite difficult to get an estimate due to the nature of homelessness and trying to calculate the figures - the most up-to-date I can find is from 2003 and puts figures at between 310k and 380k (Hidden Homeless section). It'd be fair enough to say it'll have changed a fair bit over those years, but if we assume the current figures to be similar then over that many would be, to an extent, unnecessary.
It's impossible to work out how many of those are would be living together should housing be found mind.
Likewise the number of social projects an area may consider itself to need (Youth centres, allotments etc.) is arguable incalculable - but for the sake of figures there's roughly 5000 villages/towns in England (according to a google search), so another 10,000 should account for those projects (initially at least) - so I think around 350-360 thousand should be a decent approximation?

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
What is 'better use'? If they legitimately own property to merely appropriate it because some councillor thinks it's not being used enough is mere theft. It's like me breaking into your house and stealing your wedding dress because 'you haven't worn it since your wedding' and some people getting married 'can't afford a wedding dress'. It's exactly that same faulty logic applied to property and it's blatant theft.

Better use would be that which provides something to the community.
Not really, a Wedding dress has clear sentimental value and a reason for keeping but not using - housing, not so much.

We do ensure that all citizens have a roof over their head, through the Welfare system we have in place which includes housing benefit (guaranteed) for those that are poor, and the minimum income other than rent provided to everyone. Further to that, we have a tax system which actively discourages holding land.

But to an extent those that are homeless are "hidden" from the government - that is to say, very hard to trace, and so aren't necessarily going to be receiving such benefits.

Because otherwise, if you do wish to ensure that all citizens have a roof over their head, then you have to tax other things. This puts barriers in the way of people moving up the place and so really, you end up trapping people in poor economic circumstance, thus creating the need for the state to step in and so on ad infinitum.

Or cut spending elsewhere, or use up part of a budget surplus.
However - if people have a permanent place of residence, rather than a rather transient existence, would you not agree it is easier for them to be able to hold down a job and so then be able to contribute back into the economy?

It does stop them - since any increases in the value of the land (what people are speculating on) can't be captured by a private agent. They are captured in the tax. There is no possibility of making money through speculating on land - so tell me, who is going to do it?

Just looking through the bill that proposed the tax I think you're referring to (this one?) I don't see where in that bill the increase in value is taken in tax?

That isn't at all what this Bill is about. If it was the state stepping in and saying we'll underwrite the land market and buy stuff at a cost of those willing to sell, then it's a different matter (and still an entirely bad idea since it causes huge price distortions and skew incentives), but that isn't even it. This is the thieving of land from those who aren't willing to sell.

No it's not, it's not the purpose of the bill - but could it not be used in such a way and so arguably provide a benefit to those struggling to sell?

You've lost me. I'm genuinely confused here - some example would be nice?

Ok, assume you had a property - unused - on a reasonably sized piece of land - that would draw in a decent amount of tax i assume. But if that land were to be used as, for instance, a Youth Centre - you create jobs within the region (staffing of the centre), provide somewhere for young people to go and something to do - which could be argued reduces anti-social behaviour within the community

There's no net loss. You might argue that you lose a net gain to an extent, but there's no obligation to move out of a council house at any point - so there's no loss by that family staying in that house. At the same time you can drive hugely social mobility through the right to buy - since it allows those previously reliant on social housing an opportunity to get onto the property ladder at a discount - they can then move onwards and upwards. At the same time, you increase the stock of private housing and thus reduce the price of it, making it all the more affordable for those wishing to get onto the property ladder otherwise.

And, since there's increase in the waiting list since introduction, arguably start creating an underclass as you increase the ratio of households in need to existing council-houses and leave families stranded on the list.

This Bill does the opposite, and seeks to provide more social housing at the expense of private housing, and seeks to do it by theft. It's horribly divisive, re-enforces the poverty trap and kills any chance that many of the poorest have of moving up the property ladder. It shows the nastiest side of the Left into thinking that government can rightly take things that belong to other people - never mind all the ill thought out consequences. It's a Bill of killing aspiration and attempting to tackle the symptom, not the cause. It's like tackling appendicitis with ibuprofen.

I'd suggest that tackling the symptom in the immediate while trying to deal with the cause over time would be the way to go?

[Ocassus]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Well it's tautological, sure, but I'm afraid I disagree with "fruitless". Progress towards an equal society is at the very heart of socialist beliefs.

Progress to what somebody would idealise as an 'equal society' is at the core of Socialist beliefs, infact it is in some ways at the core of most Neoliberal and Libertarian beliefs aswell as Social Democratic ones. So that argument doesn't hold water, the left is so fractured on what it believes to be an 'equal society' that it really can't maintain the claim of objective 'equality for all' in their ideologies.

Well they may not follow it but it doesn't make it any less appropriate or right.

'My argument is a non-sequitur, but I'm still right'.

Well, er, no, you have to provide rational arguments that are atleast sound.

And you're insisting on the autonomy of a few to preserve an even more abstract ideological desire. So some rich people suffer the ignominy of only being able to own one house, it all balances out in the long run.

It isn't that abstract? Property rights are not abstract in the slightest, they can be boiled down to 'This = mine'. I am not insisting on the autonomy of the few either, that is a strawman, I am insisting on the autonomy of every human being. We all have the rights to the product of our utility as enshrined in laws that go beyond us as a species right into our ancestral forebears in the animal kingdom. Nothing 'balances out', stop trying to hand-wave away such a gross violation of liberty to fit with YOUR ideals.
Case in point, I lived in a different country for several years. We still owned our house here in the UK, why? Well firstly its location is extremely important to us, all of our family are nearby and when we moved back we might not have been able to support my now very sick grand mother because our house had been forcibly extorted from us by the state. See? I can play the moral card too, see how poor of an argument it makes?

I use greed because I don't need to cloak my language in pseudo-academic gob****e to get the point across.

'Pseudo-academic gob****e' - You mean the terms pretty much all economic and political philosophers used including Karl Marx? You're applying a moral standard where none is relevant nor needed.

Negative connotations of greed come from religion and that's bad? Right, well who thought up religion? Human beings just like you and mean. It's an alternative strand of thought and an alternative philosophical stance to you, but that makes it no less strong.

Well it does considering religion itself is not an argument grounded in rationality. We are human beings and we deal in rational argument, if you're going to say 'Well I'm going to be irrational when I justify my conclusions' then I might aswell pull out 'neener neener I'm right you're wrong', which is equally as irrational.

If you are uncomfortable with religion what about Rousseau or countless other philosophers who have elucidated the same point of view. Are they weak too because they do not fit with your ideology?

Irrational arguments are not irrational because of my opinion, they are irrational because they are logically unsound and possess one or multiple argumentative fallacies. 'Greed' as a psychological phenomenon would be a far better argument for you to take, but no, you're going to stick to your guns by sticking an arbitrary label onto something you don't like so you can feel morally superior and try to justify the gross destruction of liberty on the part of the state with it.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ocassus)
'Pseudo-academic gob****e' - You mean the terms pretty much all economic and political philosophers used including Karl Marx? You're applying a moral standard where none is relevant nor needed.

Simple answer to that, I'm not a philosopher of either economics or politics. I'm a historian. Different code of language altogether.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Simple answer to that, I'm not a philosopher of either economics or politics. I'm a historian. Different code of language altogether.

Well then accept that you haven't really provided a good sound argument as to why this bill should be passed and move on? I mean if you can't use and apply the terms correctly and instead just go around slapping a big moral badge on everything in accordance with irrational, subjective principles then I don't think you should be voting yes or no on this particular bill. Given that it concerns Economics and Politics quite a bit.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Well then accept that you haven't really provided a good sound argument as to why this bill should be passed and move on? I mean if you can't use and apply the terms correctly and instead just go around slapping a big moral badge on everything in accordance with irrational, subjective principles then I don't think you should be voting yes or no on this particular bill. Given that it concerns Economics and Politics quite a bit.

Actually, I'm not going to vote since I'm not an MP so either way you really are and were wasting your time. I ceased listening to you a while back. However, were I actually willing to play ball with you we might have started somewhere along these lines (Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754):

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

This=mine, after all, isn't the best way of doing things.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Actually, I'm not going to vote since I'm not an MP so either way you really are and were wasting your time. I ceased listening to you a while back.

So you ceased listening to rational argument/ceased creating a decent rebut. Man, you don't get this debate thing so good do you?

[JPKC]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Except the former position emphasises negative freedom whilst the latter emphasises positive freedom. Positive freedom is communitarian and therefore coercive and somewhat fascistic in nature, the reduction in 'need' relies on the coercion of others. By the same token I could reduce the 'need' for child welfare benefits by forcibly sterilising people as in that other (nuts) thread, but thats positively ridiculous. You are limiting autonomy to preserve an abstract ideological desire, this is a bad thing.

You just use the word 'greed' rather than actual philosophical terms such as expressions of utility so you can fit it into a framework of your own morality, you might aswell be arguing in a different language because the term 'greed' with negative connotation relies solely on the moral standpoint and perspective of the onlooker. (Just so you know, the negative connotations of greed come from Religion, I wouldn't use that to base a moral argument on as that makes it even weaker).

The negative opinion you have of coercion is also philosophically relativistic. A generally distrust of greed can be justified by what an act of greed constitites in a social environment. Acting for one's self is not greedy per se, but doing so in spite of others is. This is what human beings, as social creatures, are naturally inclined to dislike. Why? Evolutionary psychology, my dear Watson. Regardless of whether a utopia of greed is plausible, it's not difficult to explain why the idea of it is resented by so many. If all our behaviour was motivated by self-interest, those with the most to gain from acting in such a way would have a clear advantage. If you think that a person's capacity to benefit from being selfish is determined by the decisions they make then you are incorrect; autonomy doesn't really exist in the way libertarians like to think it does. We act in the way we are conditioned to by our various experiences, our will and intellect has very little input. The biggest illusion is that of self-control.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ocassus)
So you ceased listening to rational argument/ceased creating a decent rebut. Man, you don't get this debate thing so good do you?

Well no, I ceased listening to you and ceased bothering to make much of an effort. That's not the same as having ceased listening (or reading, in fact) to rational argument. My discussion was with jesusandtequila rather than yourself and I shall pick it back up with him. Whilst this little diversionary dance was certainly a diversion, I can't pretend that I ever had any interest in talking to you.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by JPKC)
The negative opinion you have of coercion is also philosophically relativistic. A generally distrust of greed can be justified by what an act of greed constitites in a social environment. Acting for one's self is not greedy per se, but doing so in spite of others is.

Well thats a lovely black and white definition you have there. My parents are important to me, if I hurt others for their benefit (IE perhaps to protect them for example) then which category do I fall under? Acting for oneself can involve acting for other people, and one human being does not treat all other human beings as the same as equal. Your explanation of greed as a negative trait falls flat because acting in ones interest is not strictly defined by the acquisition of physical goods, nor is it defined by 'subjective' violence (Read some Zizek if you want to know this particular dichotomy). I don't give **** about some people, but do give a **** about other people. I express my autonomy as an individual by helping the people I give a **** about, if I do so in spite of other people who I don't give a **** about, well, thats self fulfilling isn't it? I don't give a **** about them so why should it matter as opposed to the people I do give a **** about?

My distrust of coercion is grounded firmly in the preservation of autonomy and utilitarianism, humans want to use their autonomy to maximise happiness and minimise pain. Somebody else imposing or limiting anothers autonomy to do this is inherently anti-autonomy and therefore anti-freedom. If you can provide me with an alternative plausible conclusion, then we can move off into a debate from there. I've got nothing to go on from you right now. Though I must warn you, most anti-freedom arguments that branch off of the above tend towards either fascism or some form of authoritarianism. Neither of which is very pleasant.

This is what human beings, as social creatures, are naturally inclined to dislike. Why? Evolutionary psychology, my dear Watson. Regardless of whether a utopia of greed is plausible, it's not difficult to explain why the idea of it is resented by so many. If all our behaviour was motivated by self-interest, those with the most to gain from acting in such a way would have a clear advantage. If you think that a person's capacity to benefit from being selfish is determined by the decisions they make then you are incorrect; autonomy doesn't really exist in the way libertarians like to think it does. We act in the way we are conditioned to by our various experiences, our will and intellect has very little input. The biggest illusion is that of self-control.

You assume I am not a determinist, on the contrary, it actually enhances my argument in that human beings are inherently built to want certain things for happiness and to avoid certain things for fear of 'pain'. What formulates what these things of happiness and pain are is twofold. The first is natural, things that naturally human beings respond to like sex and physical harm. The second is societal, things that our surroundings build into us that are 'good' and 'bad'.
All human beings act in a form of self-interest, for even the most altruistic act stems from a desire on the part of the person doing the act. Human beings don't 'dislike' this, on the contrary, we have it built into us. Unfortunately both of us are delving into this 'human nature' fallacy a little too deep for my liking, but I will say that our social positions in the animal kingdom are pseudo mirrors of the positions we have in society. There is a hierarchy in all of our evolutionary forebears, and the 'alpha' controls the food, the territory, the membership of the group and the distribution of sexual partners. The difference today of course is that instead of the alpha male being rooted in strength, it is rooted in other things such as perceived attractiveness (partially natural, mostly societal), monetary utility, intelligence etcetera. We are built to maximise our own utility, and I think you will find it hard to deny that fact.

The idea is resented primarily because of religion, but in actual fact even the people who preached greed as an evil were subject to a form of hedonistic impulse, it is an inescapable fact that all action, including those of altruism, comes from a desire. The only change we as a society make is what some of those desires are.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Well no, I ceased listening to you and ceased bothering to make much of an effort. That's not the same as having ceased listening (or reading, in fact) to rational argument. My discussion was with jesusandtequila rather than yourself and I shall pick it back up with him. Whilst this little diversionary dance was certainly a diversion, I can't pretend that I ever had any interest in talking to you.

So, in a public debating forum I might add, you are literally picking and choosing your opponents on a whim? I can't really argue with that, but forgive my personal indignance, especially considering you have failed to provide a substantive argument against mine, you are instead going to continue on with Jesus & Tequila, a Libertarian like myself who is unlikely to give much credence to willful ignorance of basic philosophical principles.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Ocassus)
So, in a public debating forum I might add, you are literally picking and choosing your opponents on a whim? I can't really argue with that, but forgive my personal indignance, especially considering you have failed to provide a substantive argument against mine, you are instead going to continue on with Jesus & Tequila, a Libertarian like myself who is unlikely to give much credence to willful ignorance of basic philosophical principles.

Yep, call it liberty if you will.

[RoryS]

A definite aye over here.

[Rakas21]

Now that we have a reasonable sggested number of appropriations could a Socialist tell me over how long they plan to enact these apropriations (immediately or over 10 years ect...).

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Rakas21)
Now that we have a reasonable sggested number of appropriations could a Socialist tell me over how long they plan to enact these apropriations (immediately or over 10 years ect...).

It'd have to be staggered over a period of years, the financial implications & logistics of enacting all the "necessary" (for want of a better word) appropriations in one fell swoop would be unworkable. Considering any renovations that may need to be done to make the properties liveable (you'd assume if the property has been left so long as to be categorised as abandoned there'd be a few bits that would need to be done up, such as wiring and plumbing, to ensure it's in a decent condition to house people), to appropriate all would be difficult to work and maybe cause a backlog of properties to be then checked over.
The actual time period would be dependent on how the need for more housing is spread about the country.

[Rakas21]

Do you in that case have an aim for the period of time?

[Rakas21]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/gra...ouse-price.php

With the information provided i believe that we can now make a reasonable cost to part 1 based on the assertion in post 63 that 380,000 homes would be required at an average price of £167k (link at top).

Simple multiplication suggests a cost to part 1 of £63.46bn, applying the fact that you only pay 80% then that becomes £50.768bn (round to £50.8bn for simplistic purposes).

Now we do have a reasonable fiscal cost of £2.9bn each year until 2027 for part 3 but given that prices will rise in the long term i am curious as to what time period you plan to enact part 1 over and how you plan to manage the fiscal cost though being fair we should allow you to use today's prices.

I should note that i will still be voting against the bill due to the horrific assault on economic liberty which it entails.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation

[Metrobeans]

Division!!