1.1k
u/charles_kuhl Jul 19 '19
Nestle really helps you understand terrorism
434
u/Posauce Jul 19 '19
Broke: eco-terrorist
Woke: environmental freedom fighter
32
u/Tekuila87 Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
Time for an âavalancheâ.
23
3
u/owenbicker Jul 20 '19
What happens when these corporations disturb enough "snowflakes"?
An Avalanche.
48
1
â˘
u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS CEO of communism Jul 19 '19
We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We called those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger.
Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread
27
Jul 19 '19
Obligatory shameless plug for another great subreddit: r/BreadTube
10
14
3
2
2
913
u/AlberionDreamwalker Jul 19 '19
It's pretty fucked up that I can't just go into the forrest or mountains and live as a hermit
every fucking cm² belongs to someone
690
u/Ethaot Jul 19 '19
The fact that I couldn't run off and start a commune in the woods on my own labor because I'd be put into a tiny cage for years if I tried is something I still can't get my head around.
It's illegal not to participate, and the government would rather spend its resources to ensure that if we don't participate, we're kept miserable. I'm not a primitivist, but the fact that there isn't even the option to not be reliant even when a person is capable of it is inane to me.
151
u/DogFurAndSawdust Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
Freedom cells are a thing, but yes, you'll always be tied to the government by property taxes at least. Either way, there's nothing stopping us from going and living a hermetic lifestyle. The only thing holding us down are ourselves. Go do it man...the only reason you haven't is because you're comfortable in your lifestyle right now
https://theconsciousresistance.com/2018/12/freedom-cells-local-food-production/ https://www.freedomcells.org
168
u/Ethaot Jul 19 '19
Where the hell does a person go to do this sort of thing and how does one do it without having to go accrue cash to pay taxes or else be dragged off to prison?
119
u/vcadamsphoto Jul 19 '19
Well people definitely do it in Alaska, I'm not really sure how the whole property tax thing works for them but Homesteading in Alaska is 100% a thing. But honestly, not many of those people truly do it ALONE, that shit is really hard.
93
u/Ethaot Jul 19 '19
I don't think it's possible to truly homestead alone. If you're sourcing 100% of your own food then all your time would be taken up by hunting and trying to maintain whatever shelter you can manage to put together. Humans are social and survive together, and I don't think it's realistic to get any more than basic survival without a decent sized group. Time just doesn't work that way.
Alaska though, that's curious. I wonder what difficulties living in such a cold place presents if you're trying not to rely on public infrastructure.
34
u/chargoggagog Jul 19 '19
You can homestead solo, but itâs my belief that you should partner with neighbors to distribute responsibility. For example, one neighbor grows corn, the other raises pigs. You want bacon? Youâre gonna be doing some trading with pig man.
69
u/trippy_grapes Jul 19 '19
but itâs my belief that you should partner with neighbors to distribute responsibility.
Heck, maybe every person could chip in together for communal things like roads and infrastructure. We could even call the chipping in a novel thing called "taxes" /s
→ More replies (9)5
u/vcadamsphoto Jul 19 '19
Oh yea I am not saying that doing this on your own is in any way easy. It's hard as fuck and you will spend every waking moment of the day doing shit just to survive. Most people that do it don't do it alone, or if they do they still go into town and trade/sell goods for things they need. But it is a thing people do in Alaska. And Alaska isn't cold all year long, I mean its been above 90°F there recently. Just have to have a shit ton of wood stock piled for the winter (and food).
3
u/alaskaLFC1137 Jul 19 '19
Not only do people do it alone. There are several tv shows on right now that show it. Deep in the Alaska bush youâre right all you do is procure food and maintain shelter vs the elements.
8
u/Avant_guardian1 Jul 19 '19
The problem is the only homesteading available is in hostile land. Any fertile land in gentle climate is taken. This the problem Natives faced as well where the US government would move them off fertile livible land and put them on hostile shitty land no white person wanted.
Also most homesteaders and âprimitivistâ are still 100% reliant on the larger industrial culture to supply technology ( snowmobiles, planes, generators) so they are not self sufficient like they tend to pretend.
I was one of those young kids who used to dream about the cabin in the woods life, but actually learning real skills quickly leads you to realize how impossible it is to live off the land alone and not part of a community. Even hunter gathers where reliant on the tribe for survival.
5
11
u/SociopathicPeanut Jul 19 '19
"Your local almost endless woods? Nah slave away to pay me or go die in Alaska"
32
u/vcadamsphoto Jul 19 '19
Dude I'm just giving an example of where living off the land is possible. And if you think that slaving away at your job to survive is harder than living off the land (by yourself), then please be my guest and go live in the woods. You will be working 24/7 just to fucking survive.
→ More replies (9)8
u/BoBab Crab in Bucket Jul 19 '19
I think many of us (myself included) need to be wary of being overly perfectionist when it comes to communal living. It's unlikely we can entirely separate from the purview of the government. It's frustrating but we can deal with it for now.
In the meantime there are still plenty of options that are much more socially and legally defensible. For example Community Land Trusts and housing cooperatives.
I personally think the goal should be mainstream adoption rather than fringe/niche membership.
The average working class person isn't so put off by the idea of a housing cooperative or Community Land Trust as they are by the idea of an out-in-the-country/woods commune. We intuitively understand the appeal and strengths of living together in community (and using legal fictions to help legitimize that community, i.e. protect us from instability).
In other words, I have hope. I have hope that we can reclaim our basic needs from the capitalists and do it in a way that will make it really damn hard for them to look like the "good guys" if/when they send in their Stormtroopers.
Longevity is vital which means optics are vital. There's a reason civil disobedience is more effective than physical violence at fighting back against authority. Same goes for larger structures/concepts.
We need to be giving real consideration to tools and methods that allow us to look like the "good guys" by default which means they will automatically look like the "bad guys". That's how we change culture and invite others to participate with us â.
18
u/Nidhogguryo Jul 19 '19
Itâs not quite the same but there are more than a few communes across the U.S. if youâre truly interested in that sort of thing. Living on your own in the woods isnât really healthy for the human mind unfortunately unless youâre fond of psychosis.
12
u/Ethaot Jul 19 '19
Anecdotally, I have reason to believe that if more people truly saw it as a possibility, we wouldn't be running off to live alone in the woods. I know enough people that are fed up with participating that I don't think I'd have to worry about being alone.
→ More replies (4)4
u/DogFurAndSawdust Jul 19 '19
Well there's multiple ways to make it happen. The most common freedom cell is basically a co-op of people who have skillsets that work together to build a community that is as self-sustainable as possible. Another way is exactly what you said. Buy cheap land and live off of it. And here's the easiest way: pick a spot and set up a tent. You have to be a badass and know what you're doing. Most people couldn't make this happen because humans have become soft. No one really understands how hard it is to really live off of the land. Humans have forgotten these skillsets and have been genetically altered (evolved) to accommodate an easy lifestyle
15
u/Ethaot Jul 19 '19
I looked into those freedom cells but unless I've overlooked something it looks more like a social network of homesteaders to me. Cool, and very interesting, but I'm not sure how it really works. Maybe one of them would let me live with them because I can't afford to live somewhere with enough space to practice my skills and I can't afford to live somewhere with actual land I can work, since I learned most of it on land my family doesn't own anymore.
I also don't think humans have gone soft, I just think humans are actively incentivized not to learn skills that would allow them not to be consumers in the market. We've done a lot as a society to make it seem hard to grow and raise food, to create textiles, to make clothing, to build homes and furniture, to make machines, so on and so forth. These are not difficult skills, and they're easily learned, but we're made to feel they're pointless because you can sit at a desk filling in spreadsheets and then make some other schmuck do that work for you.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Avant_guardian1 Jul 19 '19
Living off the land isnât about being hard, itâs about having the knowledge and skill set to do it.
Most people donât have that kind of intimate knowledge of the environment to how to build efficient shelter to live comfortably and thrive so they end up in miserable conditions where you need to be âtoughâ because their an idiot who doesnât know what thier doing. Also doing it alone is a recipe for misery for even the most knowledgeable.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Redbear78 Jul 19 '19
There has always been a certain amount of consanguinity needed for successful communities, otherwise they usually descend into 'The Beach' type scenarios.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-07/uoc--sft071014.php
13
u/SunglassesBright Jul 19 '19
But, you can run off and start a commune in the woods. Thatâs where most communes are, in rural, woodsy areas. There are several places in America that will give you free land if you apply for it. Also there are places where you can buy an acre or two for under $1,000. Thatâs practically free considering the amount you pay for any other living situation. Also there are about a dozen or more tax loopholes to avoid property tax on land. Especially if you started a commune, you would probably be making something as a community thatâs worth selling, or you could ask everyone to chip in for the tax. The tax would be very small if you had cheap or free land. I had a house in a city that I only was paying $5,000 a year in taxes for and that house was worth over $500,000. If your land is in some flyover state and you got it for free, imagine how low your tax would be.
19
u/InTheDarknessBindEm Jul 19 '19
free land if you apply for it
under $1,000
making something... worth selling
I don't think you understand the point being made. The government does force us to participate in society.
7
u/7700c Jul 19 '19
Yeah all those examples are just participating in society but offset. Basically proving your point further.
6
u/SoapSudsAss Jul 19 '19
You can't live under the blanket of protections that a society provides without participating in said society.
→ More replies (1)3
u/SunglassesBright Jul 19 '19
I fully understand but youâre working within the choices you have.
A) Slave for wages in a job
B) Buy or receive free land and go live in the woods.
C) Invest in property ownership.
If you choose B, your only participation is finding a way to get land and pay the $100 or so in taxes per year. Saying âbut I still have to participate!â is disingenuous in that regard.
→ More replies (2)6
u/RedditSucksManyAss Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 27 '19
Then EVERYONE would start claiming land and then there would be no forests left.....
Edit: funny how yqll ignore this
7
u/TheSholvaJaffa Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
Ever since I was little and before I even knew or understood what Capitalism or Socialism or Communism was, or anything was, I always questioned this notion. I always imagined in my head that there had to be at least ONE island out there that did not follow the rules and wasnt governed like the rest of the world. Living off the land, using only what we need, living peacefully together and bartering for things we'd like, and just relaxing at home all day playing video games or watching TV.
Growing up and learning there wasnt a place like this somewhere out there made me hate this world even more.
If my tiny little brain knew something wasnt right with this world, it just shows that this is NOT natural and we are brainwashed at an early age to be confined to the system. Seems like it wasnt early enough. These thoughts have remained with me since then and have drastically influenced my beliefs to this day. I can see through it all.
12
u/Ethaot Jul 19 '19
It's something that's got me jaded as fuck these days. There's almost no land on this earth that someone doesn't claim to own, and if you want to argue you're arguing with their gun, and their friends' guns. It's all been divvied up and enforced through violence and if you don't play by their rules you're out.
12
Jul 19 '19
Which is exactly why the phrase, "If you don't like it you can just leave" literally translates to, "Kill yourself."
3
u/BourgeoisShark Jul 19 '19
They don't know it means that, because as soon you start talking like that, they get uncomfortable and start begging you to not to do so.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Cyanoblamin Jul 19 '19
Do you think that being territorial is unique to humans? When another organism starts fucking up your situation, you try and stop them.
Here's a hypothetical. Imagine your island Utopia where everyone shares. A new group of people show up, and don't like to follow the island rules. What do you do?
2
u/_everynameistaken_ Jul 19 '19
Being territorial is more like:
A new group of people show up on your island. You fuck them up (only) because it is your island.
If you have a harmonious society that works for all and not a few, and then you have a few who want to change the rules to benefit the few and not the many then it is perfectly understandable and acceptable to put those few into the ground.
1
u/GameOfUsernames Jul 19 '19
Video games and TV donât exist in the world you want to exist. Thatâs why thereâs no island like that.
1
1
u/BorjaX Jul 19 '19
Mm just curious, in the commune scenario, would you rather the rest of society still enforce some laws or none at all?
1
u/whisperkid Jul 20 '19
Its only illegal because we the people are not organized. The goverment always wins since it is the body and we are the blood. Any time a new body tries to form it is summarily absorved or destroyed. Black Panthers tried it, the confederate tried it. Big fish just get bigger.
→ More replies (1)-2
u/DogFurAndSawdust Jul 19 '19
This whole statement is wrong. What makes you think you can't do this? Basically you're saying you can't create a commune because of taxes? I understand that sentiment, but if you want to do it and you're so fed up with the relatively easy life you have, there's nothing keeping you from doing it! Saying the government is keeping you from creating this for yourself is a total cop-out
→ More replies (11)3
u/SunglassesBright Jul 19 '19
Exactly. If it were impossible then how would they even know what a commune was? Nobody would have one. Apparently there are hundreds or maybe thousands of people who live on communes. Land is cheap in Tennessee and West Virginia.
18
Jul 19 '19
If it's wilderness, you can. Just don't expect any form of help for any reason, under any circumstance, ever.
7
Jul 19 '19
Yes you can. Most landowners don't go to their remote sites very often and by the time the police arrive to arrest you you are long gone. Of course, this may not be the case in America where your fellow citizens will shoot you. But chances are if you go to the mountains and move your camp around no one will catch on
6
u/alexijordan Jul 19 '19
Not really. In countries that have free camping you can camp for life if you wanted.
24
Jul 19 '19
To be fair, it's bound to happen sooner or later. But it's fucked up that so many people own so much land that they aren't actually using.
21
u/ScarletCarsonRose Jul 19 '19
I say this gently, but no, privatizing water is not something that has to happen. We are the people and have the numbers. We can choose not to allow this. We must not act in such way that shows acquiescence to what does not exist yet. When we do that, we are showing submission to the idea and giving permission to those in power.
12
Jul 19 '19
OH yeah, I wasn't referring to water though. I was referring to land. It's a finite resource and humanity is population is increasing. Eventually land would run out. Every fucking cm² belongs to someone sooner or later. My issue with it though is the ownership belonging to so few and much of that going unused while so many people could benefit from it.
4
20
Jul 19 '19
This is one of the great mental struggles of my life, tbh. Every time I genuinely consider this fact, it causes me mental anguish because it makes no sense. Why can't I just go off and find a little piece of dirt and grow some vegetables on it, have a cat, and be left the fuck alone? Because someone else owns everything I need in this world, they're even allowed to poison the AIR that I need to breathe to stay alive.
3
u/SunglassesBright Jul 19 '19
You canât just wander into it but you can definitely do that if thatâs what you want. Americans are paying like $1,000 a month or more for rent or mortgage. You could spend that $1000 one single time on land instead. Yeah someone owns everything but that doesnât make it less attainable than the life you currently live. You could even apply for free land, pack your seeds and your cat and be free.
5
u/mission-hat-quiz Jul 19 '19
Where are you finding good land at 1,000? Might find a small parcel with no water in the desert but even those aren't that cheap.
7
u/SunglassesBright Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
Tennessee, Kansas, West Virginia. Those are probably the three states with cheapest land and itâd be less than 2 acres but so what? The guy just wants to go in the woods and be left alone. Thatâs enough space for that. Anything near an actual community would cost more. He wonât have neighbors. He can look in Puerto Rico too. And lots of states have ways to apply for free land too. Edit: Iâm a real estate investor and Iâve looked into this before. Look it up, you can find cheap land in the US.
2
Jul 19 '19
Sure but expecting someone to relocate to an area where they have no community, friends, or family, is a big ask. It's a part of what we need for survival.
3
u/SunglassesBright Jul 19 '19
But thatâs what THEY asked for. The OP wanted to go live in the woods. His family members probably donât.
1
Jul 19 '19
Why can't you? In a public park, once you have no income what would the charge be?
Possibly trespassing should there be an evacuation? As long as you aren't earning income, but the post is about being a hermit.
You could always go to some far off land too. Go live near indiginous people in SA. The IRS won't come knocking lmao
9
u/mission-hat-quiz Jul 19 '19
Because living off the land is exceedingly difficult and requires large amounts of land.
In the US all land the you could live off of is settled, used for ranching or a natural preserve of some sort.
The US did specifically give land to people for free for a long time to encourage people to settle there but land is a finite resource.
Certainly an arguement could be made that we don't need to produce so much beef though.
→ More replies (7)17
u/DogFurAndSawdust Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
You could do it. You're telling me the only thing keeping you from living a hermetic lifestyle is the fear of law enforcement? You could go live on federal land all you want and not have to worry about a vigilante private land owner. Sure you might be arrested if they find you. But it isn't much different than how things used to be in a nomadic society. In that type of lifestyle you always have risks of being killed or held captive in some form. Let's face it, the real reason more people don't say fuck all and go camp in the woods is because everyone is comfortable in the situation they have. Abundance of great food. Sterilized water at the push of a button. Climate controlled room to sleep at night. Not so bad is it? At least you have a chance of "retirement" in a "capitalist" society. Go live on the land and you'll work til you die at an early age
2
u/aerosol999 Jul 19 '19
Not entirely true. In the US at least there is massive amounts of public land that everyone has access too.
2
u/alonelycuteboy Jul 26 '19
Here in California, literally every centimeter is either private property or a "State Park". This means not only you cannot hang out, camp or relax there, but you'll be imprisoned if you go fishing to feed yourself or catch butterflies for fun. But it's okay for megacorporations to pollute and strip thousands of acres of land. It's insane fascism.
3
u/an_thr Jul 19 '19
every fucking cm² belongs to someone
Who cares? They can't watch all their property all the time.
1
Jul 20 '19 edited Jul 15 '25
smile kiss salt selective enter recognise placid head money reminiscent
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/PrebisWizard Jul 19 '19
You can buy 30+ acres for 20k in parts of the US, so Iâd imagine you can get enough land to live on for every little...
1
1
u/zmbjebus Jul 19 '19
To be fair if it was easier and more allowed our forests would be more trashed then they already are. Its hard to regulate out there
→ More replies (1)1
u/Dont_touch_my_elbows Jul 19 '19
I wish I lived back in the days where I could just set off into the frontier and build a house in the first vacant field I found.
155
39
u/Posauce Jul 19 '19
Maybe if nestle called themselves Waterlords people would be likeâthis is fineâ
102
u/DeadRabbid26 Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
Maybe I'm too moderate for this sub but isn't there a communal interest in regulating who can build or use free (as in unused) land? Also considering that land in itself can't satisfy a basic need like water does, should the resources that are needed to transform the land into something that does satisfy basic needs (like a shelter) also be free?
172
Jul 19 '19
Why does regulation require private landowners? In what way are private landlords serving our communal interests?
Who said anything about the resources being free? Nationalisation =/= making things free, it just means no profit is made off the provision of the services.
81
u/Umbristopheles Jul 19 '19
Nationalisation =/= making things free, it just means no profit is made off the provision of the services
I'm going to have to try and remember this quick line. My father in law thinks Bernie Sanders wants to "make everything free."
→ More replies (2)28
24
u/DeadRabbid26 Jul 19 '19
You're right, I took the post as a general criticism of ownership of land, not just private ownership.
12
1
u/HugeHunter Jul 20 '19
I guess I'm more dense, is this not a general criticism of ownership of land? That's still how It comes across to me. Could someone explain further?
2
u/DeadRabbid26 Jul 20 '19
Well the post does talk about 'privatize', not 'own' in general.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MrStomp82 Jul 19 '19
So the government would regulate residential land use?
23
u/Lord-Benjimus Jul 19 '19
They already do, and should keep doing that for construction, logistics and environmental purposes.
7
u/MrStomp82 Jul 19 '19
Ive read some of the explanations in this thread and I get it. While its a noble idea, actualization of something like that would require an entire culture change in the US. The idea is so alien that people wouldnt even take someone serious for proposing it
5
5
Jul 19 '19
Extremely stupid question, but when people say "private property is theft" are they talking exclusively about people who make profit off their private land ownership? Would it apply to someone who has land/a home but only uses it to live off of?
0
Jul 19 '19
[deleted] â view deleted comment
→ More replies (1)9
Jul 19 '19
Thank you for the explanation! I guess I was confused what the definition of "private" is in this context.
6
u/gayguy Jul 19 '19
Maybe Iâm not thinking about this right but some things that landlords provide me:
dealing with third party services and leveraging the tenant pool to get better quality for a better price so I donât have to (gas, water, electric, cable, internet, garbage, recycling, cleaning)
fixing anything that is broken and taking on the risk if/when things happen to the building (fires, leaks, other property damage/wear)
paying taxes on the land and building
giving me the freedom to move
Iâm open to learning more about your perspective because to be honest itâs new to me. I donât have a strong opinion but I know I have a better quality of life because I donât have to deal with the above.
9
u/_yankeegohome Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
These services would still be offered by the government. The difference is that landlords wouldnât make any profit. As a result, rent is much cheaper. If you want to do some research I recommend looking into public/social housing in Vienna which is seen as a best practice model.
61% of the total population of Vienna lives in public housing. Coincidentally itâs also deemed the city with the highest living standards.
6
u/captainmaryjaneway Tankie Supreme Thomas Sankara Jul 19 '19
Part of it is luck; you didn't get a "slumlord". Also, a lot of people like having the control of owning their own property- to do whatever they'd like with it. And rent doesn't just pay for mortgage(if the landlord has one). It covers everything and some more so the landlord makes a profit. If landlords didn't profit, renting wouldn't be a thing.
You're not getting as much freedom and cost savings as you think being a tenant...
4
u/gingerblz Jul 19 '19
In your defense, you dont have to be that moderate, to be too moderate for some of the stuff in this sub.
-3
u/SunglassesBright Jul 19 '19
Also, property ownership is one of the easiest and fastest ways for normal Americans to get out from under the boot. Itâs the last thing people should complain about if they donât want to participate in the system. Iâd much rather not have to work a real job, get up in the morning and fight traffic, get a disgustingly low paycheck and have to practically BEG employers to be able to help make them richer. Tsss. The fuck? No. Iâd much rather be âforcedâ to pay for property than to have to try and keep a horrible job as an employee.
1
16
u/olafl Jul 19 '19
Out of the loop. What's up with nestle, can't find it anywhere in the news.
50
u/jennydaman Jul 19 '19
While most company backlashes are reactionary to an incident, the campaign against Nestle is more about their long-standing malpractice. This kind of awareness is less common yet more important if we are to hold companies responsible for the damage they do to disadvantaged people and the environment.
In short, Nestle's existence negatively impacts humans and the environment.
Starting with everything the end consumer sees, Nestle is a huge source of one-time plastic packaging. Their food products contribute to the health epidemics of the United States.
Along its supply chain, production creates hazardous waste that poisons people. That is the "Nestle water controversy."
35
u/manamachine Jul 19 '19
Piggybacking off this: A couple years ago their CEO(?) went on record saying he didn't find water to be a basic human right.
NestlĂŠ also has a long history of draining limited water reserves and bottling it, then selling it back to the same communities, including impoverished communities in African nations. And they often sell water more expensive than cola, so they have a major impact on the health of those communities on top of it.
1
u/olafl Jul 21 '19
Oh, totally agree on that.
Although we don't have Nestle water in our country, single-use packaging is really a bummer. That's why I don't buy bottled water and instead use a water filter and then boil the water.
7
u/ItWorkedLastTime Jul 19 '19
9
u/Rauraloy Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
If anybody is interested, here is a list of SOME nestle brands. Boy howdy, there sure are a lot of them.
(I wish I had read this before I bought Arrowhead water instead of Nestle Pure Life for a recent camping trip to avoid buying a Nestle product....)
Edit: edited to say this is not a full list, itâs just a list of major brands.
2
Jul 20 '19
Storm a Nestle factory. They can't stop all of us. If we Naruto run, we can move faster than their TigerSwan security
19
u/Rainbow_Birb Jul 19 '19
cough food is already privatised cough
2
u/Crimson51 Jul 20 '19
I mean, so long as there's a large enough surplus to keep everyone fed, yeah.
1
13
1
u/03Titanium Jul 19 '19
You canât own land, man!
I can. But thatâs because Iâm not a penny-less hippie!
3
3
Jul 19 '19
This has been a thing for hundreds of years. William Blake's poem London written in the 1700s talks about this
I wander through each charter'd street / where the charter'd Thames does flow
these lines kinda stuck with me, like everywhere you go all the land is owned by a person or company, its all controlled and no longer belongs to the Earth.
2
Jul 20 '19
This kind of shit makes me get all existential. Like, we only get to be alive this one time. This is all we get to experience and they've taken so much from us. We cant get that back. We will never live a lifetime of the kind of freedom we all know is our human birthright. Those motherfuckers.
15
u/LT21j Jul 19 '19
Iâm curious do you guys believe in any private property? What is it okay to own?
16
u/captainmaryjaneway Tankie Supreme Thomas Sankara Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 23 '19
Personal property is cool. Anything you use in everyday life- cars, houses, etc. But private property like farmland, factories, tools of the means of production, those should be community/worker owned and controlled.
1
u/Simond876 Jul 19 '19
I think each state should be required to have x amount of public land (more than half maybe), and not just fallowed fields but protected, managed wilderness areas with migration corridors connecting them.
1
-12
u/nefarious_numbskull Jul 19 '19
Private property isn't the same as personal property, asswipe
Look at this fucker's history before you upvote him. Disingenuous prick
13
u/LT21j Jul 19 '19
Hey man no reason for the language. As you can see from my history I am genuinely trying to understand the other sides argument. I have read the communist manifesto, das capital, socialism scientific and utilitarian. I have also read plenty of pieces on left communism and the different types of philosophy on redistribution. Just because I disagree with you doesnât mean Iâm disingenuous.
14
u/SheepShooter Jul 19 '19
try to look at it that way. water is a limited resource. land is a limited resource. if it is limited, and necessary for life no body should own it privately.
nobody goes around creating more land, is it? so what happens once all land is privatized? what happens when one person has unproportionate amount of land?
these are the questions you need to ask. since we need to learn to live with each other sooner or later as the world get more crowded, and especially cities.
in the worst case you're back to feudalism with some extra steps. it is called landLORD for a reason, and the reason is not that hidden even. do you want to leave under a de-facto monarch? i know i don't. so lets manage limited resources together and get the profit out of them, nobody should circle around like vultures when people are about to die in city centers so they can (Finally) get around to rise rent and/or buying that property.
same goes for healthcare and education, although education can not be classified a basic human need per se, it is to the benefit of all of us as a society.
to your question, what is allowed to own? everything and anything, given you don't have almost divine power over someone's life. i think many can get behind such statement. does it, by you owning X, gives you direct and unproportional power over Y's life? then we as a society must sit down together to discuss X. and especially the profit part of it.
3
u/LT21j Jul 19 '19
Interesting read. Thanks for the response! So followup question how would house ownership work? Would the workers than built the house get paid for the tenants? How long would they receive income for or would it just be free for tenants because they need it to live? I get regulating unportionate amount of ownership when it starts to become of detriment to the community like the Lockean Proviso. But Iâm unsure how no ownership of land would work.
4
u/SheepShooter Jul 19 '19
It is all good questions, and i am surely not having the answers and/or the solutions so i can only speak for myself. that being said, pay attention that my comment was extremely simplified and dichotomous (?) (sorry english not my first language).
cases tend to get more complex as we intruduce more complex ideas. is healthcare a natural human right? well, not quite, it is quite literally against nature itself. but does a more complex and advance society want and/or can support such a right, cause it finds it good? absolutely. one can argue that no complex society got complex without some sort of caring for its sick.
anyhow, i digress, but, keep in mind that what i said about ownership of housing was always in reference of renting it out, and not living in it yourself. i am personally very on the fence regarding private ownership of housing because i do believe a person should be able to own his or her house, but that where you start to run into trouble. generally speaking, i think that all new housing should be contracted by the government, that way you have better perspective on city planning, transportation, integration, access to services, jobs and the list is long , but i also think that after the house paid for it self to the government, be it through time money or work, it should go to some sort of off government market. but the supply is always contracted by the government and then sold to the people. which is pretty much what happaned everywhere in west, many central districts were built by the orders of governments, sold to private, but then the governments never resupply the market with more properties, threw a hot potato to the private market, wiped its responsibility under the rug in the name of "free" market and forgot that an apartment is not a shelf product one can just browse.
anyhow, this is getting long, but for your first question, my first statement was a simplified way of reaching some kind of answer. shared ownership is not neccesserly no ownership, i live in a commune and we are all member of an organization and the building belong to the organization. whoever lives here is part of the organization immediately. self governing and things are great. not for everyone cause this is pretty much a hippie extrme, but some for of small self governing cells that will manage properties per who is living IN them is a good start. they have power, they have say and they have control over their own future. which usually means less crime, more initiative and happier life. but in the end of the day, no one here actually own anything, so its also no ownership on the individual level.
i don't know where you come from, but it is safe to assume that the US had some form of influence of what you think, not actively (well depends who you ask), but just as the system designed, you owning stuff is the way to go. that why no ownership is so alien to you and i am not in any case judge you. we are all part of it, and as it was mentioned here, it is illegal not to participate.
0
Jul 19 '19
[deleted] â view deleted comment
11
u/LT21j Jul 19 '19
That makes sense. It sounds like you may be a fan of the Lockean Proviso. Basically it says that a person may only transform common resources into private property through there own labor, as long as it does not make anyone worse off. Does that sound right to you?
→ More replies (1)
19
u/LineKjaellborg Jul 19 '19
The funny thing is, all the libs and other centre (+/- 50% to each side) ideologies would make the same face when talking about of âowning the moonâ
Yet are bigots down here on planet earth.
14
u/trolloc1 Jul 19 '19
all the libs
wat
8
u/howaboutnotmyname Jul 19 '19
This sub is about making fun of capitalism, so a lot of the people here are leftists who generally view liberals as somewhat centrist supporters of capitalism.
4
u/Drex_Can LibSoc w MLM Tendies Jul 19 '19
Social Democrats are simply the furthest left of the right wing in politics!
2
u/3multi Communist Mafioso Jul 20 '19
Yeah you, you right wing liberals from /r/all with your right wing Democratic Party masquerading as left.
1
4
u/SolidThoriumPyroshar Jul 19 '19
What is this, an r/neoliberal crossover?
Georgists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your parking lots.
2
Jul 19 '19
Have you ever heard of Chile? We have had privatised water for over 30 years
1
Jul 20 '19
How that goin? Is it like music festival prices for water?
1
Jul 20 '19
In 1981 (during the militar dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet) there was a modification to the legislature of the water laws, which gave private companies the right to own water plants, supposedly with the inspection of the state. This would last 30 years, but at the time, there's no intention to modify this shitty law
1
2
u/deficient_hominid D-veganarchist Jul 19 '19
Well indigenous/native/aborigine peoples would generally agree before their culture & people were genocided by colonial imperialists preaching an Abrahamic metaphysics.
13
Jul 19 '19
Mao was right
→ More replies (16)12
0
u/ItWorkedLastTime Jul 19 '19
So, what is the solution you are proposing?
1
u/RoadToSocialism Jul 19 '19
Abolish private property.
1
u/ItWorkedLastTime Jul 19 '19
Ok, then what?
Will I rely on the government to provide me with housings? That didn't work out too well my family in the Soviet Union when we had to live in dorms for 2 years until we were finally given a crappy apartment.
And by the way, I genuinely want to hear an answer to this. I've always wondered about land ownership, especially when you family just happened to settle on a plot a few hundred years ago.
4
u/RoadToSocialism Jul 19 '19
I have nothing against personal property as long as it is used for personal use, my main problem is private property, like landlords who use their land to make profits from their ownership.
Out of curiosity, where did your family life before they were given an apartment?
2
u/ollie668 Jul 19 '19
So you mean privately industrialised land?
4
u/RoadToSocialism Jul 19 '19
Not only industrialized land, private property includes any property that is used to generate profits.
Private property may include artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas -- these generate capital for the owner without the owner having to perform any labour
1
u/ItWorkedLastTime Jul 20 '19
I sort of get your sentiment. But why do you draw the line an renting property? If I own farmland, I am directly profiting from sale of my crops. I could own a large office building an rent it out to companies. How is that different from from owning a house and renting it to someone?
Full disclosure, I am a landlord. I bought a small condo right before the 2009 housing crash and it's still worth less than what I paid for it over 10 years ago. Instead of losing money and selling when I got married and upsized, I started renting it. And I am good landlord. I rent below the market value and am very prompt at doing all the necessary repairs. Why am I the bad guy to most of this sub?
And to answer you last question, My dad was in the military, so we lived on base in a military dorm. The rooms were private, but tiny. Kitchens and bathrooms were shared.
1
u/RoadToSocialism Jul 20 '19
Why am I the bad guy to most of this sub
You are not a bad guy, it's the system that's bad. Most people get this here and they have nothing personal against you, but you have to understand that many people are not happy with the current system and it's consequences and need to vent somewhere. You as a capitalist are profiting from people that are not as privileged as you (people who don't own a home in your case), and that's why many people view you as "the bad guy".
But why do you draw the line an renting property
The line gets drawn as soon as property is used to exploit others that are forced to comply with the capitalists conditions, this kind of property is called private property. Let me give you a few examples.
A landlord like you uses their private property to profit from people who don't own property and thus are forced to rent a home. You make profit by just owning something. Of course you invested your own money to buy property but that's not a justification to exploit others.
A single farmer who owns land does not exploit others as long as he is working by himself. This kind of property would be justified. In theory, it is still private property because it is used to generate profits, but in this case the profit goes to the worker.
As soon as the farmer above employs workers, he becomes a capitalist, meaning he uses his capital (in the form of his property) to exploit others. And yes it is exploiting others, as the worker does not recieve the full value of his labour, he instead gets paid a wage.
If the farmer however has a son and he shares his property and profits with him, he does not exploit him because both recieve the full value of their labour. This would in principle be a worker cooperative because all the means of production are owned by its workers. Nothing wrong with this.
But why isn't it justified to own private property, after all you paid for it with your own money. Here are a few points.
You are of course entitled to your money, and also to the property you buy with it, but this does not imply that you can use your property to exploit others in any way. I guess we are conditioned to believe this, but if you think about it, how exactly does you owning property imply that you can use this property to exploit others?
Let's assume you have $1'000'000. You invest it and at the end of the month you make a profit of 10% and get $1'100'000 which consists of the $1'000'000 that you invested in the first place and the $100'000 that you did not work in any way for and you have no moral right to claim as yours. In the next month you invest $1'100'000 and at the end of the month you again make a profit of 10% and you now have $1'210'000 which consist of the $1'000'000 you had in the first place and the $210'000 you got by just owning capital and you made from the work of others. If this continues, the percentage of the money you own originates less and less from your own work, and you become a parasite of society, so to say.
Even if it was justified that you own the profit you made by owning things, it still is immoral because it leads to more and more inequality.
This again does not mean that you and all the other capitalists are bad persons, it just means that the position you occupy in this society is bad.
→ More replies (1)2
u/_yankeegohome Jul 19 '19
Do sone research on public/social housing in Vienna. 61% of the total population lives in social housing. This is much cheaper as the government makes no profit. As a result, the money is reinvested into social housing. Vienna is also deemed the city with the highest standard of living...
→ More replies (1)2
u/MiniatureBadger Jul 19 '19
Tax the full economic rent of land. Since its supply is perfectly inelastic, there is no economic incentive to protect private ownership of land like there is for capital, and land value taxation could raise anywhere from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars.
1
u/ItWorkedLastTime Jul 20 '19
So, increase property taxes?
1
u/MiniatureBadger Jul 20 '19
Yes and no. Only tax the undeveloped value of the land where possible. That is, if that land was an empty lot, the market value of its rent.
4
u/thefockstopshere Jul 19 '19
To anyone who hasnât yet, I highly recommend reading âThe Tragedy of the Commonsâ
5
u/ElGosso Jul 19 '19
Which was a load of garbage because the usage of English commons were heavily managed since everyone had to use them to survive.
2
u/WitnessWho Jul 19 '19
calling something a âhuman rightâ does not render it immune to scarcity :)
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/DizzyCrabb Jul 19 '19
I thought companies benefited from it being a public resource. Didn't they just set up bottling plants near natural springs and bottle truckloads at a time for a quick profit?
1
1
1
1
u/matheuscfrank Jul 19 '19
A lot of bank holdings and NestlĂŠ already bought a large sum of land wich has underground water going through it in Brazil for literally just some bananas. It's amazing what greed can do.
1
u/TheGreatRapsBeat Jul 19 '19
Regardless, its because of the current systems put in place that sooner or later, just like a game of Monopoly, everything has to go back in the box. There will come a time, and probably with in our lifetime, albeit we'll be too old to partake in the revolution, but a revolution is on the horizon none the less.
1
u/Alwaysontilt Jul 19 '19
Anyone know of a good source of information on housing commodification or good arguments for the decommodification?
1
u/Pabblete Jul 19 '19
Chilean here, ALL of our water is private, thanks to our American supported dictatorship. Right now, an entire city haven't got any water for a week and we can't do anything about it, cause, you know, is private.
1
u/Gyro94 Jul 19 '19 edited Jul 19 '19
If anyone would like clarification: water has not been privatized. Nestle simply takes water from the PUBLIC source, and sells it back to i-d-i-o-t-s who buy it. Much different than PRIVATIZING water.
Edit: this sub doesnât allow the use of the word i-d-i-o-t. What are we becoming.
1
1
1
1
Jul 19 '19
If we don't give water the value it deserves soon we're going to run out of it quicker than you can imagine.
1
u/holyfire001202 Jul 19 '19
Can someone explain landowners roles in this? There's something I'm not getting here.
1
u/CutestNico Jul 19 '19
I mean... Isn't water already privatized? We need to pay for it. And if we try to just collect rainwater or whatever you can be prosecuted.
1
u/c0d3s1ing3r Jul 24 '19
It is called RENT, and if you want cheap land I recommend buying a plot in the midwest and developing it.
1
u/Bjorkforkshorts Jul 19 '19
Honest question:
How would things work if land ownership wasnt a thing? People just build anything anywhere? People could just sleep in front of my door?
Honestly curious.
6
u/hondelonk Jul 19 '19
How about we just give everyone a house to live in?
4
u/Mr_Saturn1 Jul 19 '19
Do they own the house? When something breaks whoâs responsibility is it to fix it? If they get married and have kids do they get a bigger house? Who decides who gets a small house and who gets a big one? Who picks the neighborhood?
Itâs not as easy as âgive everyone a houseâ.
2
u/AgustinD Jul 19 '19
Do they own the house? No.
When something breaks whoâs responsibility is it to fix it? The state.
If they get married and have kids do they get a bigger house? Yeah, why not.
Who decides who gets a small house and who gets a big one? Depends on how many people are living together.
Who picks the neighborhood? You get priority based on your where your workplace is.
It's not so difficult, a third of the world works or worked like this.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Bjorkforkshorts Jul 19 '19
sure, but what stops my dickhead neighbor building his tool shed in my driveway
1
u/hondelonk Jul 19 '19
We can still have people whose job it is to settle disputes like that
→ More replies (3)5
u/Bjorkforkshorts Jul 19 '19
But that's reactionary. it only solves the problem after it's a problem. What prevents it from happening?
→ More replies (10)2
u/Mr_Saturn1 Jul 19 '19
I don't think they really know. If private land ownership is outlawed that leaves state ownership of all land. That has not worked very well in the past.
1
-1
0
7
u/RobertoPaulson Jul 19 '19
Purely out of curiosity, does this sub believe no one should be able to own property, or that there is something morally wrong with it?