Link: Leftism, property and “I don’t see any borders” morons

http://uncabob.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/i-dont-see-any-borders.html

Occasionally I’ll run across crackpot (and always leftist) “libertarians” who claim, “I don’t see any borders” when they babble their dangerous and destructive nonsense about open borders.

Guess what – I don’t see any property lines, either.

rdj claps applause mhmm

The ultimate property is one’s body. If you believe in property of the body, one’s self-ownership, then you must believe in the other kinds. If you own your body, you own things on your body – clothing, jewelry, children. If you own people (even if it’s just yourself) you must also own the means to support it or you’d have nothing to use – resources, which are found on territory or land.

Baby Boomers screech about property monopoly tax

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11844499/I-own-75-buy-to-let-properties-but-I-havent-deprived-other-buyers.html

It hasn’t even been applied yet.
It won’t be until 2020.

Yes, you’re reading that link right.
This ….person, has SEVENTY-FIVE properties, and is completely convinced that he has no impact on the market whatsoever, he’s just a small-time investor and this taxation (closing of a loophole) is morally wrong.

Property isn’t a pension.

I’ll repeat it for the cheap seats.

A property is NOT a pension.

Torquay landlord Graham Chilvers owns 75 properties. None of them, he says, could have been bought by first-time buyers – because in every case he either built or restored them himself.

Sounds like a cartoon character.
I’m fairly certain younger people are better at DIY and restoration, actually. Stronger at least.
It’s like saying “nobody else could have won this lottery because I guessed the numbers” – the solipsism.

Landlords argue that not only will the change force them to evict tenants and sell properties en masse, but that it will also prevent the building and development of new homes – hindering the Government’s objective to increase housing supply.

Evict? No.
Sell? Yes.
Why? They could never afford them in the first place.
Inversion of supply-demand law. More properties on the market = less, somehow.

“The Government justifies its attack on buy-to-let by saying landlords have an unfair advantage over people wanting to buy their own homes,” Mr Chilvers said. “But no homebuyer was competing with me on any of these properties.”

staring angry glare really omfg no stop dorian gray

Many of his other properties were also once hotels or care homes, while some he built from scratch.

And he cuts Victorian houses into flats.
What a helpful guy.
So many couples must be cheered living in a 2-bedroom apartment, unable to have more children because it’ll make him more money.

He reckons his portfolio is worth £6.4m, against which there is a modest £2.4m borrowing.

Ah, so he can’t actually afford it.

Rental income totals £330,000 per year. The cost of mortgage interest is £80,000 with maintenance, insurance and other expenses coming in at £100,000 to £120,000.

That gives a taxable annual profit of between £130,000 and £150,000.

His tax bill today is around £50,000. When the new taxes are fully applied he will pay an extra 32pc in tax, with his bill rising to almost £70,000.

He would then be paying a tax rate of 44pc.

It’s a job.
That’s about the right level.

One of Mr Chilvers’ biggest anxieties is the way the proposed tax will bite when interest rates rise. Because of the perverse way in which the tax operates, landlords will actually pay more tax when their mortgage costs go up – even though this will result in their having less gross profit.

You mean, quickly remedying the people who monopolized the market and can’t really afford to be there without taxpayer ignorance?

“Not only will this tax prevent me from undertaking further development, but it poses real risks to my business just at a time that interest rates could rise,” said Mr Chilvers.

You took on that risk.
You lost.
The taxpayer shouldn’t bail you out.

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

Other full-time landlords share Mr Chilvers’ view that mainstream homeowners are not competing for the same properties as landlords.

All property ON A MARKET is competed for.
YOU ARE WRONG.
There isn’t a single attempt at intellectual honesty here, is there?

Fuck Baby Boomers.

Like many professional landlords she is not altering her strategy until more detail about the new tax regime emerges. This is expected within weeks as part of the Finance Act.

These people are morons.

She said future options included selling some of the properties in order to pay down the mortgages on others.

You mean, releasing the houses you can’t afford and bought in greed on credit?

…“The whole point of this was to provide an income to live off.”

See above. Cheap seat.
They imagine themselves to be like serf lords over Millennials. Wankers.

The only buy-to-let investors who will not be hit are the very wealthy who buy property in cash and who don’t need a mortgage.

Aka people who can afford the investment. The way it should be.

In other words, tax will be applied to the rent received – rather than what is left of the rent after the mortgage interest has been paid.

Closing a loophole.

don draper crying baby wah wah wah

They end with a tedious example where the landlord makes zero profit. As if that’s immoral or the end of the world. No, you choose to take a risk and breaking even is a blessing. You aren’t legally obliged to make money. Especially from cornering a market you could only enter because of when you were born.

Link: London is a slum cum safety deposit box

http://boingboing.net/2015/06/29/why-im-leaving-london.html

Ok he doesn’t say that, but it’s the general sentiment.

We should block foreign property investment. We should ban social housing in the capital too, nobody is entitled to live there.

These will probably never happen, but they would solve 99% of the problem.

If they aren’t, it can’t, nor should it, be saved.

http://archive.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2015/06/london-self-devouring-venice-offshored-billionaires/

What is marriage? an economic exchange, a contract

http://no-maam.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html

Read the whole thing.

…Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”

That seems fair to me. All contracts are set forth in this manner. That is why they are contracts. A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed….

I think a lot of men in the manosphere fail to realize one thing about traditional real marriage vs. the new modern excuses. There can be no marriage without fidelity, this is a reason why ‘gay marriage’ doesn’t count, because they’re unfaithful. Yes, that goes both ways. You want to fuck around? Never get married. The decent woman who is worthy of marriage doesn’t deserve the pain, diminished social status (can’t satisfy her husband, something wrong with her or her selection) and STDs of a cheating husband, just as a good man doesn’t deserve a feminist. These differences in strategy (short promiscuous/long monogamous) are fine, but do not mix. A promiscuous husband is just as much of a liability as a cuckolding feminist, trying to reap the benefits of both strategies and tearing the social fabric apart.

It’s a commitment and a sacrifice and yes it is difficult, that is why longlasting marriages have value.

Understand the vows you take, “not to be entered into lightly”

http://www.myweddingvows.com/traditional-wedding-vows/christian-wedding-vows

“so I will be to you a loving and faithful husband.”

” I promise you my deepest love, my fullest devotion, my tenderest care.”

“And so throughout life, no matter what may lie ahead of us, I pledge to you my life as a loving and faithful husband.”

“Human Rights” as Property Rights

My short answer to liberals: my body and what comes out of it.
They twist themselves into pretzels trying to get round that one.

http://mises.org/daily/2569

Furthermore, couching the analysis in terms of a “right to free speech” instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.”[3] And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.[4]

For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner’s property by disrupting the performance he is putting on. In either case, he may be prosecuted as a violator of property rights; therefore, when we concentrate on the property rights involved, we see that the Holmes case implies no need for the law to weaken the absolute nature of rights.

Indeed, Justice Hugo Black, a well-known “absolutist” on behalf of “freedom of speech,” made it clear, in a trenchant critique of the Holmes “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument, that Black’s advocacy of freedom of speech was grounded in the rights of private property. Thus Black stated:

I went to a theater last night with you. I have an idea if you and I had gotten up and marched around that theater, whether we said anything or not, we would have been arrested. Nobody has ever said that the First Amendment gives people a right to go anywhere in the world they want to go or say anything in the world they want to say. Buying the theater tickets did not buy the opportunity to make a speech there. We have a system of property in this country which is also protected by the Constitution. We have a system of property, which means that a man does not have a right to do anything he wants anywhere he wants to do it. For instance, I would feel a little badly if somebody were to try to come into my house and tell me that he had a constitutional right to come in there because he wanted to make a speech against the Supreme Court. I realize the freedom of people to make a speech against the Supreme Court, but I do not want him to make it in my house.

That is a wonderful aphorism about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. But you do not have to shout “fire” to get arrested. If a person creates a disorder in a theater, they would get him there not because of what he hollered but because he hollered. They would get him not because of any views he had but because they thought he did not have any views that they wanted to hear there. That is the way I would answer not because of what he shouted but because he shouted.[5]

Marketplace of ideas…

Basically, if a person is creating a racket, kick them off your land. This includes digital space. They can rant about you somewhere else.

…There would then be no shortages, and no feelings of resentment at a promise (“equal access” of the public to the column, podium, or microphone) reneged….

This is why Occupy Wall Street failed, a small model of communism where there is no ownership of resource and hence, no leadership.
The Progressive Stack made the useful people resent being pushed to the back of the queue when they had merit.

But beyond the question of prices, there is a deeper matter involved, for whether by prices or by some other criterion, the resource must, in all cases, be allocated by its owner.

Professional victims must continually find new platforms for it because the audience turns on them.
Poor dears don’t realize they are the problem, they provide nothing worth listening to. Listening to the problems of others is depressing, comedians only get away with it because they aren’t really upset to make light of it. If those ‘victims’ leafleted the entire world they’d be boo’d, yet they think the problem is lack of a sympathetic audience. Diaries are meant to be private because they’re embarassing. Sharing it in public is a way for self-loathing people to feel better under the guise of sympathy. They are not your friends. If you need to discuss private issues, see a professional.

The solution is to recast the meaning of the “right to freedom of speech” or “assembly”; instead of using the vague, and, as de Jouvenel demonstrates, unworkable concept of some sort of equal right to space or time, we should focus on the right of private property. Only when the “right to free speech” is treated simply as a subdivision of property right does it become valid, workable, and absolute.

Your section of the internet is yours to control, it is your domain for your opinions and no one has a right to tell you what you should or should not put up there. However, if you put something they disagree with, or something very stupid, they can devote their own content to questioning yours or mocking you. Dissent is the price of discussion. Social media is tricky, but the privacy settings and seperation of accounts mean a person chooses to see and click on your content, they are entering your domain, although it is owned by a company, it contains your content, and this is how the companies make money.

Unless a space is open to the public e.g. a company’s page, a public campaign’s page, arguably a celebrity’s page, then it’s fair game because a person cannot be ‘banned’ from what is public.

A crucial point about the relationship between speaker and listener, it is a choice on both sides.
SJWs do not get this so people avoid them. Respect of boundaries.

This can be seen in de Jouvenel’s proposed “right to buttonhole.” De Jouvenel says that there is a “sense in which the right of speech can be exercised by each and everyone; it is the right to buttonhole,” to talk and to try to convince the people one meets, and then to collect these people in a hall, and thus to “constitute a congregation” of one’s own.  …(Provided, of course, we remember the right of another person not to be buttonholed if he doesn’t want to, i.e., his right not to listen.)

You can’t make me care about your opinion either.

De Jouvenel almost recognizes this when he considers the case of two men, “Primus” and “Secundus”:

Primus …has collected through toil and trouble a congregation of his own doing. An outsider, Secundus, comes in and claims the right to address this congregation on grounds of the right of free speech. Is Primus bound to give him the floor? I doubt it. He can reply to Secundus: “I have made up this congregation. Go thou and do likewise.”

Precisely. In short, Primus owns the meeting; he has hired the hall, has called the meeting, and has laid down its conditions; and those who don’t like these conditions are free not to attend or to leave. Primus has a property right in the meeting that permits him to speak at will; Secundus has no property right whatever, and therefore no right to speak at the meeting.

Door’s over there.

At work, we have a respectful rule we refer to as colloquially “Your Room” aka when somebody else is in charge, even if we may outrank them beyond that situation, they organised it, it’s their baby, and unless they request our help or need it urgently, it is “Your Room” to work with. This builds up trust and competence. It’s important around machinery too.

Similarly, the private ownership of all streets would resolve the problem of the “human right” to freedom of immigration. There is no question about the fact that current immigration barriers restrict not so much a “human right” to immigrate, but the right of property owners to rent or sell property to immigrants. There can be no human right to immigrate, for on whose property does someone else have the right to trample? In short, if “Primus” wishes to migrate now from some other country to the United States, we cannot say that he has the absolute right to immigrate to this land area; for what of those property owners who don’t want him on their property? On the other hand, there may be, and undoubtedly are, other property owners who would jump at the chance to rent or sell property to Primus, and the current laws now invade their property rights by preventing them from doing so.

Succinct.

The way to halt immigration is to stop renting to migrants altogether. If they have no place to settle, they’ll leave, and residence is required to pick up welfare checks and have many children to pick up more. Encourage landlords to rent to natives, who cause less trouble, and punish harshly for housing illegal immigrants. Purchases should have a limit.

Honorary mention: freedom of association. To get in your house, a stranger must be invited in.