I don't support the idea of private land ownership, I support the usage of land/ property by individuals.

I feel if an individual buys property and doesn't use it productively, it should revert back to the state to be used productively.

We have situations, even in (maybe especially in) developed countries where most people cannot afford their own homes. The reason, in many cases? Developers, in many cases non-citizens, have forced the prices up to exorbitant amounts, and thousands of houses/apartments sit empty while citizens rent crappy accommodation.

I've got no problem with anyone living in a decent house, farming land productively, using factories etc, but I object to huge swathes of land, blocks of apartments and houses sitting empty because one person insists on exorbitant rentals or will never develop the land.

Take a drive down to Sinville, huge tracts of empty land which has been gated for years, or past Camko City, hundreds of empty apartments.

Use it or lose it, I say.

A good communist is a dead communist

FWIW what the always wise Vlad says is perfectly in keeping with traditional Khmer society.

vladimir wrote:I don't support the idea of private land ownership, I support the usage of land/ property by individuals.

I feel if an individual buys property and doesn't use it productively, it should revert back to the state to be used productively.

We have situations, even in (maybe especially in) developed countries where most people cannot afford their own homes. The reason, in many cases? Developers, in many cases non-citizens, have forced the prices up to exorbitant amounts, and thousands of houses/apartments sit empty while citizens rent crappy accommodation.

I've got no problem with anyone living in a decent house, farming land productively, using factories etc, but I object to huge swathes of land, blocks of apartments and houses sitting empty because one person insists on exorbitant rentals or will never develop the land.

Take a drive down to Sinville, huge tracts of empty land which has been gated for years, or past Camko City, hundreds of empty apartments.

Use it or lose it, I say.

IMO all the basic necessities in life should be controlled. Not a new idea. The Romans made sure free bread was available everywhere iirc etc etc. Let the free market deal with luxury items only and perhaps we will make a slightly better world.

Food, water, your own shelter, health care and education. Transport, electricity, gas, gasoline. Holding onto large areas of land is a dirty tactic to keep land prices high and the landowner lying in his hammock.

I do support land ownership but with the proviso that you cannot sell the land after the first sale and that when you die; the land returns to a communal pool of land... no inheritance of land whatsoever.

TheGrinchSR wrote:I do support land ownership but with the proviso that you cannot sell the land after the first sale and that when you die; the land returns to a communal pool of land... no inheritance of land whatsoever.

For the indoctrinated/conflict of interesters out there, this idea was also held by native American Indians and many other societies. And most of them were not communist-inspired. Ignorance can be so funny.

Try looking beyond the system that benefits you, and ask your self if it is just. Hard, when it puts money in your pocket, but try.

Communist, LOL.

Don't be so ungrateful to what Vietnam has done for Cambodia, mainland China, Russia, both communist, you take their money, but bitch about their politics? LOL

Tell us about the glories of the land-title system in the west.

GrinchSR, agree, good idea.

Of course I support private land ownership. Sharing with neighbours and community shit sounds real nice on paper, but pretty unworkable in the real life, the samaki policy (forget spelling) of the PRK is a perfect example of that. Other examples can be clearly seen in other 'red' countries about the place.

Besides what's the point of doing something unless it's for yourself? Especially if the family next door are assholes. And as for working for the state, sod that for a game of soldiers- they'll just profit more off the backs of the people.

I do think that some system should be in place to discourage idle land use though, some countries have very high taxes on unused (unfarmed) land to cut this down.

KS, I think you are using your land productively, and if your family/kids continue to do that, even if they are just living there, there is no reason to hassle them, in fact they should be applauded for it.

My issue is with the huge tracts that people sit on that could be used to grow rice etc or raise animals or make available for housing.

vladimir wrote:KS, I think you are using your land productively, and if your family/kids continue to do that, even if they are just living there, there is no reason to hassle them, in fact they should be applauded for it.

My issue is with the huge tracts that people sit on that could be used to grow rice etc or raise animals or make available for housing.

For that I agree. Either ridiculous tax levy or free/peanuts year leases to local peasants. Sadly there's no doubt that any system will be abused. The world sucks.


What do you think of inheritance tax? Many lefties argued it should be anything up to 100%, whereas I'm banking on mine....

State land is owned by the people where government is in the hands of the people.

I endorse CHEAP lifetime leases of state land for family homesteads.

Compulsory national service ( need not be military ) to qualify.