Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(human-made) added to ownership #560

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@LudovicD
Copy link
Contributor

commented May 22, 2017

(human-made) added to ownership, as to distinguish property suceptible to be bought from the commons/public property which it is illegitimate to take away from the public owner & so public property can only be rented (never privatised, such as the sea, the water, space, wild life, the countryside, the road network) (all Land ownership has to be compensated by some form of LVT (even with an allowance, or with a relatively low starting rate) wherever the exclusive use of that Land is in private hands [no Land if its rental value is non-null should be exempted: even if the Land belong to a public entity with exclusive use: if it belong to the state/the UK, as crown dependencies, LVT is due to be paid to the council, if it belongs to the council, LVT is to be paid to the UK state]), not bought, and has to include all natural resources, including Land

@openpolitics-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 22, 2017

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote symbol type this points
Yes :white_check_mark: 1
No :negative_squared_cross_mark: -1
Abstain 🤐 :zipper_mouth_face: 0
Block 🚫 :no_entry_sign: -1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

@LudovicD, if you want to make further changes to this proposal, you can do so by clicking on the pencil icons here. If a change is made to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted, and votes must be recast.

@Floppy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 23, 2017

OK, yes, to exclude natural resources, I get it. I think it might need a little more explanation to be clear in the manifesto itself, but I agree with the principle.

Vote:

@Autumn-Leah

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 24, 2017

Vote:

@Autumn-Leah

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 24, 2017

Actually wait, clarify it, or you'll get 3d printed things as exceptions.

Vote:

@LudovicD

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 25, 2017

I think it clear that 3D-printed things is human-made & NOT natural ressource materials.
the working definition of natural resources materials is BEFORE they are extracted & are legitimately sold [with an eventual required tax] / shipped to their next user, to be transformed or 3-D printed.
please re-consider the vote.

@Xyleneb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 31, 2017

I agree it's clear enough that "robot-made things" is not an exception to the rule. You wouldn't call them "natural objects".

What I disagree with is the principle that I can only rent the land on which my house is built; rather than own it outright as long as I am personally using it. Indeed I can claim to own the sea. But only the part of it that I am wading in or fishing in. If you say I can't own the sea, does that mean I can be bullied out of my wading spot because the government claims ownership? or that I owe rent? or democratic mandate? or something else?

Frankly I could live without this clarification; that injects ideology on the means of ownership into what was otherwise a simpler point about copyright and digital rights management.

Vote:

@LudovicD

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 1, 2017

@Xyleneb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 4, 2017

You make it seem as if natural objects are 100% excluded, 100% of the time.
That's my issue with it.

I can't own the water in my bottle.
I can't own the oil in my bucket.
I can't own the shiny rocks in my jewellery.

Somehow I must rent these things... Seriously?? Will I get a guy sapping my electricity because; "you can't, like, own it maaaan"?

This clarification does more to confuse things than clear things up. I don't think you should mix the policy about copyright and terms of use screwing people over, with the policy on nationalised industry.

We can argue over the ideological definition and purpose for property if you want, but the two points above are why I'd leave my vote opposed.

@LudovicD

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 5, 2017

@openpolitics-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 21, 2017

Closed automatically: maximum age exceeded. Please feel free to resubmit this as a new proposal, but remember you will need to base any new proposal on the current policy text.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.