The one law that would bring peace during an Economic Collapse

[EvolutionA2Z]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

[1715444884]

1715444884

[1715444884]

1715444884

[1715444884]

1715444884

[TheButterZone]

[pungopete468]

lol I don't think you've thought this one through...

[Cicero2.0]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

Wow. I am not even sure where to start. Take a moment to read what you have written and maybe consider using the edit button.

[theonewhowaskazu]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

So, whats this mean? Rather than renting out homes rich people pay X people to demolish their homes and sell them the land. Then they live in a mansion in the middle and rent the remaining land out to serfs who farm it living in tents because it would be illegal to improve the land as the rich guy owns it.

So basically this law would have the effect of demolishing all the houses currently rented out.

Productivity~!

[gondel]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

Hi,
But why you want that?
In Bulgaria we are just getting started with the capitalism from 25 years and no one want the socialism back. The idea of equality is not bad as concept, but realy is not possible. China is managing it somehow ...we will see it in the future
BR

[RodeoX]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

[Erdogan]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

Hi,
But why you want that?
In Bulgaria we are just getting started with the capitalism from 25 years and no one want the socialism back. The idea of equality is not bad as concept, but realy is not possible. China is managing it somehow ...we will see it in the future
BR

Do you pay property tax in Bulgaria? Because if you do, then you don't own that property, and you still have some form of socialism.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

First off I said in an Economic Collapse. So that home you bought for $200k is already $50K. But instead of bailing the banks out, bail out the property owners.

Secondly, you say good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land, as if they are buying property right now hand over fist. How many couples do you know own more then two places anyways? Last time I checked, the amount of Americans that would bring revolt over this law would be an extremely small percentage.

And lastly, this forces all the property vultures and big banks to auction off all the land they have hoarded. This land belongs to the country anyways. Thats why you pay property taxes.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

Hi,
But why you want that?
In Bulgaria we are just getting started with the capitalism from 25 years and no one want the socialism back. The idea of equality is not bad as concept, but realy is not possible. China is managing it somehow ...we will see it in the future
BR

Sure China in managing. They have apps on their phones telling them that if the pollution is at dangerous levels they need to wear their mask today. If you go to a restaurant you shit in a hole. And under that restaurant is a pig pen, where your pork eats your shit. Oh, and you get to eat delicious food cooked in gutter oil. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04

We lost capitalism when we bailed the banks out. In capitalism, if you go bankrupt your suppose liquidate everything and start from scratch. I would like to get back to capitalism myself.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

So, whats this mean? Rather than renting out homes rich people pay X people to demolish their homes and sell them the land. Then they live in a mansion in the middle and rent the remaining land out to serfs who farm it living in tents because it would be illegal to improve the land as the rich guy owns it.

So basically this law would have the effect of demolishing all the houses currently rented out.

Productivity~!

No. I am saying that you force anyone with more that one property (Including the Big Banks) to sell their excess properties off. That land belongs to the country anyways. Thats why you pay property taxes.

[pungopete468]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home.  

First off I said in an Economic Collapse. So that home you bought for $200k is already $50K. But instead of bailing the banks out, bail out the property owners.

Secondly, you say good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land, as if they are buying property right now hand over fist. How many couples do you know own more then two places anyways? Last time I checked, the amount of Americans that would bring revolt over this law would be an extremely small percentage.

And lastly, this forces all the property vultures and big banks to auction off all the land they have hoarded. This land belongs to the country anyways. Thats why you pay property taxes.

1. In an economic collapse, the last thing we would need is more market manipulation from laws which limit interactions with the market.

2. Any law which limits the right to property; real estate, personal, intellectual, or otherwise, would end up in a revolt. It makes no difference to those affected or unaffected, that would be like saying "There is a national curfew from 2:00am until 4:00am every Monday until Friday." most people would be unaffected by that, however it would also end in a revolt because people resent subjugation.

3. Those properties owned by the banks without occupants can be claimed under adverse possession. Squatters rights are necessary for the purpose of preventing too much real property from falling into the hands of banks and thus ending up dilapidated and in disrepair as banks don't maintain property...  

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

Right now we are dealing with something coined as "Interest Rate Apartheid." Since central banks are buying up all the property and last week an article came out showing that central banks are buying trillions of stocks at 0 percent interest rates we are going to end up with Banks and Central Banks owning everything from all property and all stocks. Giving property rights back to the people would not be the antithesis of property rights.

[theonewhowaskazu]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

So, whats this mean? Rather than renting out homes rich people pay X people to demolish their homes and sell them the land. Then they live in a mansion in the middle and rent the remaining land out to serfs who farm it living in tents because it would be illegal to improve the land as the rich guy owns it.

So basically this law would have the effect of demolishing all the houses currently rented out.

Productivity~!

No. I am saying that you force anyone with more that one property (Including the Big Banks) to sell their excess properties off. That land belongs to the country anyways. Thats why you pay property taxes.

Wow, so in an economic collapse, where properties are forced to be liquidated due to defaults, causing a massive price crash and huge deflation, your "solution" is to force the liquidation of EVEN MORE PROPERTIES. Yeah, that seems like a real good idea. If you haven't noticed, it isn't in bank's business plan to own homes. They WANT TO SELL those homes already, thats the entire thing that causes the crisis in the first place. All you'd be doing is majorly fucking over landlords and renters.

Also, how can land "belong to the country" when I BOUGHT IT, or I PAID FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO BUY IT AND PLACED THAT PROPERTY AS COLLATERAL?

[DannyElfman]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

[Erdogan]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

Right now we are dealing with something coined as "Interest Rate Apartheid." Since central banks are buying up all the property and last week an article came out showing that central banks are buying trillions of stocks at 0 percent interest rates we are going to end up with Banks and Central Banks owning everything from all property and all stocks. Giving property rights back to the people would not be the antithesis of property rights.

Property rights just means that you own yourself and the product of your actions. Actions include trade in the free market. This right is just as important as the right to freedom from violence and coercion. It is also fundamental for the productive capacity of the population. This is a secondary effect to the all important moral principle.

What you say about the central bank and the interest rate apartheid (good expression) is true, but both are impossible if freedom, including property rights, exists.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

[pungopete468]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

[Yakamoto]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

Ok, time to buy houses and pass them to my kids. That's one house per person. I see no issue here.

But dude, have you thought this through? Why not own multiple houses, rent the interior and then use the back yard as garden to supplement the grocery bill?

Plus renting is cheaper. For a certain amount of time, renting is far cheaper than the owning of a house would be. Houses would have to plummet in value for that to even be considerably viable. Many renters would be forced out of their homes.

And what happens to the people that already own more than one house? Do their houses go up for auction, with a starting bid of $500 and the. People lowball the crap out of it, giving the owner a minuscule amount if what he paid, further hurting his financial situation in an ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.

And then it's an ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. Yeah I'm keeping my houses, nabbing whatever I can and having people pay rent in BTC, Gold/Silver or food. Thanks, but I ain't listening to any of that crap.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

[spiceminer15]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

[Erdogan]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

Nah nah. In feudalism, the king owned all land (and all the people). Todays erosion of right to ownership of land is the problem. Eminent domain, government owns some resources on your land anyway (oil, metals), zoning, building restrictions in general, land tax (you don't own it if you have to pay rent to somebody). This is the new feudalism, and it is creeping closer.

[EvolutionA2Z]

I don't know why everyone says renting is cheaper. Then what? Renting a hotel? Renting a campsite? The reason why you pay more when you own....is because you get to keep it.

If there is an economic collapse the housing bubble will pop, and values will plummet making it affordable for renters to buy.

What happens to bitcoiners if the gov bans it? We loose. We made a bad investment. What happens to speculators betting on a housing bubble? They loose. Hedge accordingly.

If a landlord had to sell or give his friends or family his extra houses then I think he has bigger problems on the horizon.

You should listen "to this crap." I'm trying to stop the pitchforks from coming. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U78jmhYZgcg

Tell me again why YOU need more then one house?

[EvolutionA2Z]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

[spiceminer15]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

[EvolutionA2Z]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own it. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

[spiceminer15]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

stealing is wrong mmmkay, forcing people to do things they don't want to do is wrong. get it?

you shouldn't have more than one computer. you should give the rest to all the little kiddies in Africa who have no computers . why would you need more than one?

[Erdogan]

I don't know why everyone says renting is cheaper. Then what? Renting a hotel? Renting a campsite? The reason why you pay more when you own....is because you get to keep it.

If there is an economic collapse the housing bubble will pop, and values will plummet making it affordable for renters to buy.

What happens to bitcoiners if the gov bans it? We loose. We made a bad investment. What happens to speculators betting on a housing bubble? They loose. Hedge accordingly.

If a landlord had to sell or give his friends or family his extra houses then I think he has bigger problems on the horizon.

You should listen "to this crap." I'm trying to stop the pitchforks from coming. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U78jmhYZgcg

Tell me again why YOU need more then one house?

The point is that noone have to anwer to you for their choices.

[EvolutionA2Z]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

stealing is wrong mmmkay, forcing people to do things they don't want to do is wrong. get it?

you shouldn't have more than one computer. you should give the rest to all the little kiddies in Africa who have no computers . why would you need more than one?

Yeah stealing is wrong. I don't like having 50% of my pay check stolen from me. get it? What we should do though is invade more countries. Thats not forcing anyone to do what we want. get it?

As for your one computer idea. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

[Erdogan]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

It is not the road to hell (to have shelter), but making it an entitlement is the same as taking from some by force to give to some others, and that is the road to hell. It is also a guarantee that the goal is not reached.

Think about shoes - everyone should be entitled to have a pair. But wait - they have. The entrepreneurs of the free market, the workers in the free market, and the capitalists in the free market have voluntarily cooperated to give everybody just as many shoes as they want and are willing to pay for.

It works also in housing. Why should it not?

[spiceminer15]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

stealing is wrong mmmkay, forcing people to do things they don't want to do is wrong. get it?

you shouldn't have more than one computer. you should give the rest to all the little kiddies in Africa who have no computers . why would you need more than one?

Yeah stealing is wrong. I don't like having 50% of my pay check stolen from me. get it? What we should do though is invade more countries. Thats not forcing anyone to do what we want. get it?

As for your one computer idea. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

so your solution to tyrannical government, is more tyrannical government. interesting idea.

maybe you should work towards liberty, if people didn't have to pay more taxes and figure out all these regulations. there would be so much wealth around, no one would be worrying about not having a house

[spiceminer15]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

It is not the road to hell (to have shelter), but making it an entitlement is the same as taking from some by force to give to some others, and that is the road to hell. It is also a guarantee that the goal is not reached.

Think about shoes - everyone should be entitled to have a pair. But wait - they have. The entrepreneurs of the free market, the workers in the free market, and the capitalists in the free market have voluntarily cooperated to give everybody just as many shoes as they want and are willing to pay for.

It works also in housing. Why should it not?

we all know why housing is so expensive, it is regulated to the extreme. and taxed to the extreme. the government wants poor people, because poor people depend on it, they need it, and they vote for it

[Erdogan]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own it. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

Study the effects of your plan where it is currently tested, in Venezuela. They just enacted a law that renters (having rented more than three years) were entitled to buy their apartments. Violence applied to those who resisted. Other laws, just as stupid, to abridge the market anywhere. Man, they lack tvs, medicine, food, water, electricity, toilet paper and coffins.

[leezay]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own it. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

Study the effects of your plan where it is currently tested, in Venezuela. They just enacted a law that renters (having rented more than three years) were entitled to buy their apartments. Violence applied to those who resisted. Other laws, just as stupid, to abridge the market anywhere. Man, they lack tvs, medicine, food, water, electricity, toilet paper and coffins.

Economic law and consequence will eventually repel the stupid law.

[EvolutionA2Z]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

stealing is wrong mmmkay, forcing people to do things they don't want to do is wrong. get it?

you shouldn't have more than one computer. you should give the rest to all the little kiddies in Africa who have no computers . why would you need more than one?

Yeah stealing is wrong. I don't like having 50% of my pay check stolen from me. get it? What we should do though is invade more countries. Thats not forcing anyone to do what we want. get it?

As for your one computer idea. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

so your solution to tyrannical government, is more tyrannical government. interesting idea.

maybe you should work towards liberty, if people didn't have to pay more taxes and figure out all these regulations. there would be so much wealth around, no one would be worrying about not having a house

Its order out of chaos. Its one law. Drop most the others. People will need somewhere to grow food. A mans home is his castle. A place of his own to defend. Yes I do work towards liberty. And yes I agree, if there were less regulations there would be so much more wealth around, no one would be worrying about not having a house. The problem is, if we go back to liberty and capitalism everyone will start having a lot of kids again. They will be able to afford them. Then our grandchildren and great grandchildren will run into the same problems. Because the cycle is approximately every 80 years.

[Erdogan]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

stealing is wrong mmmkay, forcing people to do things they don't want to do is wrong. get it?

you shouldn't have more than one computer. you should give the rest to all the little kiddies in Africa who have no computers . why would you need more than one?

Yeah stealing is wrong. I don't like having 50% of my pay check stolen from me. get it? What we should do though is invade more countries. Thats not forcing anyone to do what we want. get it?

As for your one computer idea. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

so your solution to tyrannical government, is more tyrannical government. interesting idea.

maybe you should work towards liberty, if people didn't have to pay more taxes and figure out all these regulations. there would be so much wealth around, no one would be worrying about not having a house

Its order out of chaos. Its one law. Drop most the others. People will need somewhere to grow food. A mans home is his castle. A place of his own to defend. Yes I do work towards liberty. And yes I agree, if there were less regulations there would be so much more wealth around, no one would be worrying about not having a house. The problem is, if we go back to liberty and capitalism everyone will start having a lot of kids again. They will be able to afford them. Then our grandchildren and great grandchildren will run into the same problems. Because the cycle is approximately every 80 years.

Why not try to break that cycle? To envision it is the start. Maybe it is possible, maybe not.

[dogecoinshop]

my tank is going to be the most peaceful place on the block gotta luv NV/UT. TANKS FOR SALE This T-54 Runs great, has fresh paint inside & out , nice condition & comes with several simulated projectiles. It is currently painted dessert Tan from the Gulf War period.BTC180.5 delivered lower 48.runs working fire mech great tubes shells avail.

[EvolutionA2Z]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own it. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

Study the effects of your plan where it is currently tested, in Venezuela. They just enacted a law that renters (having rented more than three years) were entitled to buy their apartments. Violence applied to those who resisted. Other laws, just as stupid, to abridge the market anywhere. Man, they lack tvs, medicine, food, water, electricity, toilet paper and coffins.

Economic law and consequence will eventually repel the stupid law.

https://news.vice.com/article/will-venezuela-become-a-no-fly-country-if-it-defaults-on-its-airline-debt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as-venezuelas-maduro-confronts-economic-crisis-pragmatism-is-a-risky-path/2014/07/05/2a654f10-c326-4201-a892-3538f85cf65d_story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/02/20/cheap-gasoline-why-venezuela-is-doomed-to-collapse/3/

From what I can find and from what I have read in the past, a one house policy has nothing to do with Venezuela defaulting. It was bad economic policies, corruption and entitlement to so many government subsidies that led to it. Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money.

[Erdogan]

freedom and liberty is what brings prosperity. not limp wristed do gooders who are paving the road to hell with their good intentions

Freedom, liberty and cheap energy brought us prosperity. We hit cheap peak oil in 01. Explain to me again why every man, woman and child having shelter over their head is the road to hell. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the greed for money that is. So explain to me again why the greed of making money on renters is the path to heaven and why any person needs more then one house?

man you got some serious problems. everyone having a home is not evil, stealing other peoples stuff and giving it to someone else is evil. get a grip on reality

I don't have any serious problems but thanks for your concern. Its not stealing. You get to sell it. You get the going rate for it. And as I said before, your just renting that land from our country, you can't steal something from someone when they don't own it. I have a very good grip on reality. I live on a finite planet with finite resources with a growing population of over 7 billion people.

There were a lot of angry people when humans got the right to vote. Rich people thought they deserved more than one vote. They thought other people were subhuman and didn't deserve those rights back then just like there will be naysayers saying not everyone deserves one home today.

Study the effects of your plan where it is currently tested, in Venezuela. They just enacted a law that renters (having rented more than three years) were entitled to buy their apartments. Violence applied to those who resisted. Other laws, just as stupid, to abridge the market anywhere. Man, they lack tvs, medicine, food, water, electricity, toilet paper and coffins.

Economic law and consequence will eventually repel the stupid law.

https://news.vice.com/article/will-venezuela-become-a-no-fly-country-if-it-defaults-on-its-airline-debt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as-venezuelas-maduro-confronts-economic-crisis-pragmatism-is-a-risky-path/2014/07/05/2a654f10-c326-4201-a892-3538f85cf65d_story.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/02/20/cheap-gasoline-why-venezuela-is-doomed-to-collapse/3/

From what I can find and from what I have read in the past, a one house policy has nothing to do with Venezuela defaulting. It was bad economic policies, corruption and entitlement to so many government subsidies that led to it. Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money.

Good (classical liberal) source on Venezuela:
http://panampost.com/

[EvolutionA2Z]

Gold rehypothecation is allowing extra capital to buy up our property. Also driving up our prices.

http://www.jpost.com/Business/Business-Features/Global-agenda-Rehypothecation-360757

And they are buying property world wide with it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/07/10/these-are-the-foreigners-buying-up-american-real-estate/

[DannyElfman]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

What about the costs associated with selling your home? These costs are generally high and can easily reach the double digits in terms of the percentage of the sale price.

When a person works in a industry (or has a career) that requires him to move around often from city to city then he would spend a lot of money selling his house every time he had to move. Allowing this person to rent his home rather then own it would save him a lot of money in both the short run and the long run.

The same is true when someone wishes to move because of lack of job opportunities in the location that he lives in presently. If a person can move, say 500 miles away because there are job opportunities that do not exist where he lives then he would benefit if he did not have to bear the expense of selling his house.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

What about the costs associated with selling your home? These costs are generally high and can easily reach the double digits in terms of the percentage of the sale price.

When a person works in a industry (or has a career) that requires him to move around often from city to city then he would spend a lot of money selling his house every time he had to move. Allowing this person to rent his home rather then own it would save him a lot of money in both the short run and the long run.

The same is true when someone wishes to move because of lack of job opportunities in the location that he lives in presently. If a person can move, say 500 miles away because there are job opportunities that do not exist where he lives then he would benefit if he did not have to bear the expense of selling his house.

Real estate agents here typically charge 7% of the sale. I don't see the percentage changing. But I do see real estate agents slowly being phased out with the development of websites that let you house hunt over the internet. You can do virtual tours now.

Most people I know sell their house and buy a new one when they take a job in a new city (or end up commuting). I don't see too many people just buying a place every time they work in a different city. So nothing would change. In the rare case that someone would take say a three month temp job and didn't want to sell and buy they would have to rent. There would still be some homes for rent.

You can use the blockchain to keep a public ledger of who owns which property. This would eliminate notary fees making the buying and selling of deeds to a place a lot easier and cheaper.

[pungopete468]

You aren't going to change your view on this matter until you accept for yourself that the government has no power to decide what you spend your money on...

Every law that restricts the use of legal money is unconstitutional, against the grain of morality which this country was founded on, and inconsistent with the natural rights born of freedom.

The government can continue to restrict the liberties of this society until it no longer can. Once the line of public acceptability has been crossed, the recoil will strike like a large rubber band snapping. Those minor impediments on freedom which were acceptable to a great number yesterday would no longer be acceptable tomorrow; even the little things will be seen as unacceptable. When the disdain is great enough that a powerful network effect is formed it always results in a "reset" so to speak...

Those properties which you claim, "belong to the government" will no longer be seen as such. The truth is that the federal government does not own anything. The federal government is a shadow of consenting states. The federal government is an alliance and not a kingdom... The existence of our federal government is an agreement between states and nothing more... All of the land is owned by the state which borders it until the state sells that land to an individual. Once sold, it no longer belongs to the state. The individual is bound to follow the laws of the state and the constitution, but the state has no lawful claim to that land any further. If the individual dies and doesn't leave the property to another individual, the state has the power to reclaim the land under adverse possession as if it were a squatter on the property.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Your suggestion is unlawful, immoral, and dangerous.

Nobody "needs" more than one house, but everybody "needs" the power to convert their labor into goods, services, investments however they feel is fit. After an economic collapse, people will see that the banks were stealing by printing fake money and buying real assets. Do you think the people will just let the thieves have everything without attempting to recover it? I think not... The distribution of property will be reset and those banks will own none of it...

If we had a level playing field where no party could just "will" money into existence without value then this wouldn't even be an issue...

[Harley997]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This is the antithesis of property rights.

There are many legit reasons for a person to need to own more then one home; successful children buy a home for their parents and their children, owning rental properties that allow other families to rent and live in that cannot afford to purchase a house, just to name a few.

Property rights would be the protection of property that is owned, and limiting the number of houses that one can own would restrict what people can use their money (property) to purchase.

First off most property owners have created their fortune from Capitalism. We lost capitalism. Now we deal with so many hoops and red tape that it becomes extremely difficult to start anything up. Government got too big and there are too many bureaucrats trying to justify their jobs that all they do all day is pass more laws. There are zero legit reasons for someone needing to own more then one house. If you buy your friends and family houses then you don't own more than one house. If you pass this law all families will be able to afford one house because owning will be cheaper then renting now. Your rent pays that landlords mortgage. If prices come down then the mortgage payment goes down.

You aren't getting it... It's nobodies business how many houses I or anyone else owns... If I own too many houses that I can't keep up with them then they will likely be lost under adverse possession by squatters...

Why must a person establish a "need" to buy something? Who holds that power over the head of a citizen in our Constitutional Republic? There are massive problems, but your proposed solution would make things much worse.

Here is what I get. Allowing someone to own more the one house is slowly bringing us to Feudalism. Landlords with multiple homes hire property management companies to do the work for them, so that they don't have to take care of them.

The reason why people "need" to buy a house is so that everyone has the opportunity to buy shelter. This makes things better not worse. People that own homes care a lot more about their property then renters. Most renters don't do renovations.

What about the costs associated with selling your home? These costs are generally high and can easily reach the double digits in terms of the percentage of the sale price.

When a person works in a industry (or has a career) that requires him to move around often from city to city then he would spend a lot of money selling his house every time he had to move. Allowing this person to rent his home rather then own it would save him a lot of money in both the short run and the long run.

The same is true when someone wishes to move because of lack of job opportunities in the location that he lives in presently. If a person can move, say 500 miles away because there are job opportunities that do not exist where he lives then he would benefit if he did not have to bear the expense of selling his house.

Real estate agents here typically charge 7% of the sale. I don't see the percentage changing. But I do see real estate agents slowly being phased out with the development of websites that let you house hunt over the internet. You can do virtual tours now.

Most people I know sell their house and buy a new one when they take a job in a new city (or end up commuting). I don't see too many people just buying a place every time they work in a different city. So nothing would change. In the rare case that someone would take say a three month temp job and didn't want to sell and buy they would have to rent. There would still be some homes for rent.

You can use the blockchain to keep a public ledger of who owns which property. This would eliminate notary fees making the buying and selling of deeds to a place a lot easier and cheaper.

Most counties will charge a percentage of the value of a property when recording the transfer of a property to a purchaser, if this is not done then the buyer would not really own the property. This is usually around 1%

Real estate agents are necessary as most people are not good at negotiating and when dealing with this large of a transaction you will want to have someone on your side like this. The average price that real estate agents charge is ~6%

If you were to take out a mortgage when you buy your new house then you would need to pay for closing costs for the new loan. This usually works out to ~2-3% of the loan amount or around 1.6-2.4% if you borrow 80% of the value of the property.

[EvolutionA2Z]

You aren't going to change your view on this matter until you accept for yourself that the government has no power to decide what you spend your money on...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As of right now, government has more power now than in any other time in history. They spend my money by charging taxes on everything from pay parking, to sales taxes, to income taxes, to inflation which is just another form of tax.

If your trying to say that you shouldn't have to pay any taxes I already somewhat agree with you. But, someone has to pay the Military. There are some other departments that are essential. This is why we need to get back to small government.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

So the question is, would spilling the blood of patriots and bringing back small government, prevent government from ever getting too big again?

Insanity : Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

And the answer to that question is, no.

For anyone that says that we have to pay taxes for roads is completely wrong. They should charge that fee when you get car insurance. Someone who walks should not have to pay a road tax.

[hollowframe]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

Maybe when I say property rights you are thinking something different then me. I mean getting rid of all the codes, bylaws, regulations and taxes that impede freedom and liberty on property owners. Once that is done then you pass the one law that I talk about. So no, its not an oxymoron. Its a statement on how to bring peace during an economic collapse.

I did edit it for anyone that can't see it the way I do.

[hollowframe]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

Maybe when I say property rights you are thinking something different then me. I mean getting rid of all the codes, bylaws, regulations and taxes that impede freedom and liberty on property owners. Once that is done then you pass the one law that I talk about. So no, its not an oxymoron. Its a statement on how to bring peace during an economic collapse.

I did edit it for anyone that can't see it the way I do.

These codes, taxes and regulations protect the value of a person's property by preventing others from doing things that could impede the value of others' property.

Limiting the amount of assets that a person can own is limiting their rights.

[EvolutionA2Z]

haha Peace ? as every new law, there is always pro and against people but in this one everybody would rise a war.

It is natural of after Adam and Eve humans to satisfy eh feeling of belonging things.

Just to clarify, when I say bring peace, war has already risen.

[Benjig]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Bring back property rights. Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

This statement is what we call an oxymoron as both of what you are saying is simply not possible.

Maybe when I say property rights you are thinking something different then me. I mean getting rid of all the codes, bylaws, regulations and taxes that impede freedom and liberty on property owners. Once that is done then you pass the one law that I talk about. So no, its not an oxymoron. Its a statement on how to bring peace during an economic collapse.

I did edit it for anyone that can't see it the way I do.

These codes, taxes and regulations protect the value of a person's property by preventing others from doing things that could impede the value of others' property.

Limiting the amount of assets that a person can own is limiting their rights.

I think with a lot of the responses people don't get what the start of an economic collapse will look like. It would be hyperinflation of the currency. A run on the banks and the bonds and stock bubbles popping. Then there would be a giant wealth transfer from those that hold fiat over to those that hold hard assets. Countries like China, Russia, India and Iran that are stocking up gold and silver become extremely wealthy. When Germany repatriates its gold and the Federal Reserve can't even deliver more than 5 tons of gold http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-23/germany-gives-trying-repatriate-its-gold-will-leave-it-feds-safe-hands that tells me that America will become a third world country.  

I get what you are saying about protecting the value of a persons' property. If I don't mow the lawn then all property values on my block will go down. During an economic collapse citizens can't afford the fines and you wont be able enforce these laws thus reflecting in a true market price of what our countries houses should be listed at. What I am trying to tell you is that you have to drop these laws before you can rebuild. What do you think about the law against growing a garden in the front yard?

Yes that is it. You would be removing a persons' right to speculate in the housing market and prevent them from hoarding property. This way you would make housing affordable for our future generations. Those hoarders can go spend their cash on commodities, stocks, bonds, or even better start companies to create jobs.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

[Yakamoto]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

Communism is having the state own everything and distribute it "evenly" (Depending on your place in the social ladder) and make sure most of the populace remains poor.

And in an economic collapse, it really comes down to what you have and what you don't have. Being a serf won't necessarily be bad, but it comes down to who owns the property. You can have an a-hole for an owner, and not have a chance to do anything other than constantly work the land or pay rent. Or you can have a decent owner and be able to start a small business with other benefits to living on his land, with maybe marginally smaller rent.

It really just depends.

Not passing it wouldn't be an issue, cause if the people can't afford a house with 3% interest after many have lost their jobs because of the collapse, how do you expect for them to pay for it? They can at least for to pay off their rent otherwise, depending, and it will be smaller to pay for rent than a house for at least a few years.

[hollowframe]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

[Bit_Happy]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

To keep everything fair, perhaps the OP should be limited to one post per week? 

[Swordsoffreedom]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

Facepalm not going to work
As the others have mentioned way to many problems with this type of policy and too many cats in one house (Imagines the cat ladies of the world)

[EvolutionA2Z]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

To keep everything fair, perhaps the OP should be limited to one post per week? 

I didn't say one house per week. But that how many the Chinese are going to be buying when this all goes down. Its funny how this article talks about kids living in the basement. http://www.silverdoctors.com/chinese-purchases-of-u-s-real-estate-jump-72-as-the-bank-of-china-facilitates-money-laundering/

I guess we can put the grandkids in the attics.

Orrrrr.... in addition to one house per person. Add in there that you have to be a citizen of the country to purchase that one house.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

How many homes do we have to build on this planet? 8 Billion? 9 Billion? 10 Billion? How many people can this planet sustain? We are going to run out of oil in 53.3 years. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-14/bps-latest-estimate-says-worlds-oil-will-last-533-years

The economic collapse is going to happen because the Earth is having trouble sustaining 7 Billion people at our current levels of consumption.

[TheTribesman]

Eat the rich

[hollowframe]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

How many homes do we have to build on this planet? 8 Billion? 9 Billion? 10 Billion? How many people can this planet sustain? We are going to run out of oil in 53.3 years. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-14/bps-latest-estimate-says-worlds-oil-will-last-533-years

The economic collapse is going to happen because the Earth is having trouble sustaining 7 Billion people at our current levels of consumption.

I don't think that we need to build 10 billion homes on this plannet. Many people live in multifamily homes, live in a family home (husband, wife, children), live in apartments, live in highrise apartments. Most people do not own multiple houses and those that do often have the additional houses occupied by other people, ie are rental units.

The issue of running out of oil really has nothing to do with housing. However in order to prevent this from being an issue we simply need to invest in energy that we have a greater supply of and is reliable, ie nuclear energy.

[EvolutionA2Z]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

How many homes do we have to build on this planet? 8 Billion? 9 Billion? 10 Billion? How many people can this planet sustain? We are going to run out of oil in 53.3 years. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-14/bps-latest-estimate-says-worlds-oil-will-last-533-years

The economic collapse is going to happen because the Earth is having trouble sustaining 7 Billion people at our current levels of consumption.

I don't think that we need to build 10 billion homes on this plannet. Many people live in multifamily homes, live in a family home (husband, wife, children), live in apartments, live in highrise apartments. Most people do not own multiple houses and those that do often have the additional houses occupied by other people, ie are rental units.

The issue of running out of oil really has nothing to do with housing. However in order to prevent this from being an issue we simply need to invest in energy that we have a greater supply of and is reliable, ie nuclear energy.

First off a little History. Here is a map of the British Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#mediaviewer/File:The_British_Empire.png As you can see both Hong Kong and India were under British Rule. Both India and China have been heavily populating ever since. The more people a country has, the more SOLDIERS a country has. Result: Being able to defend itself from being ruled by another nation.

Humanity has hit a crossroads. There are 3 paths. If there is another I would love to hear about it.

1. Nuclear War and our species dies off.

2. 2.5 Billion people in China and India become fully sustainable on Nuclear Power in 53.3 years. Then, nuclear power world wide with one on every street corner with 30 Billion humans on this planet annnnddd..... our species dies off. #AlphaDecay

3. We grow and burn those trees to run our power plants. We use hydro power and wind power. We walk to work or work from home. And lastly, we grow our food with the sun.

[ozkapital]

Pass a law limiting the amount of homes you can own down to one house per person.

That would be cool, maybe it would help to decrease property cost 

[burekzastonj]

well that's how our government built house tax and they failed, people were against it and on referendum it failed. Wasted milions of € estimating value of all houses, now it's worth 0$.

[Yakamoto]

Good luck telling Americans they can't buy more land. I think it would bring a revolt, not peace. And think about what would happen to real estate prices if you could only buy one place.
Congrats, the home you bought last year for $200K is now worth $50K because too many buyers already have a home. 

Yeah, thats an useless law, its more like a communism law than a peace bringer law.

Actually it would be more communist to not pass this law. With this law our people would just be poor after the collapse. Not passing it would make them to be poor, homeless, serfs.

No this kind of law would prevent many people from prospering as the number of new homes built would go to essentially zero meaning less jobs.

This kind of law is very close to communism in that everyone is essentially able to have the same.

How many homes do we have to build on this planet? 8 Billion? 9 Billion? 10 Billion? How many people can this planet sustain? We are going to run out of oil in 53.3 years. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-14/bps-latest-estimate-says-worlds-oil-will-last-533-years

The economic collapse is going to happen because the Earth is having trouble sustaining 7 Billion people at our current levels of consumption.

I don't think that we need to build 10 billion homes on this plannet. Many people live in multifamily homes, live in a family home (husband, wife, children), live in apartments, live in highrise apartments. Most people do not own multiple houses and those that do often have the additional houses occupied by other people, ie are rental units.

The issue of running out of oil really has nothing to do with housing. However in order to prevent this from being an issue we simply need to invest in energy that we have a greater supply of and is reliable, ie nuclear energy.

First off a little History. Here is a map of the British Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#mediaviewer/File:The_British_Empire.png As you can see both Hong Kong and India were under British Rule. Both India and China have been heavily populating ever since. The more people a country has, the more SOLDIERS a country has. Result: Being able to defend itself from being ruled by another nation.

Humanity has hit a crossroads. There are 3 paths. If there is another I would love to hear about it.

1. Nuclear War and our species dies off.

2. 2.5 Billion people in China and India become fully sustainable on Nuclear Power in 53.3 years. Then, nuclear power world wide with one on every street corner with 30 Billion humans on this planet annnnddd..... our species dies off. #AlphaDecay

3. We grow and burn those trees to run our power plants. We use hydro power and wind power. We walk to work or work from home. And lastly, we grow our food with the sun.

4. Greedy bastards actually get their R&D doing something, get mechanical spaceflight working effectively, and mine helium-3 off of the moon, solving a possible energy crisis. Maybe go so far as to move humans from earth.

It's been talked about of a while now, and people are looking towards the moon as an option of generating new energy. Now, then again, there would have to be some technology advancements, but judging by the speed of technological progress, we aren't too far away from getting what we need to accomplish this. It's not the easiest solution, but power companies could make a fortune if they actually wanted to. I always have to laugh at some things I think about in the event of an oil war, however. "Send vehicles that use oil to get more oil, and use that oil to make more vehicles and power them, etc.!"

[spazzdla]

.. no

[counter]

No way would this do any good if anything it will open the door to more laws and regulations.  Such things would only be used to control the population and not be used for their benefit.  That is just how it would be sold to the majorly unsuspecting masses.  It is kind of intriguing but when you force people to do something and limit their options your heading down the wrong path and history proves that time and time again.