Landlords are racketeers?

[undeadcreature]

Another daft question from me.

H2pogo said this:

Originally Posted by h2pogo

Property "laws" are certainly some thing that need examination..

Landlords and their rent should be recognised as the greedy raketeers as they truly are.
Not sure if people are spiritualy evolved enough yet to see the blatant injustice..

I would hope some sort of court system as we had in the past rather than the current violent use of force we increasingly see..

To answer the bit in bold, I musn't be evolved enough so could someone enlighten me?

We rent a privately owned house from a landlord, at £500 per month we get a 3 bedreem house with water, central heating and electricity. The rent includes the water and council tax bills.

So what makes landlords, or paying rent equivalent to racketeering?

[h2pogo]

Rent is the original raket.

[zegzy]

"Racketeers" may be an incorrect word to use to describe landlords that you believe to be exploiting or taking advantage of people.

Not 'all' landlords are bad persons but 'some' landlords are absolute bastards.

[knightstemplar]

The word "LandLord" says it all. The government is the ultimate Lord since they own ALL the land. Then whomever buys from the Guvmint is now the Landlord's bitch who collects the money for the real Lord/.Gov in the form of taxes and for this pimp's troubles, he or she can make whatever profit the sheople market can bear.

Hence, a landlord is really the government's Pimps and renters are the whores who take it is the a$$ and pay to do so.

[zegzy]

Originally Posted by knightstemplar

The word "LandLord" says it all. The government is the ultimate Lord since they own ALL the land. Then whomever buys from the Guvmint is now the Landlord's bitch who collects the money for the real Lord/.Gov in the form of taxes and for this pimp's troubles, he or she can make whatever profit the sheople market can bear.

Hence, a landlord is really the government's Pimps and renters are the whores who take it is the a$$ and pay to do so.

What is your opinion on 'individuals' who borrow money to buy property then rent that property out to other individuals at extortionate rates?

[knightstemplar]

Originally Posted by zegzy

What is your opinion on 'individuals' who borrow money to buy property then rent that property out to other individuals at extortionate rates?

That they are doing as they are programmed and under obligation to do so in our current capitalistic slave controlling society. If you have a seller or lessor and a buyer or lessee who is willing to sell or buy under no duress or physical threat then this is how our society operates. Even though it may not be right or what you consider "extortionate rates" it is legal.

The 'individuals' who borrow money to buy property then rent that property out to other individuals at extortionate rates are just mimicking what they are taught by their teachers and handlers which are their governments.

[knightstemplar]

Just FYI, I rent and prefer to do so because I only have to enter into 1 year contracts with my Pimps in case this red light district I do not care for or my new Pimp becomes abusive

Why rent from an abusive pimp bank who will use and abuse you for 30 years under contract and enforced by the law?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

So what makes landlords, or paying rent equivalent to racketeering?

I believe everybody should have the freedom of choice to spend their money how they choose to. If they choose to buy property that is their own free choice. If they wish to then attempt to rent that property out, again, that should be their own free choice. Any individual should be free to make the choice whether they then wish to rent that property from the owner. It's all about having the freedom to make choices for yourself. Maybe some believe there should be restrictions on the choices we can make for ourselves? Perhaps some kind of legislation to restrict those freedoms? Maybe some people believe they can tell you how you spend your own money? Control freaks I would call them.

[h2pogo]

Some law maxims from an thought provoking christian view point

http://ecclesia.org/truth/land.html

What belongs to no one, naturally belong to the first occupant.
Possession is a good title, where no better title appears.
Long possession produces the right of possession, and takes away from the true owner his action.
Possessor has right against all men but him who has the very right.
When a man has the possession as well as the right of property, he is said to have jus duplicatum - a double right, forming a complete title.
A person in possession is not bound to prove that the possessions belong to him.
Rights of dominion are transferred without title or delivery, by prescription, to wit, long and quiet possession.
Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person.
He who owns the soil, owns up to the sky.
The owner of a piece of land owns everything above and below it to an indefinite extent.
Of whom is the land, of him is it also to the sky and to the deepest depths; he who owns the land owns all above and all below the surface.
Every man's house is his castle.
A citizen cannot be taken by force from his house to be conducted before a judge or to prison.
The habitation of each one is an inviolable asylum for him.
Whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to it.
With the land goes whatever is on the land planted.
What is built upon the land, goes with the land: a building follows the ownership of the land.
Rivers and ports are public, therefore the right of fishing there is common to all.
Land comprehends any ground soil, or earth whatsoever; as meadows, pastures, woods, moors, waters, and marshes.

[h2pogo]

Originally Posted by knightstemplar

The word "LandLord" says it all. The government is the ultimate Lord since they own ALL the land. Then whomever buys from the Guvmint is now the Landlord's bitch who collects the money for the real Lord/.Gov in the form of taxes and for this pimp's troubles, he or she can make whatever profit the sheople market can bear.

Hence, a landlord is really the government's Pimps and renters are the whores who take it is the a$$ and pay to do so.

Totally agree...The concept of rent goes back as far as tyranny can be traced.

[aulus agerius]

Originally Posted by h2pogo

Some law maxims from an thought provoking christian view point

http://ecclesia.org/truth/land.html

Really, let's have a look:

What belongs to no one, naturally belong to the first occupant.

This concept existed in pre-Christian Roman Law - the concept of "res nullius" things owned by no one which became the property of the first person to take possession

Possession is a good title, where no better title appears.

Again, pre-Christian Roman - the Romans developed posessory interdicts and bonitary title to protect possessors and require disputes over ownership to be tried in court.

Long possession produces the right of possession, and takes away from the true owner his action.

And again, pre-Christian Roman usucapio - obtaining a property right by long possession.

Possessor has right against all men but him who has the very right.
When a man has the possession as well as the right of property, he is said to have jus duplicatum - a double right, forming a complete title.
A person in possession is not bound to prove that the possessions belong to him.

Repetitions of the other one about possession.

Rights of dominion are transferred without title or delivery, by prescription, to wit, long and quiet possession.

Enjoy your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person.
He who owns the soil, owns up to the sky.
The owner of a piece of land owns everything above and below it to an indefinite extent.

More generalised expression of traditional ideas about property law... nothing new here...

Of whom is the land, of him is it also to the sky and to the deepest depths; he who owns the land owns all above and all below the surface.

More repetition.

Every man's house is his castle.
A citizen cannot be taken by force from his house to be conducted before a judge or to prison.
The habitation of each one is an inviolable asylum for him.

Lol. Taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that any criminal up to an including a murderer could avoid punishment simply by going home and staying there.

Whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to it.
With the land goes whatever is on the land planted.
What is built upon the land, goes with the land: a building follows the ownership of the land.

More obvious restatements of traditional concepts of land ownership

Rivers and ports are public, therefore the right of fishing there is common to all.

this is another Roman law borrowing

Land comprehends any ground soil, or earth whatsoever; as meadows, pastures, woods, moors, waters, and marshes.

more repetition.

[h2pogo]

Originally Posted by zegzy

"Racketeers" may be an incorrect word to use to describe landlords that you believe to be exploiting or taking advantage of people.

Not 'all' landlords are bad persons but 'some' landlords are absolute bastards.

True Raket wasnt a great description..The debate about landlords and rent probarbly date back to when people could first beat people with sticks..The word racket was only invented last century..

The subject exemplifies the greed and selfishness in the human race where human rights are traded as a commodity.

Exploit thy neighbour is the norm

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by h2pogo

True Raket wasnt a great description..The debate about landlords and rent probarbly date back to when people could first beat people with sticks..The word racket was only invented last century..

The subject exemplifies the greed and selfishness in the human race where human rights are traded as a commodity.

Exploit thy neighbour is the norm

It's not really exploitation is it if you are exploiting each other?
You can't really expect to occupy someone elses property for free?............... can you?

[h2pogo]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

It's not really exploitation is it if you are exploiting each other?
You can't really expect to occupy someone elses property for free?............... can you?

If they are occupying it then obviously not..But if they are not occupying it how can they rightfully claim ownership..Its just a title..

And yes for a long time courts ruled people have the right to occupy abandoned buildings..Some squatter in town here just won a case

But its becoming extremely difficult in Europe

Hard thought for rights like a home are being lost the world over..Exploitation is the norm even though we are proving a system based on greed and selfishness is not sustainable..

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by h2pogo

If they are occupying it then obviously not..But if they are not occupying it how can they rightfully claim ownership..Its just a title..

Define "occupy".
For instance if somebody nips out to the shops for an afternoon have they ceased to occupy their property? What if they go on holiday for a week, a month, three months?

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by h2pogo

If they are occupying it then obviously not..But if they are not occupying it how can they rightfully claim ownership..Its just a title..

And yes for a long time courts ruled people have the right to occupy abandoned buildings..Some squatter in town here just won a case

But its becoming extremely difficult in Europe

Hard thought for rights like a home are being lost the world over..Exploitation is the norm even though we are proving a system based on greed and selfishness is not sustainable..

I'm not talking about squatters, I'm on about a house that is recognised as being owned by someone regardless of wether it is occupied.

Of course it is just a title, but that title determins who has rightful claim to the house if it is disputed.

For example, what would happen if you went on holidy for a few weeks leaving your house unoccupied. I break in and lay claim to the house as a squatter. As far as the law is concerned, you are the rightful owner of the house and can forcibly remove me. But according to your logic, there is bugger all you can do because the house was left unoccupied and I now have rightful claim to what was your house.

Edit: What is it with my slow responses today..........

[h2pogo]

Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen

Define "occupy".
For instance if somebody nips out to the shops for an afternoon have they ceased to occupy their property? What if they go on holiday for a week, a month, three months?

If its some ones home then its occupied..

[rumpelstilzchen]

Originally Posted by h2pogo

If its some ones home then its occupied..

So there is no upper limit on the amount of time they may be absent?

[h2pogo]

Originally Posted by undeadcreature

I'm not talking about squatters, I'm on about a house that is recognised as being owned by someone regardless of wether it is occupied.

Of course it is just a title, but that title determins who has rightful claim to the house if it is disputed.

For example, what would happen if you went on holidy for a few weeks leaving your house unoccupied. I break in and lay claim to the house as a squatter. As far as the law is concerned, you are the rightful owner of the house and can forcibly remove me. But according to your logic, there is bugger all you can do because the house was left unoccupied and I now have rightful claim to what was your house.

Edit: What is it with my slow responses today..........

If you went on holiday then your house wasnt abandoned.
I just think the rules are all wrong..I dont think people can own loads of property's Its not possible to occupy two homes so owning a load of houses if wasting..Like wasting food is wrong..
Wealthy people exploiting poor will always lead to a struggle.

[undeadcreature]

Originally Posted by h2pogo

If you went on holiday then your house wasnt abandoned.
I just think the rules are all wrong..I dont think people can own loads of property's Its not possible to occupy two homes so owning a load of houses if wasting..Like wasting food is wrong..
Wealthy people exploiting poor will always lead to a struggle.

It isn't being wasted if it is being used for it's intended purpose though is it? In other words, if someone is living in it then it isn't being wasted.