Attache ta tuque

how much above sea level are we talking?

NO. Land belongs to all the inhabitants of the world. Cordoning it off for private profit is capitalism, and we can clearly see the evils capitalism has inflicted on humans, animals, the entire planet.

Depends on the investor.

ah, I gave up my mischief and voted "qualified yes". 🙁

Qualification: highlands, close to big cities but not inside the big cities.

@jamiexml @Jonathanglick you are very correct

@Jonathanglick Ev, just heard from friends in Montreal. It's gonna take more than a tuque, tonight, buddy.

Ask Bill Gates and friends.

it's a great investment in our current economic system, no question. However, I'm not convinced that "ownership" of land is even a logically consistent concept. I mean, it's basically someone fencing off part of the commons, keeping everyone else out by force, and then "selling" it to someone else who now feels entitled to the land because they "bought" it. And I say this as a homeowner and rural land owner.

Also, I think it's unethical to hoard housing when there's such a housing crisis.

Morally good or financially good?

It is a qualified yes as it matters how much land and if you can do anything with it. Our “vacant land” forfeiture sales locally are usually for tiny strips of land that can’t be effectively utilized and nobody bothered to pay the property tax millage on. I could buy a tiny right of way at a sheriff’s auction but if I can’t do anything with it I wasted both time and money.

a man must have land, Duddel

it depends m80

Not going to answer this one, because I'm a a hippy and I think land ownership is generally bad. But can't vote 'no' either, because financially, I'm sure it's a good investment!

So, (x) Qualified it's complicated

It depends.

Yes, unless it is in an area at risk.

Is it ethical and moral to buy and make money from it?

I dunno.

Is it wise to be morally correct to not accept the world in which live?

I dunno.

yeah, but it shouldn't be. Probably some nuance lost

Qualified Yes.
Depends on location and usage restrictions

Yes, and I have some, but I think the entire system is fucked.

I don’t know — did you consider joining the Mitsubishi Hive after you passed your Adulthood Competency Exam?

you might get better performance with the stock market but even if the land price drop you still have it and can use it in so many ways like farming it.

Strong yes for farmland. Go review the tweets of Danielle DiMartino Booth over the past year if you don't believe me.

Yes, it's a great investment if we de-fence it by creating legal vehicles for common ownership of the land; absolutely not if being purchased for predatory personal investment purposes.

owning properties but leaving them unimproved is a bad “investment” and bad for the community. If you have improvements, then it’s not really the land you’re investing in but the idea.

for someone rich who wants to maintain the existing imbalances, yes. For society, a hard no.

Until the revolution, anyway.

Great poll and great conversation.

I'm qualified yes. Being a custodian of land has been one of the most important experiences in my life. Our house feels vital to our family. It connects us to the community we live in. Our garden is a connection to the natural world.

I understand the problems of owning land when others can't, or of owning land in a settler state. I would like to be part of solving these problems.

Thanks to all who answered and commented.

@beckett why

Land is the purest form of capital. Accumulation of land for rent-seeking or just hoarding is raises coats for non-capitalists. Control of land is control of behavior on that land. Capital ownership of land is fundamentally oppressive.