Robert Neuwirth: The "shadow cities" of the future

Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money

1. The trend of migration into urban areas and squatting alongside are growing across the world. These squat communities are beginning to gain a greater voice in government and society. The proposed solutions should center around legal recognition of them along w/ no government intrusion when such communities have provided affordable housing for many along w/ opportunities to enter the urban areas.
2. There we go. It kept freezing on the damn Ted site.
3. @TheMost Eccentric You are talking about anarchy. Taking the concept too far. Basically instead of corporate owners monopolizing large amounts of land for their own profit it would be those actively living on and working the land who have all the rights. The concept of holdings and rent would no longer exist. If you want to build a store you get a permit and have all the rights of the land, but you do not need to buy or lease it.
4. I see. I guess the issue I have with abandonment of property rights is, what if you're farming a stretch of land next to a river to feed your family, and someone comes along, puts his goats there, and they eat all your crops. Let's assume that the population is dense and you don't have many choices if you want to grow close to where you live. Was he wrong to put his goats in your field? By what authority was he wrong? If no one owns the land, sucks for you, you don't have any rights.
5. Why are you talking about city planning? That is another conversation entirely. In any case ghettos are the result of people not being able to afford decent housing. Another product of land ownership. I am not talking about government owning the land. I am talking about the whole concept of land ownership being done away with. The hypothetical family you speak off require money to buy the land in the first place but who has the right to take that money? Who owned the land in the first place?
6. What, like zoning? When city governments do it, they create ghettos and increase automobile dependency. I don't even want to know what happens when an entire state, let alone national government authority, does it! What's wrong with letting people determine how to use their own land? You sound pretty badly against the free market to me. You say that a family or a business owning some land is based on a false premise, but a government owning it all is natural and okay?
7. I am no talking about the government selling or distributing the produce. I am talking about the workers receiving all the profit that they generate rather than land owners skimming some off for themselves despite not have done any work. The function of the state would be to designate which areas are to be used for which purposes - growing cereals, raising livestock, etc. I am not against a free market I am against financial elitism based on the false premise of land ownership...
8. State ownership made the Russians wait in lines for bread. Private ownership gave us bread waiting in lines for us. Everyone benefits from the elements of competition and voluntarism that capitalism offers. Do you own the computer you use? If you don't, I'll bet you wish you did.
9. The people who work on the land to produce food or procure mineral resources are not the ones who benefit the most from the work they do. The land owners benefit purely on the basis of owning the piece of land. If the land is owned by a democratically run state then the produce is generated for the betterment of the society as a whole rather than the bank accounts of the supposed land owners...
10. Land ownership is based on a false premise. Who owned the land in the first place. No one. Now that all land is owned by someone people who do not own land cannot claim any for themselves. There is inequality inherent in this system. A few people in the past were allowed to claim land for themselves usually by forcing other people off the land at gun point but now there is no more land to claim. The whole concept is based on the domination of other people by a powerful few and that is unfair...
11. Democratic decision making processes create winners and losers and cannot lead to a truly egalitarian society. No political system can. But elaborate on how evil results from "property rights" but not "common ownership".
12. the populations. no fat people or lazy people or greed people cleaner living + making the world a better best no power mad people.. he and the people that makes this happen will be reminder for all time there be no need for care home as we know them today people well die of old age have kids when their want not when their do not lol who should i tell or who well help 
13. lol but more likly brake the world give me all the power in the world i mite be able to fix this mess we are getting into first thing ill do cash gone that just the start lol reform school reform work reform the ways of living i would first take the no jobs people go over what their can do and what their cant do and then see how smart their are and then we put them to work all people will be well trained to be what their can all working meaning more time for funn all helping others controlling 
14. Yeah, commie nutbags. People who believe they have a right to own and control other people, to steal their property and run their lives, all while spewing the most obscene and irrational propaganda to justify their anti-intellectual and anti-human nutbaggery. If the shoe fits... 
15. "Commie nutbags"? Go away...
16. Property rights are the bedrock of civilization, moron. And how the hell do you get "common ownership" anyway if property rights are "evil"? You commie nutbags can't even write two sentences without contradicting yourselves. Why isn't it "evil" for commie nutbags to own property then? 
17. Property rights are a source of great evil in this world. Common ownership of land, and the resources the land yields, in conjunction with a democratic decision making process is the only way to achieve a truly egalitarian society...
18. Property rights always work. What he describes is obviously not property rights but politicians making people go into debt for what is already their property which they clearly homesteaded. Would it kill people to make proper distinctions? Otherwise, the presentation was very interesting.
19. And by the way, tenants (renters) in the U.S. have only 30 days "guarantee" they won't be evicted. Landlords can and often do throw them out at will for no cause and then keep their security deposit and cost them huge inconvenience and cost. Tenants have almost no rights because of this. This is happening to someone I personally know as I type this - being thrown out in selfish retaliation because he was injured and is unable to return to work for the landlord in spite of paying rent on time. 
20. What few know is that the reason these communities exist is because of the society standards we have collectively allowed to be foisted upon us. So many believe they are better somehow and have been conditioned to believe that they are "middle class" when in truth they are one paycheck away from homelessness themselves. When they lose their good career or job and have debt and then poor credit and then can not find another job or place to live BECAUSE of poor credit they too will be THERE!