Matter of principle; should people be able to buy any land for sale?

[Theodarzna]

This is an odd discussion point, but I am curious if, as a matter of general opinion...

Should people of any race, creed, color, religion, or ideological affiliation be able to buy land anywhere in the world presuming the parcel of land is for sale? This can be done by an individual or organization representing an interested party(s).

This is a simple and hopefully straightforward question. This is not a question of "should land be purchasable?" which is its own interesting debate.

EDIT: As a second point, also answer if its within one parcel of civil territory (I.E. a citizen of a State buying land within their respective State)

[Vayro]

I lean towards no. Only citizens of a country should be able to own land in said country.

[Aberrict]

I'd say no. Don't want someone buying a patch of land with a valuable resource and then holding a monopoly on it.

[Theodarzna]

I lean towards no. Only citizens of a country should be able to own land in said country.

How about a scenario?

A person, recently granted the right to own property buys a lot of land and then houses his friends and family on it. Possibly even legally foreign born persons.

Is he fundamentally, on a matter of principle, not law since we are assuming all these actions are legal under the civil authority, right to do so or even within his rights to do so?

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say no. Don't want someone buying a patch of land with a valuable resource and then holding a monopoly on it.

If someone within your country buys it up though that is ethical?

[Dhrizzle]

I don't think a person should be discriminated against owning land based on their race/colour/creed/ethnicity etc. Is there an actual point this is related to?

[Boogums]

In America, you still have to abide by America's laws, even if you own the property. So if you wanted to house illegal immigrants on land you own, you can't. I agree you should at least be the citizen of the country to own land on it.

[Theodarzna]

I don't think a person should be discriminated against owning land based on their race/colour/creed/ethnicity etc. Is there an actual point this is related to?

Possibly, it depends on the answers.

This question came to be after a lengthy discussion in a history honors society meet up that discussed things like land laws in China for example, would it be right to restrict Han Chinese from owning land in Tibet to preserve Tibetian culture? But fundamentally the law is racist?

Or in the Israeli-Arab conflict, after the Ottoman Empire liberalised its land laws that made Jewish land ownership legal, was it right or wrong that they could buy land and bring in friends and neighbors or other Jews and help them settle in the land they own.

Or would it be right for Hindu's to buy up land in Pakistan and with that drive off Muslims, or Vic Versa.

Can Europeans, to preserve their indigenous cultures banish or prevent migrant settlement in their countries? If not, is it also wrong for African's to drive off Boers? Would it be wrong for Europeans to buy land in Africa and settle them, their families, friends and families there?

It was a big topic.

[Dhrizzle]

Possibly, it depends on the answers.

This question came to be after a lengthy discussion in a history honors society meet up that discussed things like land laws in China for example, would it be right to restrict Han Chinese from owning land in Tibet to preserve Tibetian culture? But fundamentally the law is racist?

Or in the Israeli-Arab conflict, after the Ottoman Empire liberalised its land laws that made Jewish land ownership legal, was it right or wrong that they could buy land and bring in friends and neighbors or other Jews and help them settle in the land they own.

Or would it be right for Hindu's to buy up land in Pakistan and with that drive off Muslims, or Vic Versa.

Can Europeans, to preserve their indigenous cultures banish or prevent migrant settlement in their countries? If not, is it also wrong for African's to drive off Boers? Would it be wrong for Europeans to buy land in Africa and settle them, their families, friends and families there?

It was a big topic.

That seems to be more about use of land than who actually owns it.

[Theodarzna]

That seems to be more about use of land than who actually owns it.

I would argue who owns the land effects how its used.

[Dhrizzle]

I would argue who owns the land effects how its used.

To an extent, though privately owned land is still under the laws of the country it is part of and civil authorities enforce their own codes, such as dictating whether land can be used for residential, commercial or industrial use and requiring licenses for certain types of businesses.

[belfpala]

I would argue who owns the land effects how its used.

I'll just go off on a tangent... Gentrification, which results in displacing people who can no longer afford to live in an area.

Or, how about eminent domain?

[Independent voter]

Chinese are buying up some pretty big or famous properties in the US. Nobody is complaining about it so far.

[Mihalik]

This thread confuses me.

1, Land is a commodity. If you are a capitalist or even a democratic socialist you should respect the principles of a free market. On a free market commodities are traded freely. You could make the argument that land is a strategic asset, but once you make that argument you go down on a really slippery slope, where you can pretty much label anything as a strategic asset. As it has been said before, just because a plot belongs to a foreign national or entity it doesn't mean your national laws would no longer apply.

2, Being able to trade land is crucial for foreign investments. It's beneficial to the real estate market, and is crucial for major investments that often require multi-national funding, like mining projects, major real estate development projects etc, which in the end significantly benefit the locals as well.

3, The ability to freely trade land also significantly reduces the chances of war. Why invade an area, if you can just buy a plot, invest in it and benefit from it? When you restrict the ability to trade land, you set yourself up for gentrification and land grabs.

The arguments for restricting the free trade of land come from the unreasoning possessive lizard part of our brains. It is not a reasoned stance.

[Deleted]

No, at best you should be able to lease it.

[Deleted]

not in my back yard

/grrrrrrr

[Primalthirst]

Yes, anyone should be able to purchase and own land that is for sale anywhere, regardless of race/gender/religion/sexual orientation/vampirism/number of limbs/etc

- - - Updated - - -

No. Not everyone should be able to buy land just anywhere.

The government should be able to deny foreigners from buying land near military installations for example.

If it's an issue that the land is too close to the installation then the government should acquire it.

[Deleted]

Seeing as we dont really live countries as much as trade sectors, I'd say yes.

[Noradin]

Depends on the extend of rights transfered by "buying" land.
In most European states buying land does not mean you are free to do whatever you want with it, you still have to play by the rules and if it is deemed that you own it just to keep it from others to the serious detriment of society then it can even be taken from you without your consent (with compensation).
Society in these cases also guarntees the protection of minorities and similar things.

In these cases it is perfectly allright if everyone can buy land.

In cases where there are no such failsaves in place it can be more beneficial not to allow everyone to freely buy and sell land, but I would prefer the first model.

[Doctor Amadeus]

No there should be limits to everything.

[Raeph]

This is an odd discussion point, but I am curious if, as a matter of general opinion...

Should people of any race, creed, color, religion, or ideological affiliation be able to buy land anywhere in the world presuming the parcel of land is for sale? This can be done by an individual or organization representing an interested party(s).

This is a simple and hopefully straightforward question. This is not a question of "should land be purchasable?" which is its own interesting debate.

EDIT: As a second point, also answer if its within one parcel of civil territory (I.E. a citizen of a State buying land within their respective State)

I'd say no, as long as the restrictions are reasonable using this point: A small rural town near me has a 140 acre plot of land that they have been leasing for animal grazing, but they want to sell and have had a for sale sign on it for about 6 years, that I can remember.

The towns restriction on the land? they want someone to come in a buy up all 140 acres in one shot, one buyer, and they want it used specifically for housing development.

Now I have a friend who wants to buy 1-5 acres for bit of a vacation home (he lives in Louisiana, about six hundred miles away). I think the town is reasonable in restricting the sale of the land as they see fit given it is a reasonable restriction.

If the town however said we only want white people, 5 foot 8 inches, with three kids and a wife and they must have a net worth of 1 million dollars to buy the land then that would be an unreasonable restriction.

- - - Updated - - -

I seriously question the morality behind being able to 'own' a piece of land. Wether you're native or a foreigner.

The only way people can own land is if someone claimed it before them, and the only original way to 'claim land' was by killing or intimidating whoever disagreed with you owning it.*


If you do allow people to own land though then, uhm, global capitalism is a thing nowadays, and anyone can buy anything no matter where they're from.

(* And I'm now a huge hypocrit for saying this because I'm a landlord and earn a living from charging tenants rent)

Depends on what your moral responsibility to the land is then, I would say.

If "ownership" of a parcel means to you "Its mine and you whippersnappers can't have it, HAHA!!!" then I would say that would be a problem. However if your concept of "ownership" is one of stewardship, with paying the full social duties required of the land (upkeep requirements, property taxes) then that is a very good thing.

You can be either a tyrant with your property or be a steward with your property. Two different moral stances that would lead to different results.