Skip to main content

Increasing Rents is the First Duty of Government

The reason that increasing the value of a nation's land is its government's first duty, is because that gives it the best chance to defend itself from conquerors and invaders. 

The income stream from location value is RENT. So rent is the best indicator of a nation's value. Not stock prices, capital hoarded, tariffs, house prices, gold or crypto hoarded nor population size.

The value of a nation's land is what all conquerors come for first and foremost. So is by far the strongest signal indicating that land is where ultimate value lies, beyond all other derivative forms of value. 

If you own a land title, by implication the people who are paying you rent for living and working on it, must be your slaves. The master can be an individual landowner or a nation of people which claims administrative ownership of a foreign nation by conquest. Slaves exist in much greater numbers today than ever before, and they live right next door to you as neighbours. 

I'm not saying being a master of slaves is a good or a bad thing. I'm saying it's happening in every nation without exception, always has done so and looks like it will remain that way forever. 

I'm simply saying it happens 100% for definite.  And the wise householder will confess to it and protect their household from its effects in the most effective way. This also means you will be honoured by your descendants for making the most important decisions wisely - High IQ.

And the best way to do this is "TO GET RENT". By owning title to some land, administered and protected by government. And the government which protects its land and helps raise its value the most by its wise High IQ administration, is the government you must elect if you value the future of your descendants. 

The only way a householder, or its macro level form - government, can achieve this is by doing all it can as a first duty to increase the value of the land they have title to. Think of the government not as the land owner per se(that would be yet another terrible communistic dystopia killing billions of its own people again). But the agency who administers the protection of the 150 million land titles of the United States for example. Or at a rough educated guess: approximately 1 to 2 billion formally registered land titles worldwide.

There's no need to get all moral about it. This happens all over the world in every time and place. It's not an opinion. There have never been any exceptions to this general rule. This is how all nations have always been, on first principle. 

Nations which are conquered easily tend to be on land with lower relative value. That is, given the nation is not functioning as well as it might, by implication its land will be of lower value all else being equal. And it will not have as much capacity to defend itself. And will be easier to conquer relative to the nations of high land value. 

Likewise, nations which are hard to conquer tend to be on land with high relative value. They can defend themselves very well. 

It also means the nation whose land commands the highest rent is the one which can most easily invade and conquer other nations. And this has been the historical tendency. Today the invasion is usually done purely economically rather than sending in troops. A military is only required when competing nations are a close match in land rental value and skin must be put into the game. Both sides will have already run out of drones.

This sounds immoral. But it's only immoral if your intent is to do the conquering because you don't like the people on that land for some reason other than that they have higher IQ than you - yes, THAT would be immoral and so called racist. Otherwise its all perfectly moral. Ideally you should be conquering foreign land because your intent is to increase the land value there too, in the end, for your descendants. This is what Elon is proposing to do in Space. It's not clear if he's aware of it yet though. 

So the reason that increasing the value of a nation's land is its government's first duty, is because that gives it the best chance to defend itself from conquerors and invaders. And the biggest opportunity to improve the value of land everywhere else for its descendants.

These descendants may well be people from conquered lands who are now doing very well indeed. Can you think of any reason they might complain now? Only people of Low IQ comes to mind living on land they are deliberately, pathologically, suicidally reducing the value of. They will soon be conquered. 

It also means that any government who is trying to reduce the value of its nation's land should be ejected from power by the people immediately, by all means.

Remember: the land does not belong to the state or a person, it is held in common for the protection of our descendants. And the living today are its sub tenants acting with wisdom for the security of our children.

One day in the very distant future, a space bound political movement with Low IQ will be declaring "colonialism" by the present High IQ people for its conquest of space. Imagine that. It will be the identical psychopathy placing our descendants in serious jeopardy just as we see today, at scale.  

p.s. curiously Grok had a great deal of trouble producing this image of the value of land in outer space. It was insisting on drawing it only on the earth or a planet. It had no concept of the fact that land value exists in outer space just as much as it does on the earth. Much like people cannot see land value on the coasts before the sea is recovered and commands a much higher rent - the land value of oceans and space is just at present very low, probably negative. And ripe for conquest. Watch out for the alien aborigines.


Popular Posts

PETITION: Government to indicate countries of the UK are open to accede to the US

Sign the Petition A Dialogue on the UK's Accession to the United States Executive Summary This initiative seeks to foster a formal dialogue regarding the potential accession of the countries of the United Kingdom , to the United States , as individual states.  Simply put, this petition is asking the government to start a conversation about the benefits of leaving the UK and joining the United States. The objective is to evaluate the benefits to citizens and stakeholders, encouraging a constructive discourse on the political, economic, and social implications of such a union. If Wales , Northern Ireland , Scotland , or  England were to leave the United Kingdom, it would end their system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy . Instead, if they joined the United States as separate states, they would govern themselves under the U.S. federal system while receiving its protection. This proposal recognises that immediate change is unlikely but urges a serious con...

Facing Draco, Mining Dorado

This is a proposal to show how the 18.6 year real estate cycle is a hang over from times where the mechanics of the lunar month were used by high priests of the time to forecast ancient agricultural cycles - what we would today call a business cycle culminating in a financial crisis or a great recession. The 18.6 year period is governed by the intersection of lunar and solar eclipses. It is known scientifically as the Saros Cycle. Where all 3 harmonics of the orbit of the moon coincide once every 18.6 years. The ancient scholars knew this. And the politicians of the time used it to signal the day when the economy would be deliberately reset by fiat. This reset was necessary because this period was about how long the people of nations could abuse the economy before it was too late to recover on its own and much worse effects would have emerged. So it was the wisdom of the leadership of the time. As the aeons went by, the meaning and rationale of this policy became normalised - people an...

Who Said There Was Anything Wrong With a Worldview?

Who Said There Was Anything Wrong With a Worldview? I didn't. But it's when I believe my worldview, is truth, that I become violent without realising it. This is extremely hard for people to accept as possible. The resistance to seeing it and the temptation to escape from looking, is built into its foundations. So, I never said worldviews are bad for us. I did say that when I believe my worldview is a fact, then "I" become root cause of the worlds problems. Thought creates an image of the world. Then thought worships the image that thought created. I am scared of death. So I create an existential worldview about immortality - an image. This can be a God, a political ideology, scientific religiosity, atheism, planet saving activism, anything which my fear of death can hide behind. So if I do 'good' through this image I created, I will ultimately get a 'seat on the right hand side of God' , or whatever the image I created has defined as heaven. Then I w...