THE MANIFESTO OF A NEW DOMESTIC ORDER
An Essay on Land Ownership and House Production
Christopher Bradburn
The one objective variable with a formula that may be called objective, and reliable enough to equal it to a scientific figure, variable X. X throughout history was one of those objectives that has bought with it a subjective variable. An ironic one certainly, X = money, or the pursuit of rather. Surely such a righteous and inconsequential entity to blame one’s such unjustness the world has? Money itself isn’t enough to afford it the X of unjustness, rather it’s the ‘pursuit of’ that makes it the objective X. When one’s mentality, or mantra is tied up with an objective pursuit of a non entity such as money is, it makes the human ‘inhumane’ and stupid. The necessary evil lay in the pursuit’s consequence to industrialisation; a necessary mode for tomorrow’s progression. One mustn’t blame the industry for unjustness. Certainly not, machines and capital will be the key to a true society; it’s the mindless pursuit of money that forces man to use industry inhumanely and stupidly. The argument is, by pursuing money; X, the consequence of such pursuits lead to economic growth, which in a social sense means survival and luxury. By having X, today’s aristocrats are tying the metaphoric noose around their own neck because as the concentration of capital and wealth, by greed, greaten more and more, the quality of life will decrease as profits need to be constantly greatened and are achieved by the greatened concentration of capital and industry into the hand’s of the few; giving less to the majority. The answer lay in changing the variable X into Ặ.
Ặ is the pursuit of excellence, pursued by the same mantras of capitalism, through competition. Only Ặ is pursuing not money, but excellence, the reward for pursuing excellence is being able to survive within the world of Ặ’s competition. How one restricts X does require some regulation, one must restrict growth by restricting the ability of a person to own property. Property may not be accumulated. It’s the limiting of growth, at least in the monetary sense. The argument holds validity on the assumption that demand isn’t diminished by merely transferring the distribution of wealth and capital. There is only a void in demand if supply is restricted. The theory does not intend to diminish supply, certainly mass consumption would diminish, yet the quality of life will not be measured by quantity of valued goods, instead the quality and meaning of those things produced.
It would require a complete change in the food economy, both agriculture production and manufacture. As growth will be limited by means of restricted land ownership, the distribution of suppliers and producers will naturally evolve to ‘many’ as the demand for agriculture, by right of its necessary for survival, will remain constant as before. The value of the theory lay in a forced, perfection of competition; the very promise proclaimed by the first capitalists. By having many competitors all striving for Ặ rather than X. Money will still be a leading means for the economy but to earn money, one needs o constantly pursue Ặ to survive the other competition. To prevent the former concentration of wealth, mergers of property may only exist as separate commercial entities cooperating in the agricultural industrial. Restrictions will be made on merging manufacturers of agriculture, or retail. This will prevent total ownership of market share by right of price advantage. The high street markets may use the goods of any and as many suppliers within their capacity, including their own. Price will be kept within a median by right of consumer demand. The prevention of total state manipulation is a pinnacle of this theory; the distribution of wealth must be kept within the total populous of a state’s citizens. There must be some state owned institutions to fulfil the needed regulation. Banks will be privately owned through share holders, yet the shares will be divided equally by all citizens and their tax. Health will be public, Universities will be private to prevent propaganda and attempts of knowledge concentration, though schools will be public.
Contradictions
How does a state of perfect competition prevent a so called ‘Trans National Class’ from skewing the domestic competition?
It is commonly known that imperfect competition and indeed, unjustness comes from the academic theories of dependency theory. A state with a highly developed capitalist system may create dependency on its economy and industry by holding a monopoly of a certain service, product, patent or producer. By restricting growth and preventing the formations of multi national corporations, a state maybe greatly impaired without the modernisation some industries bring; aeroplanes and pharmaceuticals for instance.
How does one prevent the accumulation of property outside of one’s state’s boundaries and skewing the competition within by means of its potential price efficiency? The theory assumes the production by the individual or community, not by a system of bureaucracy and hierarchy’s. The assumption lay in a man’s so called ‘instinct for ambition’. Ambition will no longer be utilized through the variable of X, but Ặ. As an individual producer and owning one’s means to do so by the structure of forced perfect competition, humane production and ethical behaviour should rein trumps. As individuals producing their own goods and services, the individual will be inclined toward ethical, humane and quality farming and production with the benefits of our former society’s technological progressions.
The role of a national sovereignty within IR and the self determination of national interests may contradict some aspects of the theory, as stated prior, the trans national class and their necessary role in our modern international world order excludes them from law and regulation as stated in the theory.
Present initiative.
An economic strategy gifted from our colonial era is that of monetary dependency. Heighten the cost of living to an amount just within one’s survival needs and one will be forever dependent of an indirect income for one’s entirety. It was discovered to be more efficient to pay slaves and burden them with unreasonable rates, rents and taxes than to militarily force them to work each day. One may believe one is free with an income, ‘do as you like with your money’, certainly, that’s after you’ve paid your obligations. The parallel to slavery is surely a radical one yet there bares an undeniable truth to such parallels. The higher the cost of living, the more one is dependent on one’s job. This job may have no relevance to the worker; it just allows one to pay one’s bills. As our market becomes less competitive, the cost of living will deliberately increase as there are more profits to be plundered and jobs will become even more sacred and indeed, rare.
If one were to perceive today’s greatest situation on western dependency, one will surely observe our greatest burden; our home and the land it sits on. The artificial value of a house is such because it is not built with the sole intention of giving shelter; it is built as a medium for profit. For the majority of us who are not rich, we are obliged to become dependent on those who are. We are graced with a mortgage from the benevolent banks of capital, giving us the ability to pay for the ridiculous price of a house. Does anyone actually conceptualise what our houses are and how they are? It became normal for us to place devices within the home to inefficiently and wastefully spend heat, our houses are so poorly made that we need gas and electricity to heat the place up! This allows for another mode of monetary dependency, it seems your worth is becoming less and less as your costs go up with modernity. Water comes from the sky yet, we choose to be dependent, food grows from the earth yet… The world has been littered with materials and they lay there dormant because few of us choose to use them, instead we are coerced by convention. We rob our house from unsustainable tree logging, useless concrete and expensive bricks. Does it not seem strange that we force ourselves into even greater dependency by virtue of convention?
One may build a perfectly sound wall from the waste of a simple car tyre, compact the conveniently rounded inner tube with the dirt beneath your feet (Michael Reynolds, see Garbage Warrior). Stack them and place them as is pleasing to one’s eye and you have a beautiful wall that will live beyond you and your family. Can one not imagine the freedom of building one’s own house by hand, better than any conventional sort and with next to no money and no dependency. Imagine such a wall; the size alone would hold enough thermal mass to ensure no ridiculous heaters, less dependency! Plaster the outside of the wall and you have a canvas to express your new found freedom.
How does one justify the phenomena of land value, is it supposedly the land one is really paying for in our conventional model because it the land that holds the perceived value. One gets into debt with the assumption of making profit on the constant fluctuations in the property market. If one were not expecting to make profit, the price of a house would not be so incredulous. It is a phenomenon that is created by perception which makes it artificial. It is a farce to think the property market is ruled by consumer demand because the majority of consumers have not the means to fulfil the requisite of such a demand. The consumer is dependent on another source, i.e. the bank to fulfil our demand; our greatest dependency. How might one eliminate one’s dependency in our conventional economy of dependency?
Firstly, one must rid the mind of connecting profit with a home. One must realise the true worth or value of a home for exactly that; a home! When one tries to pursue the profit from one’s shelter, one will invariably become entangled back to a mode of dependency. So, when one has returned to their senses and intends to create a profitless house one needs to think of lessening one’s dependency. The above initiative is one small example of house production, by thinking with the fundamentals of ridding one’s dependency, one’s mind will converge with more rational ideas suited better to your interest. However, it is the land and its artificial value which causes our greatest concern. How does one lesson the dependency from the bank in order to build one’s home more reasonably?
My theory lay in cooperative purchasing; one must find land that is large enough to hold an accumulated amount of buyers. It will start with about three or four initial buyers who will finance the cost; initial bank dependency in likely to be required. All buyers will choose a small piece of the land to nest and build the independent house. The initial buyer will then offer sections of the land to other buyers, under no circumstance will profit be made, the cost will merely be to help pay off the initial mortgage, it means the cost of the land to the buyer will be incomparably cheap compared to national land prices. They are not buying the land; they are paying off the mortgage. In turn, more sections will be offered for affordable amounts until the mortgage is paid. If the price of the mortgage was evenly distributed, it should mean, depending on the accumulated buyers, that the price of the land was reasonable, rational, logical and affordable!
A rather large contention speculated to arise within the theory is the right of ownership. It is ingrained within our minds the idea of ownership because our conventional market is ruled and indeed; dependent on it. When one is giving money to pay off the mortgage in the cooperative, albeit a minor sum, one does not get the deed of any land ownership. There is a transition of trust that is assumed to the initial buyer because the land by right of convention must be written under their name. The theory has evolved to possible initiatives to create payment confidence and trust. The first is lease hold. By paying your share of the mortgage, you will in return be given a contract of trust. The initial buyer will be unable to rid you off the land because of the written lease given; one may pay 1 Euro a month for the right and formality of the land. It will last for the extent of one’s life and then offered to one’s kin. If one’s kin denies the lease, it will be offered to another purchaser who will pay the exact amount paid of the previous payment of the mortgage with exception of inflation.
The second initiative is to buy the land under a LTD company. It will be created by the initial buyers and the mortgage will be under the name of the company. The company will offer as in the previous initiative to prospective people who, once paying their small share of the mortgage, will receive an even share of the company. The paying off of the mortgage should end with many people in the company, all with the same equalled shares and rights.
If one wants to leave the cooperative, they must be willing to sell their land and house for the initial price paid with exception of inflation. One is not buying an investment; it is a house without the burden of a mortgage.
