[continued from previous message]   
      
   the free buffer. He then gets the land with the building for free,   
   or can even ask the building to be torn down first to get access to   
   a pristine plot of land. This concerns the areas in the free buffer,   
   but not the land which is still used by "distributive owners" (or those   
   the distributive owner has rented it to, etc).   
      
   This condition of building saturation may not be an unusual condition in   
   the end, because of the likelihood of people building something on their   
   industry zone plots.   
      
   In other words ... it seems that buildings on these plots make no   
   difference to the system. There can be a functioning swap market for   
   land ownership, with or without buildings, the people can arrive at   
   their prices in this market on their own. The communication with the   
   free buffer of these lands can also remain the same, where the building   
   can be regarded as an added or substracted value for that land,   
   resulting in an adjustment. This adjustment can be to the distributive   
   owner, either positive or negative (money/effort).   
      
   There is also the adjustment possibility of dividing a singular plot of   
   land into multiple plots, if the value of the land has increased   
   greatly. The value could have increased greatly if a high value building   
   has been put on that land, in such a way that the value could - for   
   example - more or less have doubled. Let's say that for example a   
   backward laying unappealing plot of land gained a high value larger   
   building, and due to the development of land in the area the traffic   
   around this building has increased greatly, as well as the quality of   
   the roads. These things may happen over time.   
      
   In this case two things have increased in value: the land (plus   
   buildings) itself, and the area around it has changed in such a way to   
   increase the value of that land. The former goes to the credit of the   
   one who build that building, the latter is a consequence of events   
   probably largely outside of their control (or let's assume that it is).   
      
   If this building was sold to the free buffer, and the value has become   
   so great that it is now estimated to be worth multiples of a single   
   industry land plot value, then you could think of making it so that this   
   is now two plots of zoned land. You could then have two businesses   
   in that single building, or two persons who do it together and who both   
   have their land there.   
      
   It seems that things can get a bit difficult at times, with how to   
   decide what is fair and good. On the other hand, there is the adjustment   
   of the market over it. If the State decided to divide this high value   
   building into 10 zoned plots and even for a price (assuming there are   
   also still free plots in the buffer), but there are only two persons who ever   
   come to take out a room, then it seems the State has overestimated the   
   value of this building. They may have to adjust the value down again,   
   because the market does not agree with their decision.   
      
   One can also imagine there would be court appeals over time, if it can   
   reasonably be shown that a plot of land with a building unded up much   
   less valuable than it was originally sold for from the free buffer.   
      
   There seems to be some tension here, with how the laws I have proposed   
   are written, which indicate that a person can always get any land from   
   the free buffer for free. Under such rules, the State may not sell   
   buildings for a price. These buildings, if they end up in the free   
   buffer, will always be for free.   
      
   Perhaps that is the best idea after all, because then the State remains   
   free from all the problems of selling (and the corruption that may come   
   with it, such as selling cheap to family members). The owner of the   
   building (distributive owner of that land/building), then just has to   
   try to sell it to another person. if that fails, then the value of the   
   building is assumed to be zero. Assuming the value is not well below   
   zero (needs to be torn down at cost), it can then simply be   
   re-distributed for free to whomever takes for free.   
      
   With a bit more thought, and perhaps an experiment or two, it may become   
   clearer what works best.   
      
   These are perhaps the two points of this article: how does land   
   distribution function when there are buildings on that land, and at   
   least as important: these are problems you can work on, and sometimes   
   you have an idea which may seem to work, but then when you rethink it or   
   try it you may have to adjust it. You need to start solving these   
   problems. Every person on Earth needs to start solving these problems.   
   Not do what most people usually do, which is:   
      
    * I don't care.   
    * I don' have the time.   
    * I don't have the energy.   
    * I can never make any impact anyway.   
    * I can never solve anything.   
    * I don't even see the problem (!!!)   
    * I am too busy satisfying my greed.   
    * I want to be rich and greedy and an abuser of people, I want slaves.   
        More justice and fairness makes that impossible.   
      
   Etc. Solve the problem, think it over, adjust experiment and adjust.   
      
   A last point is how urgent the situation is.   
      
   Why do we first need World War 3 (economic collapse, global nuclear war   
   etc), before people notice anything is wrong ? I guess everything is   
   impossible because too many people have anti-social tendencies. They   
   don't co-operate well with each other. Too much gossip, too little   
   listening & caring, too much ambition to get rich and have your children   
   run over the top of other children by making a big money making carreer,   
   too little thinking about everyone. These behaviors are like those of   
   animals or stone age bands and tribes trying to survive in a harsh and   
   violent world with primitive tools.   
      
   We don't have to defeat any animal anymore, we won. Humanity is superior   
   forever, based on creativity and work - not based on violence. Our   
   shovel is more powerful in the world, than our sword. It's the shovel   
   which extincts other animals, not so much the sword, isn't it ? Our   
   infrastructure is an increasingly overpowering element in the world.   
   That is production, creativity, co-operation - not violence. Violence is   
   a big weakness in humanity now. It diminishes our chances of survival   
   now, even though in the stone age it may have had its purpose (just like   
   with animals, to fight over mating rights to get strong and fighting   
   fit offspring to fight it out with bears and swines). Even the violence   
   itself is only powerful now, because of the application of the peace of:   
   working together to make new weapons creatively. You are nothing "on the   
   battle field" if you train your body all day your whole life, against   
   someone who has a normal life and then does nothing more than buy a gun.   
   The gun is made out of peace: co-operation, listening to each other,   
   working together efficiently, productively, perhaps even friedly.   
      
   The sheep species makes their horns big & strong by butting them against   
   each other, and selecting for mating the winner ram (I imagine). If you   
   have guys fighting over a girl and the one on the ground looses the   
   girl, you are not going to end up with a strong army. You are going to   
   end up with a bunch of mindless knuckleheads who probably can barely   
   follow orders and with limited ability to even operate the best weapons,   
   let alone create them. Two professors fighting over a girl in the   
   workshop and the winner getting the honor of making the weapon design is   
   probably not making the best weapons, compared to another Nation where   
   the two professors are decent people who listen to each other honestly   
   and with care.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)