I've bin busy 
I am pessimistic myself, but to sit back and say 'oh well we gotta work within this unfair system' is not an attitude I share.
So what is your alternative? Violent action against? Peaceful action against?
if you have a planning system then you have to have the other side of the equation, you have to build houses UP to soak up the excess demand and to return the price of property to a reasonable level. To not do so perpetuates inequality.
Is the role of government to limit the inequality of a modern, capitalistic state?
Why would you waste an asset like [property] when you could sell it? Of course it will happen, but not as much as it would happen if it didn't belong to anyone, IMO.
This is false logic - you might not be able to see a rationale for keeping a building empty, but the existence of vast numbers of empty unused buildings indicates that the owners
do see the rationale. The existence of way too many empty properties indicates a market failure. If Landowners wish to keep an amount of space empty within a community then they should pay a charge per metre square for the privilege.
I was on Gloucester road in Bristol the other day, and I saw the old Bath House, completely empty and boarded up. I estimated a volume of about 13,500 cubic meters in a dynamic area. This space represents a big hole in the local community. If the price were right I'm sure that another owner would open it out and rent it out, creating jobs and maybe doing it up over time.
No, I mean what personal price, in terms of the diminution of other freedoms and rights, are you prepared to pay to the state so that they guarantee your property rights?
We need them and they need us - so we need to work out a system. My right to not be tortured is a right I cherish and I couldn't choose to waive it if I wanted to, if I could it would stop being a right.
...all the incentives are in the wrong place.
Indeed we need to apply our brains and work out a system which limits the abuse and to aligns the incentives. There are some things which cannot be left to the market. Rubbish will not be collected without some manipulation of the market.
Abolishing the planning laws
Common land has often been over farmed in the past - if land is not owned then it is abused by the population.
The planning agencies are instinctively conservative, wanting to preserve 'England's green and pleasant land'. I like Labour's policy to rule that all new builds will have a certain percent put to one side for social sources but the building of large scale, good quality high-rise living is not happening. If the planning rules were relaxed or abolished then people would build wherever they wanted and with good regulation on quality of new builds this would lead to moving the supply curve to the right thus reducing prices. It would
not of course improve the flexibility of the usage of current empty buildings. For that we need a tax per square metre as described above.
So we have two issue - existing buildings which are not being released for rent or sale, and the planning laws which are there to prevent people building on England's Green and Pleasant Land - and which contribute to the restriction of supply and the resulting higher prices.
To add to the above. I do believe in property rights, and do not believe they should be abolished. They probably do need an overhaul though as they are open to abuse.
Land is a factor of production and is limited in comparison with other countries. So the inflexible lack of supply which our system results in is a market failure and the govt should look at ways to free this up.
Jane and John
So John has an inherited advantage - I think that's ok, most people want to give their children the bast and by definition that will be at the expense of another child. And if Jane goes off to the bank and takes out a loan to better herself then good for her. Is this 'unfair' on John?
A Fair Society
We have a certain degree of fairness in society. Education for all and the NHS for example. Many are paying the price for the decision not to take the opportunities that they had as a kid. Everyone had a chance at school, and i'm sure that more than one teacher told them that it made sense to work at school coz it gives them a better life later.
The key thing is to have a system where if you work hard and educate yourself you can make it. So we should be making sure that education is fixed and that Adult education is available to all.
Inheritence tax could be set higher, but if it were set too high then the rich would leave, so there has to be a balance.
and what if people say they want more for their labour and their intelligence?
They were born with brains or they got an education, and there is nothing 'unfair' about that.
where then is fair society?
Who claims that life is fair? Is the role of govt to limit the unfairness?
In the UK we see one of the roles of govt is to ensure that the NHS is supported. It is one of the greatest feats of our system to have such an idealistic role for govt and it is one I applaud.
No wonder Europe is going for openness first and foremost. You can make fun of anything that is based on faith but I applaud the progressiveness of such libertarianism, giving a primacy to issues of freedom before the authoritarianism - it is the height in trusting the people.
