Why does the monarch own all the land in Britain?
Scroll to see replies
'civil government as far as it is instituted for the protection of property is in reality instituted for the protection of the property of the rich against the poor,or against those who have some property against those who have none'. Not a quote from Karl Marx it is a quotation of Adam Smith author of 'The Wealth of Nations' an iconic treatise on political economy. He highlighted the fact that no human rights can exist without property rights so those who subscribe to the notion that 'Nobody gives a **** because we're all millennials who are more likely to win the lottery, get struck by lightning and bit by an asteroid at the same time than to buy a house / land'. will continue to support a settlement dating from 1066 that ensures they never will have property in the land of their birth and be forever propertyless subjects not propertied citizens.
(edited 4 years ago)
Ayn Rand (US 20th) in ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’ writes, ‘in a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary [per Rousseau]. Men [and women presumably] are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions and interests dictate’. In order to realise such a society everyone would have to be a commonwealth capitalist; that is have a certain amount of property that is inalienable (not contestable nor tradable) otherwise none of the freedoms she advances for the individuals populating her idealised state could be realised. If individuals are to be in a position to decline submission to another individual (rather than submit to the legal instructions and sanctions of the State they live in) by right then possession of the minimum property necessary for subsistence (guaranteed food and shelter) of right would be necessary to allow the latitude she envisages for dealings between individuals; the liberty of not being coerced by their fellow citizens.
She counsels her readers, “Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights’. No human rights can exist without property rights.”. She is right, property is a claim that the individual can count on being enforced in their favour by the State. Property is THE fundamental human right (we are physical beings that require the perpetual supply of food and shelter to exist) followed by a level of security to protect it in order to realise an inalienable right to life. Every individual’s liberty is circumscribed by two considerations (food and shelter) liberty is not a fundamental human right, property (in the intangible legal sense) and provision for its security have to be in order to champion a right to life and afford all individuals a measure of liberty. To accomplish this rights of property in an equitable, delineated, monetary society have to be inalienably subsumed in the common domain.
She counsels her readers, “Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights’. No human rights can exist without property rights.”. She is right, property is a claim that the individual can count on being enforced in their favour by the State. Property is THE fundamental human right (we are physical beings that require the perpetual supply of food and shelter to exist) followed by a level of security to protect it in order to realise an inalienable right to life. Every individual’s liberty is circumscribed by two considerations (food and shelter) liberty is not a fundamental human right, property (in the intangible legal sense) and provision for its security have to be in order to champion a right to life and afford all individuals a measure of liberty. To accomplish this rights of property in an equitable, delineated, monetary society have to be inalienably subsumed in the common domain.
(edited 4 years ago)
ALL the land? If liz comes round here and asks for my house I'm yeeting her OAP ass into the nearest river fam.
Edit for MI5: This is a joke
Edit for MI5: This is a joke
Original post by landscape2014
Ayn Rand (US 20th) in ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’ writes, ‘in a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary [per Rousseau]. Men [and women presumably] are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions and interests dictate’. In order to realise such a society everyone would have to be a commonwealth capitalist; that is have a certain amount of capital that is inalienable (not contestable nor tradable) otherwise none of the freedoms she advances for the individuals populating her idealised state could be realised. If individuals are to be in a position to decline submission to another individual (rather than submit to the legal instructions and sanctions of the State they live in) by right then possession of the minimum capital necessary for subsistence (guaranteed food and shelter) of right would be necessary to allow the latitude she envisages for dealings between individuals; the liberty of not being coerced by their fellow citizens.
She counsels her readers, “Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights’. No human rights can exist without property rights.”. She is right, property is a claim that the individual can count on being enforced in their favour by the State. Property is THE fundamental human right (we are physical beings that require the perpetual supply of food and shelter to exist) followed by a level of security to protect it in order to realise an inalienable right to life. Every individual’s liberty is circumscribed by two considerations (food and shelter) liberty is not a fundamental human right, property (in the intangible legal sense ) and provision for its security have to be in order to champion a right to life and afford all individuals a measure of liberty. To accomplish this rights of property in an equitable, delineated, monetary society have to be inalienably subsumed in the common domain.
She counsels her readers, “Remember that there is no such dichotomy as ‘human rights’ versus ‘property rights’. No human rights can exist without property rights.”. She is right, property is a claim that the individual can count on being enforced in their favour by the State. Property is THE fundamental human right (we are physical beings that require the perpetual supply of food and shelter to exist) followed by a level of security to protect it in order to realise an inalienable right to life. Every individual’s liberty is circumscribed by two considerations (food and shelter) liberty is not a fundamental human right, property (in the intangible legal sense ) and provision for its security have to be in order to champion a right to life and afford all individuals a measure of liberty. To accomplish this rights of property in an equitable, delineated, monetary society have to be inalienably subsumed in the common domain.
I take it you won't ever be buying a house when you grow up? I mean, since you won't own it, there'd be no point.
Retired Messiah, TheHof. You both misunderstand the nature of landownership in the UK (post #4). When you buy a house its yours (when you’ve paid the mortgage loan off) the land on which your house sits is not yours its is either held of the crown (the Queen in this context) freehold or leasehold your tenure is feudal (the UK is the Queen‘s incorporeal hereditament - fixed by bloodline from 1066 and no legislation has been passed to strip a monarch of it). Basically freehold means you don’t have to pay any charges to the monarch to exercise control over her land. Leasehold means that you pay ground rent and whatever charges are agreed to occupy the Queen’s land or the land of any freeholder. Much of the UK is held by individuals and corporates freehold and they lease the area they hold to other individuals and corporates who are required to pay ground rent. Since the C19th a substantial market in privately held leases has been operating for investors who wish to benefit from the steady income from tranches of leases, most on domestic properties. Builders would either buy the freehold or enter into a lease agreement with the freeholder and then build houses on the plot, the builders who bought the freehold then had two choices either sell the house with freehold tenure or retain the freehold and sell it on a lease which entitled them to annual ground rent. The system was tailor made for the rentier class, abuse of the power afforded freeholders to charge leaseholders was widespread (though not universal) right from the start. In the C21st Corporate finance began to exploit this potential goldmine the major building concerns embarked on a cynical policy to ‘fleece’ their customers. They introduced ground rent escalation clauses into lease agreements which they expected their salespeople would con their customers into agreeing to. To obviate their customers directly connecting them with the payment of ground rent they set up obscure property investment companies in tax havens (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Luxemburg, et al) which ostensibly held the freeholds as an investment, the profit going to the building concern, or having created a potential goldmine they opted to sell the freeholds on for cash to another property investment company. Only when the householder realised that their ground rent was to double every 10yrs did the penny drop that they had been scammed, their builders directing them to correspond with solicitors ‘who were only doing their job’ or investment companies they had never heard of. George Osbourne’s ‘Help to Buy’ scheme was in fact a ‘Help to Build’ gimmick designed to subsidise the construction industry not homeowners (25% of the properties sold under the scheme were leaseholds). Nationalisation of the land would curtail such abuses. All those who presently hold land freehold would become primary leaseholders of the land they presently have title to and pay 0.5p per m2 for undeveloped land and 5p per m2 for built-on land in order to pay every individual national £25 p.a. ground rent. The primary leaseholder would be solely responsible for the payment of ground rent and there would be no provision for them to collect ground rent in any of the sub-leases they enter into.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by landscape2014
Retired Messiah, TheHof. You both misunderstand the nature of landownership in the UK (post #4). When you buy a house its yours (when you’ve paid the mortgage loan off) the land on which your house sits is not yours its is either held of the crown (the Queen in this context) freehold or leasehold your tenure is feudal (the UK is the Queen‘s incorporeal hereditament - fixed by bloodline from 1066 and no legislation has been passed to strip a monarch of it). Basically freehold means you don’t have to pay any charges to the monarch to exercise control over her land. Leasehold means that you pay ground rent and whatever charges are agreed to occupy the Queen’s land or the land of any freeholder. Much of the UK is held by individuals and corporates freehold and they lease the area they hold to other individuals and corporates who are required to pay ground rent. Since the C19th a substantial market in privately held leases has been operating for investors who wish to benefit from the steady income from tranches of leases, most on domestic properties. Builders would either buy the freehold or enter into a lease agreement with the freeholder and then build houses on the plot, the builders who bought the freehold then had two choices either sell the house with freehold tenure or retain the freehold and sell it on a lease which entitled them to annual ground rent. The system was tailor made for the rentier class, abuse of the power afforded freeholders to charge leaseholders was widespread (though not universal) right from the start. In the C21st Corporate finance began to exploit this potential goldmine the major building concerns embarked on a cynical policy to ‘fleece’ their customers. They introduced ground rent escalation clauses into lease agreements which they expected their salespeople would con their customers into agreeing to. To obviate their customers directly connecting them with the payment of ground rent they set up obscure property investment companies in tax havens (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Luxemburg, et al) which ostensibly held the freeholds as an investment, the profit going to the building concern, or having created a potential goldmine they opted to sell the freeholds on for cash to another property investment company. Only when the householder realised that their ground rent was to double every 10yrs did the penny drop that they had been scammed, their builders directing them to correspond with solicitors ‘who were only doing their job’ or investment companies they had never heard of. George Osbourne’s ‘Help to Buy’ scheme was in fact a ‘Help to Build’ gimmick designed to subsidise the construction industry not homeowners (25% of the properties sold under the scheme were leaseholds). Nationalisation of the land would curtail such abuses. All those who presently hold land freehold would become primary leaseholders of the land they presently have title to and pay 0.5p per m2 for undeveloped land and 5p per m2 for built-on land in order to pay every individual national £25 p.a. ground rent. The primary leaseholder would be solely responsible for the payment of ground rent and there would be no provision for them to collect ground rent in any of the sub-leases they enter into.
Silly me, dunno why asked if you'd buy your own house when you grow up. I can imagine you'll be living in a squat, or prison (at the crown's pleasure).
Melt down the Crown Jewels and share the money between the people
-NHS funds
-get rid of university fees
-lower taxes for lower income families
-invest in schools and public services
-NHS funds
-get rid of university fees
-lower taxes for lower income families
-invest in schools and public services
How can an equal individual interest in all of nature’s bounty be maintained without disturbing any particular individual’s right to exclude all other individuals from their plot? Nationalisation (NOT State appropriation!) addresses the apparent conundrum that the inclusivity of all individuals’ interest in a territory and a particular individual’s right to exclude everyone else from their real estate produces. Nationalization (like ‘love’ a much misused appellation) should be understood as the right of the individuals that make up the nation to be treated as individual beneficial owners, not the State (because if we accept the State (monarch) as owner it means the nation’s patrimony is subject to disposal by any partisan interests who have charge of it – a disposal which the British and many other nationalities have observed with careless equanimity over countless years). ‘Nationalisation’ is regularly used as a euphemism for State appropriation its use should be restricted to a meaning consistent with the organisation of the letters; the individuals of the nation having an equal interest in whatever is considered nationalised and in a commonwealth capitalist society being compensated for another’s exclusive use of it. Nationalisation of territory is confused with State appropriation because few people believe that one individual within a nation is as much entitled to a share of it as any other individual, they readily accept that they are not hereditarily entitled but a monarch or a convenient fiction, the State, is. Accepting opportunistic government’s (of left or right wing persuasions) interpretation of nationalisation conflates the concept of the nation with that of the State, they are very different concepts and one, the inanimate State (its government), should be ultimately subordinate to the other, the sentient nation (citizens), when those who are conditionally permitted allowed authority over the citizen have exhausted the patience of the governed.
When British territory is nationalised there would be no need for anyone to move. The legal notion that the area constituting the UK is ultimately owned by the monarch as feudal overlord would be replaced by the legal notion that all the UK area is leased from the nation (not the Monarch or the State). The monarchy’s technical authority over UK area would be extinguished (the position of the monarch as a Head of State need not be affected). Incumbents individual or corporate would become lifetime 1st leaseholders (instead of a freeholder or leaseholder who holds land of the crown) of the areas they presently control. For example; with a tax of 0.5p/m2 on their present holdings, the Duke of Buccleugh would pay at least £5.70mn p.a., Duke of Athol £2.96mn p.a., Duchy of Cornwall £2.72mn p.a. and the Duchy of Lancaster about £0.94mn p.a. (if they retained exclusive use over all the land they presently lease or hold freehold title to). The average detached house would pay about £5 p.a., the average terraced house £2.5 p.a. Farm holdings in the UK range between 50 acres (£1000 p.a.) and over 250 acres (£5000 + p.a.). Owners of flats in multi-occupancy buildings would pay their (much reduced) proportion of tax on the land occupied by the building and hard standing (£200/acre) and any open ground surrounding it (£20/acre) if the public were excluded. Every national would receive £25 p.a. ground rent and subsistence (UBI).
(edited 4 years ago)
The 14th amendment to the US Constitution forbids the taking of private property for public use without compensation, if this principle is to be considered to have a universal relevancy then the taking of what is accepted as nature’s largesse (the common domain) for oneself and denying others use of it should be subject to a consideration paid to those who are excluded in an equitable, delineated, monetized society, a remuneration that recognizes every present and future citizen’s inalienable interest by the payment of annual ground rent from any person or organization who makes exclusive private use of a part of a territory that is considered the common domain in which every citizen has a material interest, an interest the occupier supports because of their philosophic acknowledgement of every individuals’ inalienable right to life.
If an inalienable right to life is to be accepted as a fundamental human right then an inalienable subsumed material interest in the Earth (birthright) has to be recognised in order to give concrete recognition to an expressed belief in all people’s inalienable right to life and that interest has to be legally enforceable through a written constitution (to protect all individuals’ interest from annexation by avaricious members of their society).
If an inalienable right to life is to be accepted as a fundamental human right then an inalienable subsumed material interest in the Earth (birthright) has to be recognised in order to give concrete recognition to an expressed belief in all people’s inalienable right to life and that interest has to be legally enforceable through a written constitution (to protect all individuals’ interest from annexation by avaricious members of their society).
Historically the possession of a great Office of State was dependent on the possession of landed estates causing high office and land ownership to be associated in human consciousness. Political power and landed estates were hereditary so occupation of high office and the ownership of extensive lands by those near the pinnacle of society was generally accepted (and to an great extent still is) by those lower in the social order as the rightful domain of their social superiors. Property rights are the selfish agents of civilisation they secure an individual’s identification with the State that can protect them which is why territorial States with huge disinherited populations suffer from endemic discontent. Dependence on the consent or largesse of those favoured with privilege or property fatally compromises any individual’s claim of territorial right (jus soli), that right has to be made statutorily inalienable (incontestable and not tradable).
Defenders of feudal monarchical lordship once resorted to the notion that the right to territory is divinely ordained, that the monarch is entitled to ownership as steward of the Almighty. ’That is how things are, so God must have willed it so’. The legal position in the UK is that the territory of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the incorporeal hereditament of whoever wears the Crown (King/Queen); they are the ultimate owners but as in 1066 whereas everyone else could hold land of the Crown by the Crown ceding control of their land to them for a consideration (duties or money) the Crown would also own certain areas in person (in personum) as a private domain. The rise of parliamentary power resulted in legislation that curtailed monarchical power to demand feudal duties and substituted general taxation to compensate the Crown without imposing a monetary charge on the freeholder who could however impose a monetary charge (ground rent) on whoever sub-let from them. This C17th change through legislation forms the basis of present land law. The Crown never paid anything for its hereditament so the question of a consideration or compensation does not arise when the UK territories are nationalised. Neither will consideration or compensation be required for those whose ancestors purchased land from the Crown because no one will be required to move all that will change is the elimination of freehold title which would be replaced with a primary leasehold from the nation recorded at the land registry.
(edited 4 years ago)
The world-wide and age-old assumption that accepts a universal validity for the proposition that property in all its forms has no direct relation with humanity but is the prerogative of the individual or group who can sustainably exercise the primeval human desire to exclusively possess property and dominate others’ life chances or that it is an administrative institution or executive arrangement deriving its authority from those who direct the State is fundamental to the philosophy of those who have been responsible for the governance of large populations throughout civilised human history. They have been justifications of State power over populations that live under rules formulated by those who exercise a unilateral claim to eminent domain (ultimate authority) over peoples (nations) and their common domains (territories) from time immemorial. Without effective checks on such power the temptation to rig the executive and administrative State systems in favour of particular individuals or interest groups material mores [motivated by primitive animalist instincts not civilised humanist ones] has proved to be irresistible to date and by their use of those propositions the individuals or groups that capture control of States (and their electoral systems, if any) have determined the rest of the population’s access to territory and material wealth.
The authority of political institutions in liberal - democratic societies is dependent on maintaining the populations trust in their impartiality of their treatment the national population. Every individual national’s well-being is dependent on uninhibited access to fresh air, clean water, and food and shelter which can only be guaranteed by them maintaining a substantive interest in the common domain. Their material interest, in a democracy, has to be of more consequence than that of one individual and the constituency that disproportionately benefits from the present arrangement of land ownership in the UK.
Inalienable individual interest in land must exist before uncoerced labour can be exerted on behalf of oneself or another because if the individual intends to engage in or withdraw from engagement with others they must be able to act independently of another’s wishes and that can only be realised when they have inalienable capital in the territory of their birth, jus soli, an unchallengeable and untradable interest in national land. Individual human capital is the initial creator of labour the active force which must be exerted before monetary capital can be created. Monetary capital resulting from labour is used to assist labour in subsequent production be it insignificant or enormous. Incumbent capital has historically commanded the subservience of both minor capitalists and labourers because of the minor capitalists dependence and their and the labourer’s lack of secure income from capital. Jus soli (universal inalienable interest in land) would avail both of a safety-net to decline unreasonable exploitation by immoderate capitalists. The magic of property is that it affords its possessor liberty in dealings between citizens. Were the monopoly of incumbent capital not complete it would be open for subordinate capitalists and labourers to avoid agreements they aver, no-one would consent to work for another unless he could get a level of disposable income commensurate with the work they would contract to perform; a free labour market in place of the present rigged one.
In the contest between disinherited, disenfranchised and domesticated people and the possessors of global wealth national territories, that are overwhelmingly occupied by people marked out by the circumstances of their birth with circumscribed disposable income and an inability to act independently, are controlled by incumbent capital because individuals have no enforceable interest in a commodity indispensable for life, land. The monopolist dealers in that commodity have created a rentier world economy based on it and the divine right of capital, any negotiation is one-sided the issue for the subordinate party is capitulation or poverty; the inevitable result for those subjected to the mores of Lex Mercantoria where land is given up to be dealt with solely on commercial principles, unqualified by public opinion, custom, justice or natural law. Land should not be private property, but be held in trust by the State for the general benefit of the community that calls itself a nation, in the UK’s case the British.
At the time of nationalisation all existing holders of land would be entitled to a national (lifetime) lease on the area of land and/or water that they currently legally hold. Only the holder of the national lease would have the right to dispose of it (except where the right of eminent domain was invoked). The national lease would allow the holder to rent but if individuals or organizations sell their national lease they would have to give renters first refusal (at price the renter could have confirmed reasonable by the land registry). Individuals, citizens and organizations (national and foreign) could acquire a life-time lease on a parcel of unallocated land or water for their exclusive use from the Local Authorities Estates department (acting as a land agent for the nation), or purchase a national lease from a willing seller, the national leaseholder would be wholly responsible for the payment of land tax. Land and property taxation discourages the occupiers of land and buildings from handicapping the economic life of the community by penalising them for removing a national asset from the economy it should also discourage individuals or organizations from acquiring an area just because they can afford to speculate and hold society to ransom.
Rousseau (C18th France) supposed that, ‘since no man has any natural authority over his fellows and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be based on covenants’. His ‘social contract’ needs to be incorporated in a written State Constitution supported by sanctions against those who would conspire to flout it (imposed by an independent policing and legal system). A genuine substantive social contract requires delineation of the agreed rights to be exchanged [material interest in territory] and the consideration [ground rent and subsistence] to be accorded those who exchange them otherwise, as is presently the case, the ‘contract’ only consists of the surrender of an inalienable right to life in exchange for State ‘protection’ an 'umbrella ' which for many is never forthcoming. A substantial majority of a citizenry’s acceptance of themselves as subject to the laws of the State is a necessary condition for the State’s long term survival, when a government denies its citizens the right to a stake in the territory of the State it does nothing to enhance any citizen’s affinity to the State (in most States it was, and is, bought by status, access to wealth or/and acceptance of uncompensated subordination) and threatens a government’s need for the bulk of the population to positively identify with it.
To treat every individual national equitably jus soli (material interest in the land) would have to be equally distributed over every sub-division of the national territory. The economic use of nationalised territory would depend on the acceptance by the citizens of the nation that they do not have an exclusive right to an individual plot (except as a national leaseholder) but have an inalienable and untradeable interest (jus soli) in all sub-divisions of the entire country (a subsumed individual interest, about one-sixty millionth in the UK).
Acquiring exclusive territorial rights over an area of the nation’s territory (a national lease) would oblige the leaseholder to abide by the terms of the lease and pay ground rent commensurate with the area they occupy (not its value) as recognition of their fellow citizen’s territorial interest. The State would be required to compensate the population for their exclusion from their land (since they cannot be availed of sufficient land to support themselves) by paying minimum subsistence (UBI).
Acquiring exclusive territorial rights over an area of the nation’s territory (a national lease) would oblige the leaseholder to abide by the terms of the lease and pay ground rent commensurate with the area they occupy (not its value) as recognition of their fellow citizen’s territorial interest. The State would be required to compensate the population for their exclusion from their land (since they cannot be availed of sufficient land to support themselves) by paying minimum subsistence (UBI).
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
