The Student Room Group

Land Nationalisation

Scroll to see replies

Original post by landscape2014
JD...

Again, if you're going to be lazy just don't bother initialing, it's obvious who you're talking to via the quote.

...I seem unable to enlighten you with regard to the meaning of chose in action. Since it is fundamental to understanding my suggestion for land reform you could do a little research There is a brief reference to it on Wikipedia and references you can follow, alternatively you could visit the law section of your local library to inform yourself of its meaning.

Enter Einstein (although it's more likely a Feynman quote):

And it definitely doesn't fall into the category of "too complicated and unknown for anybody to be able to explain it simply". It also doesn't stop you from trying to argue against the related points that do not rely upon the understanding of 'chose in action'.

albert-einstein-if-you-cant-explain-it-simply-you-dont-understand-it-well-enough.png109.4KB
Original post by Limpopo
But HM Queen owns all the lands of Britain, the foreshores at drying height and all subsea lands out to the 12 mile limit..or does she?


No, she doesn't.
Original post by Cryptographic
Wow, this has turned into a socialist circle-jerk. The whole idea is ridiculous, as with most far left ideas it seems to be focused on undermining and punishing the 'rich' while actually delivering almost no benefits for the 'poor'.


Eventually all property or land will be owned by a few people. New generations of humans entering the world will simply be slaves to those who control all resources such as Shelter, Food, Water. In some ways the world is already like this.

You pay for your water.
You pay for your shelter.
You pay for your food.

The money you pay is often distributed to different people but that group of people will one day get smaller and smaller.

I'm going to flip the question on you and say is not the exclusion of man from his most basic needs a fundamental factor of property ownership?

The Earth has limited growth in land but due to rising sea levels this land is actually decreasing rather than increasing.
This is not just a Socialist idea but it is a fundamental truth on this planet. Only the privileged need ignore it since they stand to benefit the most out of ignorance while the poorest in society cannot ignore it because their very lives are being held to ransom though the greed & status of the privileged.

There is no compulsion here to punish the rich but there is a compulsion to live & survive and that is why we are having this argument.
Original post by DaveSmith99
A large review was commissioned by the Scottish government earlier this year made some interesting recommendations. I'd be in favour of a limit on land ownership as well as compulsory purchase sale orders and a pretty hefty land value tax. The first thing we'd need to do was commission a review into who owns what as we don't really know at the moment.


DS99 Thank you for directing me to the article. Paul Wheelhouse said ‘The relationship between the land and the people of Scotland [and everywhere else] is fundamental to the country’s economic, environmental and social success.’ The purpose of my suggestion was to recognize each individual’s right to an interest in the territory of the State, a State that couldn’t exist without the mass of individuals in it, and to accomplish that object by involving as few elements of government as possible (basically an apolitical land registry and the taxation system), no royal commissions, agencies or NGO’s and not to extend the power of compulsory purchase either.
In 1873 the Return of Owners of Land, the so-called second or new Domesday Book was published it revealed the inequity of land ownership in Victorian Britain which was then "owned" by 4.5% of the population, 95.5% owned nothing. The second Domesday recorded the ownership of 98 per cent of all land in the four countries of the then United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, it took four years. The details of each owner's holding, name and address, together with the valuation of any land of more than one acre, were recorded and printed in four volumes running to 2,300 pages and containing 321,000 names and addresses. The details of the owners of less than an acre were recorded but not printed. Shocked by the detailed revelation of the actual acreage that they held, the great landowners acolytes in government had it ‘buried’.
The current Land Registry for England and Wales has not achieved that coverage in 90 years. The failure to record the ownership of land in the UK arises not from failures by the staff running the registries, but from the way they were constructed by government lawyers acting on behalf of large landowners. The land registries were designed to conceal ownership, not reveal it. Its remit is limited:
1. The Land Registry does not record ownership of land.
2. It records two forms of tenancies: leaseholds for a term of years and freehold tenancies of indeterminate duration.
3. It creates titles without recording the acreage of each title.
4. Its records are not kept in a manner which would enable the registry to establish with any certainty what land was owned by a particular organization or individual.
5. The titles to only about 65 per cent of the acreage of England and Wales are recorded; in Scotland and Northern Ireland it is 85 per cent and 50 per cent respectively.
The suggestion is that the land registries remit would be extended to enable it to record the area (land and water) which is held in trust for all its citizens. This organization would record all transactions (for a nominal fee) and would be the repository of all the 1st (superior) leases issued (showing, unlike the present UK registry, exactly who held the land). Where an area does not have a lessee then that area would be held in trust for its citizens (these areas of land or water could be used by an individual or organization for exclusive particular use at an agreed rent, paid in advance, as long as public access to the area via designated footpaths, tracks or roads was not blocked or for pastoral use that allowed the public freedom to roam over it).

Land should not be nationalised because that would imply that said land is OWNED by the government and as far as I am concerned land ownership, by any means is non-sensical and actively facilities and encourages social inequality and injustice, tyranny and oppression of the many by the few.
Original post by TurboCretin
No, she doesn't.



http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/03/land-queen-world-australia
Original post by Limpopo


The article is incorrect. All ultimate title to land in the UK is held, technically, by the Crown.
Original post by mojojojo101
Land should not be nationalised because that would imply that said land is OWNED by the government and as far as I am concerned land ownership, by any means is non-sensical and actively facilities and encourages social inequality and injustice, tyranny and oppression of the many by the few.


M101 I realise that accepted common usage of the word nationalisation is related to State ownership. It was adopted by the socialists and communists to conceal the fact that the individuals of the nation would have zero individual benefit from ‘nationalization’, the benefit would accrue solely to those in control of the State (which is why we have to wrest ownership of the land from them). If we can accept that every individual Briton has an inalienable right to an interest (recognised by the payment of ground rent) in the territory (that is recorded in an apolitical organization (the land registry)- cutting the State and the monarch out of titular ownership), then they cannot sell it (it’s inalienable) and no one (except the grim reaper) can take it away from them. Their interest is held as a chose in action, that is they have a 60 millionth interest in the territory. If the territory is sub-divided then they have a 60millionth interest in every sub-division. The protection of the individual’s interest would require a written statute to protect it from the vested interests that proliferate in the higher echelons of government.

Biologically and socially all humans are not equal. This statement unambiguously accords with all people’s experience of the world they inhabit but the State’s longevity is dependent on minimizing discontent and promoting stability and to those ends protection of all its citizens’ right to be treated equitably by the laws to which the nation subscribes would be a prudent commitment, to which may be added an undertaking to protect the life and property (personal and territorial) of all its citizens without which the citizen will see little advantage in being part of a State. The assertion that we are all equal ignores the manifest differences in the capabilities, motivations and position in society of human beings. It deflects attention from the main long-term problem facing any State – the need for most of the population to positively identify with the governing class and wealthy citizens; that need requires governments to embrace equitable treatment for all citizens of the State and attend to the problems posed by any manifestly disproportionate distribution of the nation’s wealth (so a disenchanted population does not threaten the stability of the State) – the pursuit of equity of treatment (as a universal right) not equality of distribution (fuelled by envy) is a more likely means of delivering tranquillity and longevity to the State since the active members of society (who are more likely to acquire wealth) require recognition for their effort, which raises the thorny question of how much reward the active are entitled to, given that the nature of the society they live in directly affects their ability to extract value from it. A society’s wealthiest benefit disproportionately from the cooperative nature of citizenship which justifies (those that benefit the most should pay the most) a disproportionately substantial obligation towards society’s upkeep. The territory and people that form the State represent the nation’s wealth and a potential for wealth creation so if the nation is to exist in a State based on the equitable treatment of all its citizens then all will be entitled to an equal stake in its territory from birth. The subsequent magnitude of their stake will depend on their purchasing power, work, skill and ability but they cannot (without condoning the unilateral appropriation of every other persons’ interest) supplant all humans’ natural, subsumed, right in the common domain (whether it has been improved by themselves or another they are liable for the use of the human community’s stake that is inseparably bound up in it – however miniscule).
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by TurboCretin
The article is incorrect. All ultimate title to land in the UK is held, technically, by the Crown.


It is not a misuse of the English language to say that someone who owns the freehold title to land "owns" it. That is entirely consistent with common usage of the word owns
Original post by MostUncivilised
It is not a misuse of the English language to say that someone who owns the freehold title to land "owns" it. That is entirely consistent with common usage of the word owns


My quarrel wasn't with the word 'own', although that was also technically incorrect. The poster I responded to was making out that the Queen personally holds ultimate title to all land in England, which is patently false. It is the Crown, as a legal entity, which holds that title.

To address your first sentence, it isn't the freehold title which the Crown holds, either. That would be inconsistent with natural persons holding freehold title. The Crown merely holds a reversionary, or 'ultimate', interest in the land.
Original post by TurboCretin

To address your first sentence, it isn't the freehold title which the Crown holds, either.


I didn't say the crown did hold the freehold, my comment clearly indicated that the freeholder holds the freehold (rather tautological, I should have thought).

It is impossible for more than one person or entity to simultaneously hold exclusive freehold on the same piece of land, hence your claim that the crown could also hold the freehold is clearly nonsensical, from a legal perspective
Original post by MostUncivilised
I didn't say the crown did hold the freehold, my comment clearly indicated that the freeholder holds the freehold (rather tautological, I should have thought).

It is impossible for more than one person or entity to simultaneously hold exclusive freehold on the same piece of land, hence your claim that the crown could also hold the freehold is clearly nonsensical, from a legal perspective


I never claimed that. I suggest that you go back and re-read my posts.
Original post by TurboCretin
I never claimed that. I suggest that you go back and re-read my posts.


Perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts, and then re-read your posts, and see if you got hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely, in the first place
Original post by MostUncivilised
Perhaps you should go back and re-read my posts, and then re-read your posts, and see if you got hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely, in the first place


I did mistake the meaning of your original post - apologies - but, now I that I do understand what you meant, I don't understand its relevance (which is probably why I made the error in the first place). Yes, it is ubiquitous to equate freehold title with ownership, but I was correcting the other poster's misapprehension of the technical legal position. I don't have any problem with any freeholder saying they 'own' their land, but if someone else were to come along and say "actually, the Queen owns it" then I would correct them. That's what I was doing here.
Original post by TurboCretin
I did mistake the meaning of your original post - apologies - but, now I that I do understand what you meant


And I knew you didn't say that two entities could simultaneously hold freehold, I just knew that it was so inaccurate it would irritate the **** out of you and cause you to stop and consider what I was actually saying.

I don't have any problem with any freeholder saying they 'own' their land, but if someone else were to come along and say "actually, the Queen owns it" then I would correct them. That's what I was doing here.


Ah right, I think we both completely misunderstood each other and possibly in 100% agreement. You object to people saying that the Queen "owns" all the land in the realm. I agree with you there, in all the normal senses of ownership, the freeholder "owns" the land.

The fact the queen, in absolute theoretical sense "holds" the land as a feudatory superior, can't really be called ownership. It's a feudal, legal construct that doesn't really translate into our modern conceptions of ownership.

The reason the Queen still "holds" all the land in the kingdom is that the Feudal Tenures Abolition Act 1660 abolished all feudal tenures and converted all land to be held "in free and common socage". Socage was a form of feudal duty, so it does allow the continuing claim that the Queen is still the peak feudal lord, but in reality what this meant was the end of the feudal system. The monarch has no mechanism of which I am aware to withdraw a title held in fee simple (freehold).

When you said the land is "held" of the crown, you were making this as a distinction to "owned".
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MostUncivilised
And I knew you didn't say that two entities could simultaneously hold freehold, I just knew that it was so inaccurate it would irritate the **** out of you and cause you to stop and consider what I was actually saying.



Ah right, I think we both completely misunderstood each other and possibly in 100% agreement. You object to people saying that the Queen "owns" all the land in the realm. I agree with you there, in all the normal senses of ownership, the freeholder "owns" the land.

The fact the queen, in absolute theoretical sense "holds" the land as a feudatory superior, can't really be called ownership. It's a feudal, legal construct that doesn't really translate into our modern conceptions of ownership.

The reason the Queen still "holds" all the land in the kingdom is that the Feudal Tenures Abolition Act 1660 abolished all feudal tenures and converted all land to be held "in free and common socage". Socage was a form of feudal duty, so it does allow the continuing claim that the Queen is still the peak feudal lord, but in reality what this meant was the end of the feudal system. The monarch has no mechanism of which I am aware to withdraw a title held in fee simple (freehold).

When you said the land is "held" of the crown, you were making this as a distinction to "owned".


We are almost in agreement, but actually what I was saying to the other poster was not so much "you're wrong to say the Queen owns all land in the realm" but "you're wrong to say that the Queen owns all the land in the realm". My point was that it is the Crown, not the Queen personally, which 'owns' the land.

Is that clearer? I must have failed horribly to make myself clear in this thread, but then we are talking about English land law...

And you were right, it did irritate the **** out of me. Unfortunately, I had just woken up and wasn't in much of a state for self-reflection at the time, hence the terse response. My bad.
Original post by TurboCretin
We are almost in agreement, but actually what I was saying to the other poster was not so much "you're wrong to say the Queen owns all land in the realm" but "you're wrong to say that the Queen owns all the land in the realm". My point was that it is the Crown, not the Queen personally, which 'owns' the land.


That is certainly an exceptionally intelligent point. I too often make the point that the crown and Elizabeth Windsor are distinct entities, though they inhabit the same body (the body politic, as it were). It is a credit to you that you understand the distinction, few people do (this is why I always object to people saying that the Crown Estate belongs to Elizabeth Windsor. If we were to become a republic, the crown as an entity would merely have a different name, as President or some such thing, and/or be vested in the president as it parliament's right. Elizabeth Windsor has no more claim to the crown estates, after an act of parliament deposing here, than anyone else)

(This is similar to the fact that when parliament deposed James II and put William III on the throne, the king's lands transferred to William. The crown estate is of the crown, not its occupant. And it is parliament's prerogative to put whom it pleases on the throne)

The crown as the entity that holds all the land in the realm is distinct from Elizabeth Windsor who owns Balmoral as private property. In that sense, if parliament enacted a law conferring the crown on, say, the Duke of Norfolk, the crown lands would be vested in the now King (former Duke of Norfolk), but Balmoral would still be the property of Elizabeth Windsor. As you say, they are separate. And it is a fascinating area of study.

The crown is immortal and continuous, whether it is vested in the present monarch, the past monarch or the future monarch.

But I do also feel there is a genuine argument to say that "owns" is not an accurate description of the crown's relationship to the freeholders. I think it is fair to say that a freeholder owns the land, whereas the crown merely "holds" the land, in a feudatory relationship to the freeholder.

In many ways, "owns" is a hopelessly imprecise word for the true legal relationship, but it suffices,.

Is that clearer? I must have failed horribly to make myself clear in this thread, but then we are talking about English land law...


Indeed :smile:

And you were right, it did irritate the **** out of me. Unfortunately, I had just woken up and wasn't in much of a state for self-reflection at the time, hence the terse response. My bad.


My bad too :smile: No worries at all, I was being a bit pugilistic and it was my fault regarding the initial misunderstanding
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MostUncivilised


But I do also feel there is a genuine argument to say that "owns" is not an accurate description of the crown's relationship to the freeholders. I think it is fair to say that a freeholder owns the land, whereas the crown merely "holds" the land, in a feudatory relationship to the freeholder.

In many ways, "owns" is a hopelessly imprecise word for the true legal relationship, but it suffices,.


I agree. I was careful (I think) to avoid using the word 'own' when talking about the Crown's relationship with English (etc.) soil, and there is further issue to be taken with use of that term. I decided, though, in the interests of clarity, to solely pursue what I perceived to be the more elementary mistake. Unfortunately, clarity seems to have failed me and I it.
Original post by Limpopo


L Thank you for drawing attention to Kevin Cahill’s article, he ends by writing ‘The route to prosperity in the past has often lain in land. Perhaps it will do so again, based on a fairer, more democratic model of ownership and distribution’. In existing States this is unlikely since as long as we accept that the State is now the only source of legitimacy we are stuck with the fact that whoever controls the State controls the way in which land occupation is recorded and disposed of (and we know that obfuscation has been the order of the day in the recording of the UK’s land – for what purpose?).

The hereditary acquisition of citizenship of a State has not normally brought with it heredity rights in the territory of the State for everyone (the hereditary right for the majority was limited to group membership); traditionally those who wielded coercive power appropriated the national territory as their exclusive domain and reinforced their land grab with a legal code that supported their and their supporters mastery over the territory that formed the State they had contrived; the purpose of which was to extract value in the form of rents from the subordinated inhabitants on settled land and disburse the surplus land to supporters. The State was embodied in the king, he owned everything, in the UK legally (but not effectively) the Crown still does. This fact permitted parts of a feudal system of land tenure to survive into the C21st which allows landowners to exclude their fellow citizens from modest or extensive holdings without compensating them for their exclusion because they hold their property leasehold or freehold from the Crown not the nation (it is not the exclusion that is unjust (a pre-requisite for secure private property) it is the lack of compensation (ground rent) to their fellow citizens that lacks justification). Without accepting that the nation is the titular owner there can be no legal basis for the State (which could hold the nation’s land in trust) imposing a tax on all landowners in order to pay their fellow citizens their due, ground rent.
ITBP – post 43 Is not the exclusion of man from his most basic needs a fundamental factor of property ownership?

Humans’ right to property is determined by the fundamental physiological demands imposed on all humanity by their need to exist on the Earth. That right is basic to human existence, a natural right (if a population determines that there are such rights) that in the case of food and shelter (basic human rights according to the UN and EU) makes any humanly contrived legal property ownership subordinate to natural right (in extremis) in any society that aspires to equitable treatment of its population. Where those rights clash a society’s responsibility is to support an individual’s property right until it threatens another citizen’s means of subsistence (food and shelter). The majority of people today can no longer seek out their own food and shelter in an open landscape. As developed civilized society is presently constructed very few individuals can physically provide for themselves and their dependants. Almost everyone is dependent on others to provide their needs and wants through the use of a medium of exchange. Most people have become reliant on other peoples’ willingness (based on their own perceived self-interest) to protect them from threats within and without their community and for the means of acquiring their natural rights to food and shelter.In settled community’s the threat to an individual’s natural right to food and shelter comes from the millions who live cheek by jowl in an area that cannot feed them (it can shelter them). In primitive societies the responsibility for delivering a family’s natural needs rested with the adult humans but once a family is subsumed in a community then its freedom of action becomes in varying degrees circumscribed and any restrictions increase in direct proportion to the size of the community. The community’s arrangements for compensating civilized humans (by increasing their rights) for the restrictions placed on them providing for their own subsistence are a telling indicator of the extent, magnitude and maturity of its political development. Individual striving within the areas we live cannot even provide subsistence for oneself never mind a dependent family. The absolute dependence on others (the result of our biological success) necessitates the development of a coherent theory of property that encourages stability and provides the food and shelter upon which life depends. Large areas of land additional to the living area need to be secured and that imperative sets one groups wants against an individual’s needs (the servicing of a societies wants are an additional considerable, but not essential, reason to appropriate even more land). Supplying urban society’s food requirements requires organization. Those doing the supplying will not be putting food on anyone’s plate (they can put it on their own) if they do not have secure property rights (so they benefit directly from their effort). Because of human biological success urban societies are hostage to their demand for food from land that someone else occupies. The incentive for those on agricultural land to provide the urban population with its sustenance is provided by material reward, the market is the arena where the relative value of those products are mediated. The political arena is the place where the relative power of the producer and consumer are mediated.

The straightforward answer to the question posed by ITBP is yes. The rationale for excluding others from land when populations were a tiny fraction of today’s was solely selfishness but unless the more powerful individual or population was of a homicidal character the weak could move somewhere else, that option no longer applies. The use of land as a common good has a long history and land held in common is a viable form of land use it was a ubiquitous part of landholding in the UK. The commons provided a subsistence livelihood (and sometimes a comfortable one) for the poor. Inevitably avaricious members of society threatened this co-operative arrangement and, as they became wealthy enough, conspired over a period of hundreds of years to appropriate it. It took so long because of fluctuations in the rural economy and because the monarchy, in its own self-interest, often protected its poorer subject’s entitlements in order to keep its richer subjects in their place. Once the monarch’s powers had been appropriated by parliament the landowning MP’s, and their associates, in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (just like the American administrators, merchants and financiers did before and after the revolution), carved up the common (native) land between themselves (for the most part they did make them more productive) and increased the poverty of many of the poor (those with no other means of subsistence). In the UK that action necessitated an increased poor rate (local tax) which, inevitably the enclosers, who had the ongoing benefit, complained about paying. This form of State sponsored (the large landowners ran the State) land appropriation could not have been imposed if each individual of the nation had an inalienable interest in the territory. This would not have stopped the advance of enclosure since the economic case for it would eventually result in a majority of a democratically organized community selling the common interest in the land market rather than have parliament (stuffed with the landowners who would benefit directly from their legislation) forcing that result. State sponsored appropriation of the nation’s land has been a feature of land acquisition throughout history because those (of whatever political complexion) realise the significance of land in individual wealth creation, the more people hold land, no matter how small, the more interest they have in stability and resistance to taxation (they need to accept a certain level of taxation to maintain the stability necessary to enjoy a level of freedom in the State and maintain the nation’s natural and fiat rights). The exclusion of man from his most basic needs is a fundamental factor of property ownership through necessity, land held in common can produce as much if not more than much of the land in private ownership but land held in common is critically hostage to human nature for its productivity, the slacker and freeloader ensure its demise. The slacker and freeloader are removed by the more successful private enterprises.
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you