Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Personally while I respect sentimental stuff I don't see the need to have personal property.

    Anyway, as I understand it the queen technically the owner of all the land and property in the UK anyway.
    If there was no personal property the alternative would be the state owning the land which individuals lease from the state, or the land being owner-less with anyone having rights to do anything on the land. In the first alternative there could be a situation where the government forcefully clears individuals from the land where the individuals' houses are because a large property developer has promised to build big mansions for wealthy buyers, or a corporation desires to build something on the land. In the second alternative, any individual could forcefully destroy the home of another individual to built something in its location, that potential situation could be prevented by having laws to stop an individual from doing that but those laws would bring de facto property ownership.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Vague laws can be applied on a whim. Such as some police powers to stop legitimate student protests.
    The reason broad laws exist in the first place is that they may need to be used in a sufficiently poorly-defined range of contexts that they cannot be effective if limited. I believe the benefit brought by this power is sufficient to justify the risks.

    (Original post by cBay)
    TheDefiniteArticle


    Slightly unrelated, but just thinking about the roman convention thingy. Doesn't the whole concept of planning permission go against the usus and fructus idea?
    It does. There are several limitations on property. All I'm seeking to do, essentially, is to add one more.

    And don't worry Nigel, I never thought I'd convince you in the first place.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Also, in case the above conversation caused any confusion: this in no way removes the notion of personal property.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If there was no personal property the alternative would be the state owning the land which individuals lease from the state, or the land being owner-less with anyone having rights to do anything on the land. In the first alternative there could be a situation where the government forcefully clears individuals from the land where the individuals' houses are because a large property developer has promised to build big mansions for wealthy buyers, or a corporation desires to build something on the land. In the second alternative, any individual could forcefully destroy the home of an other individual to built something in its location, that potential situation could be prevented by having laws to stop an individual from doing that but those laws would bring de facto property ownership.
    The first is exactly the case we are in. That is the reason we pay taxes because that is the lease we pay to the government.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Also, in case the above conversation caused any confusion: this in no way removes the notion of personal property.
    It de facto does, it is disingenuous to state personal property as individuals widely know the concept be remains. The bill allows the government to prevent an individual from selling property for any reason the government likes; it removes 50% of the current concept of personal property.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It de facto does, it is disingenuous to state personal property as individuals widely know the concept be remains. The bill allows the government to prevent an individual from selling property for any reason the government likes; it removes 50% of the current concept of personal property.
    And yet it doesn't in itself make any such limitation, merely conferring a power to make such a limitation. Furthermore, I think the most important element of the understanding of property for most of the public is exclusive use.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    The first is exactly the case we are in. That is the reason we pay taxes because that is the lease we pay to the government.
    No, the taxes are not a form of lease paying, the taxes are general taxes in the same way all other taxes are used to boost government revenue. The difference between the current situation to the first situation I described is under the current situation individuals nearly always have the ability to prevent other individuals buying the land, can freely live on the land, and freely build on the land with permission, but under the situation I described the government would be supreme rulers who can do anything the government desires to the land knowing the individuals living on the land cannot prevent the government's actions.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    And yet it doesn't in itself make any such limitation, merely conferring a power to make such a limitation. Furthermore, I think the most important element of the understanding of property for most of the public is exclusive use.
    The bill puts no limitation on the use of the power meaning there is no important distinction to be had between the two; individuals still see their power over land reduced. I disagree, the largest factor in the public's long-fostered conception of property is control of one's surroundings with a slight element of exclusivity. The public view property as place of safety where happy domesticity can take place beyond the claws of the government; this bill removes the element of control.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    I don't get it, is this just redefining the terminology?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I feel like it could be used to regulate ( arguable ) risky trading and / or reinforce what should and can be taxed however I can't conclusively prove this.

    More towards aye however.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The bill puts no limitation on the use of the power meaning there is no important distinction to be had between the two; individuals still see their power over land reduced. I disagree, the largest factor in the public's long-fostered conception of property is control of one's surroundings with a slight element of exclusivity. The public view property as place of safety where happy domesticity can take place beyond the claws of the government; this bill removes the element of control.
    There is no limitation on the use of the power, correct, but that doesn't mean there is no important distinction - or else you would be arguing that this Bill should be regarded in much the same way as a Bill banning transfers of private property altogether.

    (Original post by Andy98)
    I don't get it, is this just redefining the terminology?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, this grants a power to the SoS to restrict transfers of property as well.

    (Original post by EricAteYou)
    I feel like it could be used to regulate ( arguable ) risky trading and / or reinforce what should and can be taxed however I can't conclusively prove this.

    More towards aye however.
    These are just two of the many beneficial uses this power could have.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cBay)
    Could this, for example, be used to stop trading on the stock market then?
    Which I'm pretty sure is already possible anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    And yet it doesn't in itself make any such limitation, merely conferring a power to make such a limitation. Furthermore, I think the most important element of the understanding of property for most of the public is exclusive use.
    But that very limitation is what makes it de facto the case, it changes things from "it's your personal property to do add you wish" to "it's your... As you wish, but only when the state says it is."

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    Aye
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But that very limitation is what makes it de facto the case, it changes things from "it's your personal property to do add you wish" to "it's your... As you wish, but only when the state says it is."

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This IS the case already. Private property exists because of the benevolence of the state; this just makes it easier for the state to place limitations on it, through delegated legislation rather than Act of Parliament.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This power would eventually get abused, it's all well and good to think of how it will be used in the perfect world but this isn't a perfect world and this is set up perfectly for someone to abuse
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    This power would eventually get abused, it's all well and good to think of how it will be used in the perfect world but this isn't a perfect world and this is set up perfectly for someone to abuse
    This criticism could be levelled at literally any delegating legislation and ought not be an objection in itself.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Not a chance.

    It's somewhat alarming that members of the government are even entertaining an Aye to this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy98)
    I don't get it, is this just redefining the terminology?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It goes far beyond that. This bill would be the greatest step towards a command economy that has ever been taken in the Mhoc. It would mean that should the Socialists enter government, the House would have already granted them the power to screw around with property rights.

    It's a step right back to the 1970's.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Would anybody like to propose we give the ho!e secretary the ability to start genocide via delegated legislation?

    This is much like that would be, a piece of legislation to enable a specific small group to perform some rather severe actions without passing an act of parliament, admittedly that they probably could pass in the situation, but would otherwise be unused.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 5, 2016
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.