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

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Should the land that constitutes the UK be nationalized? Meaning that it would be accepted that all the citizens of the nation (the British) have a an individual territorial interest(their capital) NOT the State (which would hold the nation's territory in trust).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It probably will be in the end, to stop farmers either building on land which could be used for farming animals our growing population needs to eat. Large estates will probably end up being reduced. We'll probably end up like Corusant from Star Wars soon.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    In the C19th c.e. John Stuart Milne (UK) expressed his conviction that, ‘No man made the land. It is the original inheritance of the whole species. Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency. When private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust’. Mill was a contributor in the fierce debates of the late C19th that sought the ‘nationalization’ of land by the State and the curtailment of the hereditary principle of land transfer. Nationalization should refer to the nation being treated as the beneficial owner not the State (which would mean the nation’s patrimony would be subject to disposal by any partisan interests having charge of it).Whilst the bulk of the population are content to be deprived of their birthright (a proportionate interest in their territorial State) they will have to support that section of the nation that profits from their self-imposed impotence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds like collectivisation to me. So bad idea which some people would go to war to stop.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    It probably will be in the end, to stop farmers either building on land which could be used for farming animals our growing population needs to eat. Large estates will probably end up being reduced. We'll probably end up like Corusant from Star Wars soon.
    We can import food and you never know what farming will be like 'in the end'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    Sounds like collectivisation to me. So bad idea which some people would go to war to stop.

    WW The suggestion is made in the interests of individualistic capitalism (as opposed to plutocratic corporatism the dominant form of capitalism we at present spend our taxes supporting). The suggestion is that citizens right to an interest (their capital) in the State they constitute should be an inalienable right from birth to death (they possess that right individually not communally).
    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). Of course some people (the acolytes of the privileged) would go to war to stop any threat to what they believe is their advantageous position in society.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I do believe that land should be taxed in order to cut other taxes but all out nationalization seems like a poor idea when the state can already do what it likes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    In the C19th c.e. John Stuart Milne (UK) expressed his conviction that, ‘No man made the land. It is the original inheritance of the whole species. Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency. When private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust’. Mill was a contributor in the fierce debates of the late C19th that sought the ‘nationalization’ of land by the State and the curtailment of the hereditary principle of land transfer. Nationalization should refer to the nation being treated as the beneficial owner not the State (which would mean the nation’s patrimony would be subject to disposal by any partisan interests having charge of it).Whilst the bulk of the population are content to be deprived of their birthright (a proportionate interest in their territorial State) they will have to support that section of the nation that profits from their self-imposed impotence.
    Mill strongly defended private property. He didn't propose nationalisation of land - only a series of rent taxes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)

    WW The suggestion is made in the interests of individualistic capitalism (as opposed to plutocratic corporatism the dominant form of capitalism we at present spend our taxes supporting). The suggestion is that citizens right to an interest (their capital) in the State they constitute should be an inalienable right from birth to death (they possess that right individually not communally).
    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). Of course some people (the acolytes of the privileged) would go to war to stop any threat to what they believe is their advantageous position in society.
    You have used a number of French words in the reply. Citizens, community and society, these words mean nothing. You also don't take into account families or culture, real things which mean something more than the individual. You see this what the Socialists never take into account it is all about turning individuals into a collective, they miss out culture and family, as do Secularist Progressive Liberals and Libertarians. So you threaten someone's family, their culture, their way of life they will go to war to stop you. I am a Protestant Classical Liberal, nice to meet you. I am the one who make Britain stable, free and powerful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I do believe that land should be taxed in order to cut other taxes but all out nationalization seems like a poor idea when the state can already do what it likes.
    R21 The use of the word nationalization in common parlance is actually a cover for the assumption of State control not ownership by the individuals who constitute the nation
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    L The point of this thread was to discuss an alternative to the present state of feudal land ownership
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Mill strongly defended private property. He didn't propose nationalisation of land - only a series of rent taxes.
    C Mill strongly defended private property - as I do. The Quote I used was to illustrate the fact that some of those who defended private property rights believed that land was not like other property which, as Adam Smith believed, incorporated an element of labour that land cannot.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The Earth pre-dates the appearance of human beings by eons. No individual human has a right to any part of the Earth unless the community of which they are part accepts that such a right exists, legitimizes it, and supports them in defence of it. Any national government acquiring responsibility for terrestrial property should recognise the just rights of the titular owner; the collection of individual citizens who make up the nation, who should determine what territory they are prepared to accept responsibility for (with the nation ‘owning’ the common domain not, as in the UK (and several other monarchies), one person or as in totalitarian or pluristic States, the State ‘owning’ it, as it does in China and the USA (which transfers ownership of an area for private occupation by the issue of a land patent). The citizens’ right to a proportionate part of the territory (their capital), which they will be expected to either individually or communally exploit and defend, needs to be recognised by the payment of an annual ground rent by the State (to recognise their population’s individual birthright) from birth to death. All citizens in a nation State would of necessity (to form the State) have to acquiesce in their individual territorial claim being subsumed within the area of the State in which they determine their patrimony is held and in the interest of practicality their nominal plot would be transmuted into an inalienable chose in action (intangible legal entity) which would give them a proportionate interest in every particular sub-division of the State‘s territory. Upon death this right would be extinguished.


    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 (one reason that the UK does not have a written constitution) would be replaced by the legal notion that all the UK area is leased from the nation (not the State or the monarch). The monarchy’s technical authority over UK area would be extinguished (the position of the monarch as Head of State need not be affected). Freeholders in the UK hold the land tenure free from any charges from the Crown (and any direct land tax). The monarch, aristocrats, plutocrats, corporations and citizen’s would become superiorleaseholders (holders of the 1st lease) of the areas they presently control as freeholders or by royal prerogative. For example; with a tax of 1p/m2 on their present holdings, the Duke of Buccleugh would pay £11.39mn p.a., Duke of Athol £5.92mn p.a., Duchy of Cornwall £5.44mn p.a. and the Duchy of Lancaster about £1.87mn p.a. (if they retained exclusive use over all the land they presently occupy). The average detached house would pay £4 p.a., the average terraced house £1 p.a. The common domain would net about £2.4bn p.a., if it were completely occupied but since about 25% of the UK is of little commercial value the gross tax take would be about £1.8bn p.a. and provide every citizen with a ground rent of about £30p.a.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    "The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, and that sin of your fathers shall be visited upon the head of you and your children to the third and fourth generation, and longer too, till your bloody and thieving power be rooted out of the land."
    -Gerrard Winstanley
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    R21 The use of the word nationalization in common parlance is actually a cover for the assumption of State control not ownership by the individuals who constitute the nation
    Exactly, I dislike the agenda in post 14.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by landscape2014)
    L The point of this thread was to discuss an alternative to the present state of feudal land ownership
    Great I'm all for a bit of that...prey continue..but dont upset the Queen.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    There are too many obvious flaws:
    1) Assuming you split it equally, how much land does each man get? Suppose you are in a country of, say 1m square miles with a population of 500k. You could give every man a plot of 1 square mile, which leaves room for growth of 100%, but what do you do after that? You've run out of land, and no matter how it is resolved people will be unhappy. This is an inevitable issue with the only true solution being infinitesimal plots, but then you may as well just not bother.
    2) How does one deal with infrastructure? Airports, for example, would likely cover several plots and are pretty essential. Roads wouldn't be too bad given how narrow they are. This can be extended further, consider factories, how would you allocate land to businesses?
    3) unless it is legislated against, the system would ultimately break down as people would just sell their land and half the purpose has just been defeated.
    4) Given that population density isn't constant, would people living in major population centres be somewhat of an issue, especially considering 3 as you would expect many of them to sell their land in the country that they will make no use of.
    5) how does one value the land for distribution, some people have to have the good land and others have to have the crap land. There is a clear problem that needs to be dealt with here, especially given that the 'fairest' solutions are not at all practical.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There are too many obvious flaws:
    1) Assuming you split it equally, how much land does each man get? Suppose you are in a country of, say 1m square miles with a population of 500k. You could give every man a plot of 1 square mile, which leaves room for growth of 100%, but what do you do after that? You've run out of land, and no matter how it is resolved people will be unhappy. This is an inevitable issue with the only true solution being infinitesimal plots, but then you may as well just not bother.
    2) How does one deal with infrastructure? Airports, for example, would likely cover several plots and are pretty essential. Roads wouldn't be too bad given how narrow they are. This can be extended further, consider factories, how would you allocate land to businesses?
    3) unless it is legislated against, the system would ultimately break down as people would just sell their land and half the purpose has just been defeated. 4) Given that population density isn't constant, would people living in major population centres be somewhat of an issue, especially considering 3 as you would expect many of them to sell their land in the country that they will make no use of.
    5) how does one value the land for distribution, some people have to have the good land and others have to have the crap land. There is a clear problem that needs to be dealt with here, especially given that the 'fairest' solutions are not at all practical.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As I see it, the state would essentially act as a national estate agent. The right to use a plot of land would be bought from the state, and could sold back at its value. Private sales would not be allowed. You would also pay a land value tax, effectively leasing the land from the people via the state.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    As I see it, the state would essentially act as a national estate agent. The right to use a plot of land would be bought from the state, and could sold back at its value. Private sales would not be allowed. You would also pay a land value tax, effectively leasing the land from the people via the state.
    That only addresses one of the issues, I would say that the first is the biggest problem in the long term, and 5 a pretty significant issue from the off.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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