Why do the British accept that one person, a monarch, is the sole owner of Britain surely the British should own it? - Political power and landed estates were hereditary and occupation of high office and the ownership of extensive lands and/or wealth by those at or near the apex of society was generally accepted (and to a great extent still is) by those lower in the social order as the rightful domain of their social superiors. Not being subject to the will of another requires knowledge and understanding of the innate personal memes and inculcated social mores which people engage with to disenfranchise and disinherit themselves, knowledge and understanding that the majority of the population have little interest to acquire and self-absorbed establishments have little incentive to encourage.
I don't accept that for a second.
Tiocfaidh ar la.
Last edited by gjd800; 2 months ago
Power reproduces itself until or unless interrupted.
The striving of the dispossessed for security and sufficiency is always undermined by the pessimism of insecurity and insufficiency compounded by the disadvantaged's inability to analyse their situation and act to change the existing political settlement; to claim their inheritance. Those who claim to represent their constituents interests have analysed their situation and decided to accept the feudal settlement as the basis of their actions on behalf of their constituents, re-claiming the population’s primeval material interest in land (jus soli) is not part of any political agenda because there is no appreciation of it which is not surprising since, like many of their ancestors,the present 'subordinate' classes are engaged in the annexation of the rest of humanity's birthright on behalf of their superiors (never being cognisant of their own patrimony they cannot recognise anybody else's).
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). ‘Nationalization’ 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 nationalized 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 in allowed authority over the citizen have exhausted the patience of the governed.
Pretty bonkers that one would want to have a hereditory head of state, which is why at least that it is purely a token, if questionable, position. As to the government, it's likely to have the problem that it attracts power crazed people and results in a feeling that with the responsibility and pressure should come some perks. But at least we can vote them out..
Having an aristocracy is hugely detrimental to the prosperity of a country.
If a densely occupied nation’s territory were to be physically divided equally amongst individuals some would acquire barren moorland, some lush pastures and some others a lucrative urban plot, this would not be an equitable distribution. To treat every individual 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 the nation’s territory would depend on the acceptance by the citizens of the nation that they do not have a right to an individual plot but do 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) . Anyone acquiring exclusive territorial rights over an area of the nation’s territory (a lifetime 1st lease) would commit to the preservation of their fellow citizen’s territorial interest and pay ground rent commensurate with the area they occupy (not its value). The State would be required to compensate the population for their exclusion from it (since they cannot be availed of sufficient land to support themselves) by paying minimum subsistence.
Please can you use paragraphs?
Once nationalized ground rent would be collected from those with leases on ‘occupied’ urban, pastoral and arable land at say 0.5p/m2 (£20/acre) and from those whose leases contain a built environment (based on the actual area of hard standing or the area on which a building sits) at say 5p/m2 (£200/acre) the actual rates to be determined by HM Revenue in order to raise the £1.5 billion (for comparison the present tax take of the UK is about £750 billion) required to pay every citizen about £25 p.a. ground rent. Whether built property is in the middle of a city or the middle of open country the size of the area of land from which the public is legally excluded plus the area occupied by any permanent hard standing/built on area within it will determine the amount of ground rent payable. 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; the monarch, aristocrats, plutocrats, corporations and citizen landholders 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). Most farm holdings in the UK range between 50 acres (£1000 p.a.) and 250+ acres (£5,000+). The average detached house would pay about £7 p.a., the average terraced house £3 p.a. Owners of multi-occupancy buildings would pay their proportion of tax on the land occupied by the building and hard standing (£200/acre) and any open ground surrounding it (£20/acre).
The monarch is the absolute owner of land in the UK all others hold an estate in land. Estates took many forms in the past but were reduced to two by the Law of Property Act 1925; a) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, generally known as freehold and b) an estate for a number of years absolute, generally known as leasehold. The preamble to the Land Registration Act 2002 states, ' The concepts of leasehold and freehold derive from medieval forms of tenure and are not ownership' in relation to land in the UK we are all tenants on the basis of the feudal superiority of the Crown created in 1066 and supported by legal norms formulated to uphold that feudal superiority. In February 2009 Bridget Prentice, a parliamentary undersecretary at the Ministry of Justice replied to a question from an MP, 'The Crown is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly): all other 'owners' hold an estate in land.'
The authority of political institutions (the monarchy in the UK) in liberal-‘democratic’ societies is dependent on maintaining the populations trust in their impartiality on the question of sovereignty over the national estate (the common domain ). Since every individual national’s well-being is dependent on maintaining a substantive interest in the common domain then in a democracy their material interest should be of more consequence than that of one individual. Political institutions that do not robustly protect public interests against private aggrandisement are partial and an anathema to an equitable society where individuals and groups can freely pursue their private interests but not at the expense of their society’s well-being which is only secured through uninhibited access to air, water, food and shelter a benefit their ancestors enjoyed in the distant past which was violently curtailed.