How nationalist our socialists are getting

other laws are needed: no international speculator should be allowed to buy British land, which must be reserved for British citizens;

Rev Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty

And how about this to return us all to feudalism?

With nationalisation back on its agenda, Labour should revisit a 1973 proposal to convert all land from freehold to 99-year leasehold.

We hold land only at the whim of the State.

27 comments on “How nationalist our socialists are getting

  1. The idea of making everything a 99-year lease is just another way of implementing LVT. Every year you pay a sum of money to extend the lease by one year.

    As a bonus, it solves the poor-widows-in-mansions problem: they get to stay in the mansion until the 99-year lease expires, which will almost certainly be after the widow expires.

  2. ‘We hold land only at the whim of the State.’; as has been pointed out, this is exactly what LVT ends up being. Persinally, I think it’s a crap idea, but I’m surprised your against it Tim, being a LVT advocate.

  3. On a point of order: In the UK you do hold land at the whim of the State, Hence “freehold”. And why you don’t own certain mineral rights under it.
    William 1 & all that.

  4. Socialism needs to be all smashed up.

    It is the world’s numero ohno (sic) death cult.

    Quite a feat considering the competition.

  5. I think that technically, “freehold” land is held “in fee simple” from the Crown (which owns all the land in England and Wales – down to the high-water mark, I think – Scotland is a bit more complicated)… As against “fee tail” which is leasehold.

    So I guess that it’s not in “the state’s” gift either way.

  6. Nobody has property rights without the State.

    If you accept that the UK Land Registry holds details of who has the exclusive right to occupy which parts of the territory that the UK defines to be within its borders (and which the rest of the world generally agrees to, fishing zones notwithstanding), then you must accept that without the State, you cannot own land.

    If you don’t like this, then declare independence from the UK and set up your own State.

  7. “then you must accept that without the State, you cannot own land.”

    So no-one owned land before the Land Registry came into being then? I wonder how all that empire building and industrial revolution happened without any property rights whatsoever?

  8. @John… By your reasoning, DVLA owns all the vehicles in the country as it holds the registration details.

  9. Property rights are guaranteed by the State here. In places where the State doesn’t/can’t do that, property rights are usually guaranteed by force of arms. So property rights don’t necessarily need a State to guarantee them. As others have said, in England & Wales, the land is the property of the Crown and freeholders hold their little patch on behalf of the Crown. Under our constitutional arrangements the Crown can’t actually take it back so in practice a freeholder does own the property to all intents and purposes. However the State can take it, with compulsory purchase laws, though supposedly the State has to pay a ‘fair’ price.

  10. Pogo, the experiment would be to buy a car, de-register it from the DVLA database, and continue to drive it on the public highways. See what happens.

  11. “the experiment would be to buy a car, de-register it from the DVLA database, and continue to drive it on the public highways. See what happens.”

    No, the experiment would be to deregister a car, place it on private property, arrange for it to be stolen, call the police and see if they consider a crime had been committed.

    Not having a vehicle registered (either taxed or SORNed) at the DVLA may be a crime in and of itself, I’m not sure, however that crime would not negate one’s ownership of the car. The DVLA specifically say that the V5 is not proof of ownership, it is a register of the keeper of the vehicle, which is not necessarily the same as the owner. Indeed there are undoubtedly vehicles sat in barns and sheds around the country that are not on the DVLA register of vehicles, are you saying they are fair game, and belong to no-one?

  12. Under our constitutional arrangements the Crown can’t actually take it back so in practice a freeholder does own the property to all intents and purposes.

    Take? Yes. But ownership can revert to the Crown (not to HMG) under a number of limited and special cases (mostly, no heir being found under probate.)

  13. “We hold land only at the whim of the State.”

    As I’ve pointed out before around here, private property was abolished under Blair when the squatting laws were changed. All property is now only held because the state says so, and subject to the state continuing to say so.

    So yes, it’s a perfectly rational continuation to say that the government might consider stopping granting us our property rights and sell them off instead.

    This is what was wrong with abolishing squatters’ rights, but you can’t argue with the logic that says that we started a new regime when we did, and should continue down that path.

  14. Jim>

    It’s now legally impossible for something to belong to no-one (in this country). You can no longer lose possession of something by, well, losing it (e.g. dropping a banknote in the street). If someone finds it, they cannot gain complete possession of it under any circumstances.

    Very simply, things now belong to whoever the government says they belong to.

  15. @Jim: June 3, 2017 at 11:14 am

    No, the experiment would be to deregister a car, place it on private property, arrange for it to be stolen, call the police and see if they consider a crime had been committed.

    A racing colleague had an unregistered racing car stolen from his property. The police treated it as a crime and when it was recovered the perpetrators received prison sentences. If anything, because it wasn’t “TWOC”ed but taken subject to the Theft Act, they received more serious treatment!

    @Dave: June 3, 2017 at 12:25 pm

    This is what was wrong with abolishing squatters’ rights,

    “Squatters’ Rights” weren’t abolished, they were re-named “Adverse Possession”. It’s still possible to claim land or property if you can prove to the Registrar that it is unclaimed/unowned/abandoned and that you have made use of it for a period of time – without anyone else contesting your claim. Initially you only get Posessory Title, but this can be converted to Absolute at a later stage.

  16. …no international speculator should be allowed to buy British land, which must be reserved for British citizens…

    Substitute jew for speculator and you have a thought that would have made Julius Streicher proud.

  17. “And why you don’t own certain mineral rights under it.” Only for (i) precious metals, and (ii) coal, oil and gas. The latter weren’t nationalised until the 20th century; nowt to do with William.

  18. The Reverend is barking.

    In the ‘modern’ era, Hume (d.1776) and Hobbes (d.1679) maintained that property could not exist in a ‘state of nature’ and that property rights were wholly dependent on state guarantee. Though Locke (d.1704) disagreed: looking to America, he held that land was yours once you had improved it, with or without a state guarantee; so hunter-gathers had no property rights.

    Basically, then, no state, no property – unless, initially, you work/improve/ exploit the land. To transfer it justly and securely, however, you need the services and guarantee of the (minimal) state.

  19. @ Theophrastus
    Property rights obviously existed before the creation of a state: dependent only upon mutual recognition within the community. Only lawyers *really* believe that a piece of paper constitutes one’s rights.

  20. john77

    “Mutual recognition within a community” is meaningless unless there’s a means of enforcement and arbitration. And if there is such a means – say, a council of elders – then you have a form of government, a state or proto-state. Without the rule of law, property rights don’t exist – or are so weak as to be almost meaningless.

    Rights don’t exist outside a legal system. Locke’s natural rights are a fiction – a metaphor derived from the law – or ” nonsense on stilts” as Bentham memorably put it. Rights-talk is no more than a form of rhetoric for moral principles. Focussing on the moral principles leads to greater clarity of thought.

    Similarly, equality is a concept borrowed from mathematics and then misapplied in politics and ethics. ‘Equality of citizens before the law’ is not equality as such: it’s fairness and the rule of law. And so on.

  21. Without the rule of law, property rights don’t exist – or are so weak as to be almost meaningless.

    Not so. You don’t need the rule of law to defend your property, if you’re strong enough.

    What the rule of law does, is give the rest of us the chance to defend our property too.

  22. @ Theophrastus
    No, no, no. Old age is affecting your memory.
    You don’t have to be the biggest bully in the playground, you just need to be tough enough so that the bully doesn’t think it is worth stealing from you.

  23. “Locke (d.1704) disagreed: looking to America, he held that land was yours once you had improved it”. That sounds as if he wished it were that way, rather than believing it was that way.

    Having killed off the local Injuns and taken control of the land, how do you propose to keep it without some sort of social apparatus?

  24. P.S. Locke was wrong about the Injuns: there were plenty of examples of their improving the land.

    Archaeologists have found examples in various parts of the world of even hunter gatherers occasionally doing so.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.