[diggers350] Re: Ownership...ermm then what?

[Stephen Bint]

Rory Kett wrote:
> 
> Let's get this straight
> 
> There is only ONE land OWNER in Britain namely the crown, that is the
> foundation of ALL property law. 
> When people talk of 'land ownership' they are refering to property, rights,
> tenure and useage.
> 
Here is the legal argument I have in mind.

Firstly, not all contracts are freely entered into but those
that are not can be justified if they benefit all
participants. The law against murder is a contract between
all of us, which benefits all of us, so nobody ever
complains about the oppression of a law against murder,
though it is contract we never agreed to and are forced to
comply with.

Secondly, land ownership cannot be justified as good for all
participants, because it takes from some and gives to
others.

There cannot be a contract demanding money, imposed on us.
Only contracts that we agree to ourselves or imposed
contracts that benefit everybody are valid.

If the landowners had a deal with the community where they
pay us to agree it is their land, it would all make perfect
sense. If landowners had bought a lease from the community 
and the community had shared the money, we would be obliged 
to respect their land rights. The community would have 
entered into a contract that benefits everybody, which can 
be imposed on the next generation without their permission.

A landowner thinks it is his because he paid for it. If it
isn't exclusively his he is a mug, he's been swindled. He
has every reason to get upset if we ignore his rights. But
when it comes to the law he cannot say you are violent, nor
that you are stealing, nor that you have broken a promise 
when you ignore his imagined property rights.

Landowners are people who have promised themselves they have
a right to keep land to themselves. The rest of us have
never been asked for our opinion let alone entered into a
contract.

> If you want I'm willing to run a workshop on this at the Autumn gathering as
> it can provide one of our strongest arguments ie that we already have land
> 'nationalisation' and because a private individual Cannot OWN land
> absolutely the principle of multiple tenure for different use is well
> established in Britain.
> 
I am looking forward to that.

> Such a workshop is needed to provide a BASIC knowledge of where we are at
> with land rights in Britain. Knowing that 'Ownership' is a legal fiction
> means we can trash the arguments of the 'Country Landowners Association' and
> other similar opponents of change. Their very name shows their ignorance,
> maybe this should be the first step in any education programme  mounted by
> TLIO.
> 
I thought I might take the British government to the
european court of human rights for endorsing and defending
landowners' counterfeit rights, but I wasn't looking forward
to it because the law traditionally avoids involvement with
land rights as far as possible. It is hard to pin them down 
and make them responsible.

But taking the queen to court over her rent arrears has more
of the dramatic sweep I wish we saw more of in history these
days.


------------
Stephen Bint

I am English and I want less

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6036/