[Diggers350] Re: concepts of land ownership
malcolm.ramsay at talk21.com
Wed Nov 24 16:04:10 GMT 2010
James Armstrong said: "The king who made the law and defined legality - took the
land by illegal armed invasion."
I think there's an important point here which in fact offers an opportunity for
As I see it, William the Conqueror did indeed 'make the law' - in the sense that
he created laws which have lasted. The reason his system has persisted for so
many centuries is that (despite its flaws) it added something worthwhile to the
existing social structure; the system he established created a new dimension of
government which provided a stable foundation which allowed society to develop.
When he parcelled out land to his tenants-in-chief he wasn't simply rewarding
them, he was giving them dominion over the people on that land - and that
involved giving them not just rights but responsibilities as well.
That's where the opportunity lies: over the centuries nearly all those
responsibilities were taken over by other institutions (leaving the rewards with
the landowners). One stayed with the landholders, however, because it had always
been treated as a right rather than a responsibility: the power to 'devise' land
(to designate the new holder of land when the previous one died) is not really a
right, it is in fact a responsibility which the Crown delegates to the landowner
- therefore that power should be exercised in the interests of the Crown (which
in the modern world means 'in the public interest'), rather than being used to
indulge the landowner's family.
If the courts can be brought to recognise that fact, it would allow change to be
brought about on a case by case basis, with large bequests of land being open to
challenge as not being consistent with the landholders' duties as agents of the
Crown. It's taken me a long time to recognise it (and there are details that
need addressing, such as what should happen when a bequest is successfully
challenged) but I think this simple change of perspective has the potential to
change the whole system within a generation or so; and it's probably the only
way that reform can come about without significant upheaval.
Of course, the courts can only consider it in the context of a case and I
suspect most lawyers would be very reluctant to initiate an action like that.
But if anyone in this group knows a lawyer who might be willing to do so, I'm in
a position to provide a test case.
From: james armstrong <james36armstrong at hotmail.com>
To: diggers <diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010 23:39:45
Subject: [Diggers350] RE: concepts of land ownership
Yes , it would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds if there was
a way of "promoting beneficial land management " in an ownership society,
but that is exactly what is impossible when 'ownership' is exclusive . The
recurring result of exclusive ownership is exploitation of non -owners.
Who on earth would advocate 'giving away land free?' That inplies 'giving
away'. After giving land away- you have resurrected the ownership system.
Selling Life time personal tenancies is compatible with common opwnership of the
You confuse ownership with usage.
It is not necessarily the use of the land that is the issue. More its current
The planning system would still designate land for housing and for farming and
for caravan sites etc.
But the market for land would be removed from its malign influence on the use
Reference to 'the original owners' is a hopeless dream. It also begs the
question. It implies that ownership to-day should be based on some hypothetical
ownership in the past - but how far back are you to go?- and advocates of 'no
ownership to-day' would logically and vigorously demonstrate the inequity of
ownership however far back you could demonstrate it.
Just one instance-
Duke William of Caen, and William Eu, and Henry de Ferrers and Bernard de
Neufmarche ..... carved out for themselves great estates
by the sword. Does that give good title? Occupation by conquest is both
illegal to-day and and condemned by the church then.
The questiion of legality you raise is also raised on that issue since The
Normans introduced new title to land- All the land of England was held of the
king - as a feu- in return for knights service. The king who made the law and
defined legality - took the land by illegal armed invasion.
Dont stop there in your essay into the past - Harold at Hastings was Danish . Go
furher back and you find in Bede cica 700 that 'the king gave wilfrid land at
Selsey together with the slaves on it to Wilfrid. SO land ownership then
implied the now illegal practice of slave ownership. This was not uinusual but
the norm. It was tehnorm for Anglo Saxons to enslave the native Britons - the
indigenous populatin So going back in history is not the way forward.
For a More up to date approach refer to the last clause in the title of the
1947 Town and Country Planning and COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT.(where land can be c
p'd by the state at less than market value.) Legal is as legal does.
I suggest the desirability of de commodifying land is not essentially to change
the usage of the land but to end two endemic weaknesses of private exclusive
ownership as at present.
a) End Monopolising land ownership and using the monopoly against the public
eg to garner CAP benefits paid for by the public which thepublic don't qualify
for (£3.9billion a year at present.) another example is
plc housebuilders cornering land with Planning permission and then not building
thehoises required so that thescarcityu value drives uop the price of new
houses and also the value of teh landbanks of horded land.
b) buying and selling land as a commodity and speculating on it. The systemic
rise in price of farmland from around £2,000 and acre to
currently anything up to £8,000 yields a staggering bonus to land monopolists
(some 197,00 of them) At 70% of UK land as farmland and 60million acres in UK
you work out the benefit to the exclusive 'owners' and the harm to new
entrants into farming and to food prices..
Maybe I'm wrong and or misguided . Please correct me
gers350 at yahoogroups.com
From: liliapatterson at hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:32:04 +0000
Subject: [Diggers350] concepts of land ownership and protecting the biodiversity
of the land
there seems to be some discussion about the difference between ownership and
responsibility of ownership and also freedom of distribution and also of
management practices towards different possessions that can be either owned or
Can I remind some people that these concepts are all different and mutually
exclusive and also just because someone might say that they want to own some
land and then give it away for free - does not necessarily mean that giving land
away for free is the best way for the biodiversity of the planet to be improved.
Personally I would state that promoting beneficial land management practices is
a million times more beneficial than the concept of promoting for land or other
resources to be given away for free.
I would also state that it would actually be grossly criminally negligent for
members of TLIO to continue to promote the confused concept that giving away
land and resources for free is a positive ideal. It most definitely is not.
If one would like to consider for example - that the land and mineral resources
of the Palestinian people of Gaza have just been taken for 'free' by the Israeli
government, through use of military intervention of the Israeli navy against
both Palestinian and international citizens, then this would be an 'example' of
a collective group of people taking 'land and its resources for free' and then
re-distributing them as they see fit, against the consent of the original
This is against international laws and the acts performed by the Israeli
military and navy constitute war crimes.
Therefore I would really suggest that if TLIO wants to continue in the future as
a 'credible' organisation, that some people consult 'lawyers' in relation to
'land rights of ownership and management policies' in relation to how to
effectively promote better ecological systems to help more healthy lifestyles
for people on this planet as a credible part of the environmental movement in
the future, otherwise their statements are questionable and therefore
ridiculous, in the wider international context of the debate about how the
'environment' and 'biodiversity of life on this planet' should effectively be
managed in the future in a way that is equitable and fair for all, including
landowners, whose rightful access to their own land is being exploited or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Diggers350