Off Topic Political Debate

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leo

Leo

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2011
11,570
1,441
113
Selsey
Stay away from this thread unless like me you enjoy talking about political matters that generate heated discussions - and have nothing whatsoever to do with football

colognehornet said:
The Scots have never really had a republican tradition Leo. The Republican tradition in England is stronger precisely because the 'English' never had a hereditary aristocracy - the whole thing being a 'Norman' imposition upon the Saxon majority. The Saxons originally having had a King who was voted into that position. All of our aristocracy are nothing other than the ancestors of the favoured officers of William's army in 1066, and is basically a foreign institution. There has never been an 'English' hereditary monarch - and the last Englishman ruling in anything like that capacity was Cromwell. Many of England's struggles for political rights through history - whether from Magna Carta, the English Revolution, the doctrines of the Levellers, the writings of Thomas Paine or the motivation behind the Tolpuddle martyrs had the idea of the recovery of the free 'Saxon' birthright in the background. Scotland does not have this tradition.

Hereditary monarchy in the form which we have in Britain has no place in modern democracy. Maybe the 'cycling' monarchs of Denmark and the Netherlands fit that bill - but not ours. Every high court judge, every Member of Parliament, every high ranking officer in either the military or police takes an oath of allegiance to the woman calling herself Queen (and to her successors). The question of the abolition of the monarchy (or any changes in its political relationship to parliament) cannot be discussed within Parliament - because of this oath. Even republican MPs such as Caroline Lucas take this oath - albeit with fingers crossed at the time. Bearing in mind that the monarchy is nothing other than the head of the whole aristocracy - and that every title of land or title such as Lord, Earl etc. has been 'through their favour' and not through any actual legal land transaction - then a really Socialist government would declare all land gained in this way as invalid - ie. the Lairds would be screwed for every acre. I can but dream.......
Click to expand...

If you do not mind Cologne I would love to explore more of your views on these matters. You appear to have really well thought out and researched a lot about British - and perhaps European democracy. I confess that to an extent I have accepted a lot of things as they are and your views make me think. Let me ask a few questions to start with.

Can you really state that the English never had a hereditary aristocracy - using pre-Norman times to define that. Did England really exist totally before then or was it still subject to rule by Vikings, Danes and so on. Our modern country really began in 1066 so that was indeed the start of our modern politics. Surely 1000 years is long enough to consider ourselves more than subject peoples. Intermarriage has long since blurred all families - even the aristocracy. So those we have are indeed "ours". There are very few nations today with a lineage longer than that.

Yep -- our aristocracy derived from conquerors - did any nation's not so derive?

I could but have not researched Cromwell's family but bet he too was part of the Norman lineage.

I do not see Saxon birthright in the struggles you cite - merely common people moving out from serfdom and oppression.

Our Hereditary monarchy has no political power. It has merely ceremonial significance. Democracy - - to be debated later - is served through Parliament with the Upper Chamber having dubious status. Formally oaths are taken - but when it suits the Monarch can be taken down - as was Edward VIII.

Communists would confiscate land from the aristocracy - and logically from everybody else too - including you and me as it is derived from the same system. I am not sure all socialists would do this - many would be content to seek to equalise ownership more fairly.

If I can see you r views on this I would like to explore further. Cheers
 
There was a very interesting programme on radio 4 today "reunion" about the independence struggle in what is now Zimbabwe.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fy2bj
"Rhodesia was Britain's last colony in Africa. By the early 1960s, 200,000 white settlers still dominated the country's three million black population. In 1965, civil war broke out between the white Rhodesian forces and the guerrilla armies of the two rival black nationalist parties, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU).

Over the next fifteen years, the war escalated as the nationalist movement gained massive momentum.

When Margaret Thatcher came into power in 1979, she inherited the crisis. To the surprise of many she called for all-party negotiations which would lead to the first independent elections. It was her Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, who devised a plan and persuaded the various parties to negotiate.

What followed was three months of nerve wracking talks. "Every moment of those talks I thought the whole thing might fall apart," recalls Lord Carrington. By the skin of their teeth, an agreement was signed and, in February 1980, polling opened which would lead to a landslide victory for Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party and independence for a newly named ...."


What was particularly interesting was the completely different perspectives .... and how it was seen in the UK the media and the BBC......

The liberation movement of Mugabe confiscated land from the white land owners.... and felt completely right to do that.... even today it is happening and the media over here will come down on the side of the "decent white settlers" etc etc.

Interesting though that "political ideology" in these circumstances comes before "humanity" etc etc....
 
yorkshirehornet said:
There was a very interesting programme on radio 4 today "reunion" about the independence struggle in what is now Zimbabwe.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fy2bj
"Rhodesia was Britain's last colony in Africa. By the early 1960s, 200,000 white settlers still dominated the country's three million black population. In 1965, civil war broke out between the white Rhodesian forces and the guerrilla armies of the two rival black nationalist parties, the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU).

Over the next fifteen years, the war escalated as the nationalist movement gained massive momentum.

When Margaret Thatcher came into power in 1979, she inherited the crisis. To the surprise of many she called for all-party negotiations which would lead to the first independent elections. It was her Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, who devised a plan and persuaded the various parties to negotiate.

What followed was three months of nerve wracking talks. "Every moment of those talks I thought the whole thing might fall apart," recalls Lord Carrington. By the skin of their teeth, an agreement was signed and, in February 1980, polling opened which would lead to a landslide victory for Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party and independence for a newly named ...."


What was particularly interesting was the completely different perspectives .... and how it was seen in the UK the media and the BBC......

The liberation movement of Mugabe confiscated land from the white land owners.... and felt completely right to do that.... even today it is happening and the media over here will come down on the side of the "decent white settlers" etc etc.

Interesting though that "political ideology" in these circumstances comes before "humanity" etc etc....
Click to expand...

I remember an elderly well to do white woman being interviewed after Mugabe got into power: "you stupid bastards, you've let him in... he'll kill us all"... she wasn't far wrong. It stuck with me.
 
Leonardo said:
Stay away from this thread unless like me you enjoy talking about political matters that generate heated discussions - and have nothing whatsoever to do with football



If you do not mind Cologne I would love to explore more of your views on these matters. You appear to have really well thought out and researched a lot about British - and perhaps European democracy. I confess that to an extent I have accepted a lot of things as they are and your views make me think. Let me ask a few questions to start with.

Can you really state that the English never had a hereditary aristocracy - using pre-Norman times to define that. Did England really exist totally before then or was it still subject to rule by Vikings, Danes and so on. Our modern country really began in 1066 so that was indeed the start of our modern politics. Surely 1000 years is long enough to consider ourselves more than subject peoples. Intermarriage has long since blurred all families - even the aristocracy. So those we have are indeed "ours". There are very few nations today with a lineage longer than that.

Yep -- our aristocracy derived from conquerors - did any nation's not so derive?

I could but have not researched Cromwell's family but bet he too was part of the Norman lineage.

I do not see Saxon birthright in the struggles you cite - merely common people moving out from serfdom and oppression.

Our Hereditary monarchy has no political power. It has merely ceremonial significance. Democracy - - to be debated later - is served through Parliament with the Upper Chamber having dubious status. Formally oaths are taken - but when it suits the Monarch can be taken down - as was Edward VIII.

Communists would confiscate land from the aristocracy - and logically from everybody else too - including you and me as it is derived from the same system. I am not sure all socialists would do this - many would be content to seek to equalise ownership more fairly.

If I can see you r views on this I would like to explore further. Cheers
Click to expand...


Sorry it has taken a bit of time to respond to this Leo - I've got a trapped nerve in my shoulder at the moment which makes sitting in front of the PC a little painfull. I'll start of with a couple of historical quotes here which relate to the struggle against Norman oppression theory. The first is from the poor mans Guardian during the year of the first Reform Bill (Chartist):

'' This huge monopoly, this intolerable usurpation of the soil, had its foundation in force and fraud....From the hour of the Norman Conquest.....the whole history of the ancestors of the present usurpers of the soil is a crusade of confiscation,plunder,rapine and devastation......The present aristocracy are the descendants of freebooters'' This dates from the comparatively late time of 1849. Another quote from this period '' We must aim at restoring the old Saxon government, founded on domestic legislation, general principles of integrity and unity''.

More famous is of course Thomas Paine's 'Rights of Man`written in 1791 which contains the following :
''If the succession runs in the line of the Conqueror, the Nations runs in the line of being conquered, and ought to rescue itself from this reproach''

Moving further back in time to the Diggers texts:

'' Our nobility and gentry came even from that outlandish Norman bastard, who first being his Servants and under tyrants; secondly, their rise was by cruell murther and theft by the conquest; thirdly, their rise was the countries ruine, and the putting down will be the restitution of our rights againe'' There are many more 'Digger' texts from this period (the 1640s) and it is worth remembering that the Parliamentarian side in the English Civil War placed great emphasis upon resurrecting Saxon rights from under the Norman Yoke. Also worth remembering here that nearly 500 hundred years after the conquest the English Civil Laws were written only in French.

I will not tax your patience here with further quotation, suffice to say that our history is rich with such literature, and that the idea of throwing off the Norman Yoke was a mainstream idea of reformism, at least up to the development of Socialist ideologies of the 19th Century. Whether the Saxon age really was as democratic and egalitarian as people in the past believed is open to question. Certainly there were no major Saxon Dynasties - and the King was generally 'chosen' albeit from a rather small line of possible candidates. What is important is maybe not the reality but the myth - workers of the 19th Century were still claiming that the basis of the 8 hour working day was established by King Alfred the Great. Also the right to be judged by 12 of our peers (the Jury) was one of the only Saxon rights which survived the conquest.

Is all this relevant now ? If the 1,000 years of elitism which Spurf complains of is neither of English nor Scottish origin then maybe. Also if we can prove that the percentage of Norman blood found amongst our landowning elites or within the house of lords is vastly over proportional. As to the position of the present Elizabeth Windsor (or Hohenzollern or whatever) I would say that the ability to have hereditary life peers in the House of Lords, also Church of England Bishops. The power to open and close parliament - the knowledge that the continuance of the monarchy can never be discussed in Parliament (without breaking of oaths). The fact that we do not have a strict separation of 'Church' and 'State' as in democratic countries is problematic. Can a Catholic, a Quaker or a Jew really feel comfortable taking an oath to her as head of the Church in England ?

I think I have to shorten this now. When it comes to property and confiscation of it etc. I fall in the Anarchist Communist category (and no, the terms are not contradictory) in the traditions of Kropotkin. Communist ideology did not begin with Marx, but rather is found in Plato's republic, Thomas More's utopia, and is an accompanying idea of radical Christianity. All Communists before Marx came from a religious background. Read up on Fra Dolcino, the Anabaptists, Thomas Munzer, Gerrard Winstanley etc. The first nation anywhere in the World to abolish private property was not the USSR but rather the Jesuit republic of Paraguay. But,I think our differing attitudes to private property will entertain us for a long time !
 
Cologne - I am going to avoid "replying with quote" as it takes up so much room but as always I am overwhelmed by your knowledge. How is it that you can quote so many diverse sources and know anything about "Fra Dolcino, the Anabaptists, Thomas Munzer, Gerrard Winstanley etc."

You also avoid falling into the trap that our unhappy (this morning) friend from another club falls into. You use short quotes selectively to illustrate and demonstrate points you make. I am sure I must disagree with a lot of your conclusions but know that you arrive where you do from personal thought and understanding. Enough of this grovelling. Let me try to find a response.

I am not sure you will find a country that is not the legacy of its latest invaders - be that the US, Australia or merely almost any European country. It just happens that the Normans were our last conquerors - Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Celts who preceded them could easily have been the ones to now be subject to the criticism of overturning a previous "perfect" nation. I am afraid people who look back 8 or 9 hundred years to find an 8 hour working day are rather silly in my book and whether a jury has 12 men or another number is hardly material - most countries have devised some system that is not dissimilar.

To me the important questions are about today.
Is an Upper House necessary - or even justifiable in a "democracy" - or is it there simply to prevent Democracy? It's composition can be and over the last century has been altered. Is it better to have an unrepresentative and almost laughing stock House of Lords which only has delaying powers or should we reform it perhaps to be a House of Eminent Experts (in what you may ask) that could command such respect that it felt able to demand greater powers - over the House of Commons?
The Church of England - an anachronism that itself is dwindling in importance. Does it really matter that we do not have a strict separation of Church and State if the Church is unimportant. As other faiths increase and Christianity in this country diminishes it becomes less and less important except in ceremonial occasions.
Do we need to give Titles to people? I would not but does it bother me - not really - I see sportspersons, actors and the like given OBEs, MBEs and Knighthoods with gay abandon - who cares? If a person needs a gong to be important then they are not.

The 64000 dollar question is what do you do about land ownership? I take it you would confiscate land from some people. If that is so - how do you decide who you take it from and where does it go to?
 
Strangely land re-distribution has been tried in France. Dear old Bony did it. He thought it right that every household should have enough land to help support a family. If you look at old maps you can see how it was done, rather in the same way that old maps show the effects of the enclosure acts in England. Society in those days was of course totally different to the way that people live today, but the effects can still be seen. Small farms quite often comprise pieces of land scattered miles apart. It can mean that you are following a flock of sheep for twenty minutes as they are moved from one field to another. Slowly things are changing as people do not want to be bothered with managing a field or two some distance from home so sell them off to raise some cash. It suited me when I bought my place here as I wanted some land, but when I looked at the maps found that it had been owned by a number of small owners who had sold up until it all became under the owner that I bought from. Having said I wanted to buy what is regarded as agricultural land, it then had to be put to the farmers union who could have bought it over my head at a reduced price. It didn't appeal to them as it is not large enough to start a young person farming, so it continues with me to do with as I wish.

Once again it comes down not to history, but to economics. If my land was fifty or a hundred acres then I am sure it would have given the farmers more to think about, but then I may still have bought it as the Union is reported to have no money. What is happening perhaps further north than here, is that small farms are gradually selling up to large farm owners who want large scale fields to use their huge and expensive machines on. Spend €250,000 on a machine and you cannot use it on a 2 acre field. So land that was taken away from rich owners has been given to the poor who didn't want it eventually, and it is now returning to the rich. A different rich in most cases, but some people can make money while others are not interested.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
Strangely land re-distribution has been tried in France. Dear old Bony did it. He thought it right that every household should have enough land to help support a family. If you look at old maps you can see how it was done, rather in the same way that old maps show the effects of the enclosure acts in England. Society in those days was of course totally different to the way that people live today, but the effects can still be seen. Small farms quite often comprise pieces of land scattered miles apart. It can mean that you are following a flock of sheep for twenty minutes as they are moved from one field to another. Slowly things are changing as people do not want to be bothered with managing a field or two some distance from home so sell them off to raise some cash. It suited me when I bought my place here as I wanted some land, but when I looked at the maps found that it had been owned by a number of small owners who had sold up until it all became under the owner that I bought from. Having said I wanted to buy what is regarded as agricultural land, it then had to be put to the farmers union who could have bought it over my head at a reduced price. It didn't appeal to them as it is not large enough to start a young person farming, so it continues with me to do with as I wish.

Once again it comes down not to history, but to economics. If my land was fifty or a hundred acres then I am sure it would have given the farmers more to think about, but then I may still have bought it as the Union is reported to have no money. What is happening perhaps further north than here, is that small farms are gradually selling up to large farm owners who want large scale fields to use their huge and expensive machines on. Spend €250,000 on a machine and you cannot use it on a 2 acre field. So land that was taken away from rich owners has been given to the poor who didn't want it eventually, and it is now returning to the rich. A different rich in most cases, but some people can make money while others are not interested.
Click to expand...


We have a situation here which is not so dissimilar Frenchie. There has never been a land reform as such. But, during the years in which the German currency (then Reichsmark) was worthless - such as immediately after the two wars many people gave small pieces of land to their children instead of money. Even a few metres of forest was then better than money. The municipality where I live (Engelskirchen - 40 km. east of Cologne) is about 60% forested but must belong to about a thousand individuals. In many cases, through rural depopulation and emigration, small pieces of forest are owned by people who have long since disappeared to Canada or somewhere. With respect to the survival of small farms - we desparately need an end to the present agricultural subsidies in Europe moving to a system whereby farmers are rewarded for environmental protection, for erecting of hedges (as in England) and for developing more sustainable forms of mixed culture based on diversity of product. The vast monoculture of land use which you describe (large scale fields devoted, presumably, to one crop) can have no future in Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andytoprankin
Leonardo: The 64000 dollar question is what do you do about land ownership? I take it you would confiscate land from some people. If that is so - how do you decide who you take it from and where does it go to?
Click to expand...

I think it is dangerous and unnecessary to confiscate land, because that undermines the law of property which is fundamental to our civilisation. I think it is quite enough just to equalize the tax system. At the present time us 'peasants' pay council tax whereas the large landowners receive subsidy. Simply bring in a land tax that we all pay subject to the size of our holding. Over time more land will be placed on the market you can then bring in a limit as to how many acres that one can own, say 10,000 acres.

The one thing the landed gentry have done that I approve of is to preserve much of the beauty of our countryside. We would have to stop the peasants building everywhere.
 
Leonardo said:
Cologne - I am going to avoid "replying with quote" as it takes up so much room but as always I am overwhelmed by your knowledge. How is it that you can quote so many diverse sources and know anything about "Fra Dolcino, the Anabaptists, Thomas Munzer, Gerrard Winstanley etc."

You also avoid falling into the trap that our unhappy (this morning) friend from another club falls into. You use short quotes selectively to illustrate and demonstrate points you make. I am sure I must disagree with a lot of your conclusions but know that you arrive where you do from personal thought and understanding. Enough of this grovelling. Let me try to find a response.

I am not sure you will find a country that is not the legacy of its latest invaders - be that the US, Australia or merely almost any European country. It just happens that the Normans were our last conquerors - Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Celts who preceded them could easily have been the ones to now be subject to the criticism of overturning a previous "perfect" nation. I am afraid people who look back 8 or 9 hundred years to find an 8 hour working day are rather silly in my book and whether a jury has 12 men or another number is hardly material - most countries have devised some system that is not dissimilar.

To me the important questions are about today.
Is an Upper House necessary - or even justifiable in a "democracy" - or is it there simply to prevent Democracy? It's composition can be and over the last century has been altered. Is it better to have an unrepresentative and almost laughing stock House of Lords which only has delaying powers or should we reform it perhaps to be a House of Eminent Experts (in what you may ask) that could command such respect that it felt able to demand greater powers - over the House of Commons?
The Church of England - an anachronism that itself is dwindling in importance. Does it really matter that we do not have a strict separation of Church and State if the Church is unimportant. As other faiths increase and Christianity in this country diminishes it becomes less and less important except in ceremonial occasions.
Do we need to give Titles to people? I would not but does it bother me - not really - I see sportspersons, actors and the like given OBEs, MBEs and Knighthoods with gay abandon - who cares? If a person needs a gong to be important then they are not.

The 64000 dollar question is what do you do about land ownership? I take it you would confiscate land from some people. If that is so - how do you decide who you take it from and where does it go to?
Click to expand...


With regard to the monarchy and the house of lords I would be in favour of separating the monarchy completely from politics - meaning that any titles given by her, or her successors, are not legally valid ie. the House of Lords would slowly die out because no new ones would be created. I would be in favour of replacing the Upper House with a second chamber based on PR.

Land ownership is a difficult issue. Why do you presume that I would automatically transfer ownership from one person to another ? Theoretically I favour a communism from below - based on small self sufficient communities and communal (not state) ownership where the state eventually dissolves itself as all legislative power is given over to the base of the pyramid. Interesting to know that even Marx said that the role of the State was its own disintigration - Kropotkin believed the same, but did not believe in the intervening period of state control. You would think therefore that I would abolish private (not personal) property entirely - but I am not so 'ideological`on this. I would have inheritance taxes paid in form of land, as opposed to money, thereby slowly reducing the amount of land under private ownership. However - I do not believe that any system of land ownership is perfect (because people are not perfect) - all can go horribly wrong if in the wrong hands. As to what happens to this land. It is conceivable that nothing would happen because I believe that, in interests of environmental protection, all towns should be committed to allowing around 10 - 15% of their area to exist as wasteland (ie. land which can rejuvinate itself) - in other words I would give it to the bees !

One quote I would like used in every school in every western country is the following :
`This we know; the Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself `.
The quote is from Chief Seattle's letter to the US president in the 1800s. The world does not belong to us - to buy and sell in the way we do. Or when I buy a piece of land do I also have control over all of the living forms which make it up. Land ownership (if there is to be such a thing) must be combined with the idea of stewardship and responsibility to nature, and subjected to far more stringent environmental controls than those existing at the moment, before I would accept any form of land ownership whether collective or private.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andytoprankin
Spurf said:
I think it is dangerous and unnecessary to confiscate land, because that undermines the law of property which is fundamental to our civilisation. I think it is quite enough just to equalize the tax system. At the present time us 'peasants' pay council tax whereas the large landowners receive subsidy. Simply bring in a land tax that we all pay subject to the size of our holding. Over time more land will be placed on the market you can then bring in a limit as to how many acres that one can own, say 10,000 acres.

The one thing the landed gentry have done that I approve of is to preserve much of the beauty of our countryside. We would have to stop the peasants building everywhere.
Click to expand...

Land is granted by, and exists as private possession only because of 'the State' and is subject to certain conditions - if those conditions are broken then the 'possession' is also forfeit. How do you arrive at the conclusion that 'the law on property' is fundamental to our civilization ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: andytoprankin
colognehornet said:
With regard to the monarchy and the house of lords I would be in favour of separating the monarchy completely from politics - meaning that any titles given by her, or her successors, are not legally valid ie. the House of Lords would slowly die out because no new ones would be created. I would be in favour of replacing the Upper House with a second chamber based on PR.
Click to expand...
Of the 669 members of the House of Lords only 92 now are hereditary peers. It would be fairly simple to abandon the practice of replacing them on their death with a by-election. That way attrition would end their power. Life peerages can be granted to put "experts" into the House of Lords. This can often lead to a far higher quality of debate than you get in the Commons. In practice the Lords can at best delay a bill by one year and cannot touch "money" bills at all so their power is nowadays very limited. I would reform the Lords by removing voting rights from hereditary peers and not replacing them. I would also reduce the size of the Lords to around 300 to 350 to make it more manageable. I would have a number of peers appointed to represent shires and major towns and cities (perhaps 2 per body one male and one female) - for a ten year period to give a longer perspective than the Commons sees, if during the 10 year period a peer dies the council / city could nominate the replacement. I would allow the government to appoint "experts" to sit until their 70th birthday to replace retiring "experts" wiht a cap on their number at say 50. The rest to make up numbers to the 300 or whatever would be appointed by parties on the basis of voter turnout at the latest general election. That way the 2nd Chamber would have balance in terms of gender, geography and expertise as well as a reflection of voter turnout.
To simply adopt a second chamber based on PR would risk a duplication of the House of Commons and might be a threat to it unnecessarily


Land ownership is a difficult issue. Why do you presume that I would automatically transfer ownership from one person to another ?
Click to expand...
I didn't. I asked "Where does it go to"
Theoretically I favour a communism from below - based on small self sufficient communities and communal (not state) ownership where the state eventually dissolves itself as all legislative power is given over to the base of the pyramid. Interesting to know that even Marx said that the role of the State was its own disintigration - Kropotkin believed the same, but did not believe in the intervening period of state control. You would think therefore that I would abolish private (not personal) property entirely - but I am not so 'ideological`on this. I would have inheritance taxes paid in form of land, as opposed to money, thereby slowly reducing the amount of land under private ownership. However - I do not believe that any system of land ownership is perfect (because people are not perfect) - all can go horribly wrong if in the wrong hands. As to what happens to this land. It is conceivable that nothing would happen because I believe that, in interests of environmental protection, all towns should be committed to allowing around 10 - 15% of their area to exist as wasteland (ie. land which can rejuvinate itself) - in other words I would give it to the bees !
Click to expand...
I confess I find land reform the most difficult area. However a person got land it is theirs now. Perhaps "property law" is not fundamental to democracy but "law" certainly is. We are a fair people and not many would vote in favour of radical redistribution of property. Where does that road end? How much property is too much? I need to think more on this

One quote I would like used in every school in every western country is the following :
`This we know; the Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself `.
The quote is from Chief Seattle's letter to the US president in the 1800s. The world does not belong to us - to buy and sell in the way we do. Or when I buy a piece of land do I also have control over all of the living forms which make it up. Land ownership (if there is to be such a thing) must be combined with the idea of stewardship and responsibility to nature, and subjected to far more stringent environmental controls than those existing at the moment, before I would accept any form of land ownership whether collective or private.
Click to expand...

I like that quote
 
colognehornet said:
Land is granted by, and exists as private possession only because of 'the State' and is subject to certain conditions - if those conditions are broken then the 'possession' is also forfeit. How do you arrive at the conclusion that 'the law on property' is fundamental to our civilization ?
Click to expand...

When we changed from hunter gatherers to farmers 'property' became an issue. War was invented by people who wanted to steal other peoples property instead of striving to establish their own. Civilisation begins when property owners either protect themselves or agree to let others protect them. I think that is pretty fundamental.
 
Spurf said:
When we changed from hunter gatherers to farmers 'property' became an issue. War was invented by people who wanted to steal other peoples property instead of striving to establish their own. Civilisation begins when property owners either protect themselves or agree to let others protect them. I think that is pretty fundamental.
Click to expand...

Spurf - I do believe you are becoming hooked on our pleasant board - you are joining in now on a different debate :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back