Ah many thanks for taking the time to explain and point this out, i see the point you are drawing attention to now.
Freeman on the land.....lawful rebellion? Anybody here?
- Thread starter bambodoggy
- Start date
Ah many thanks for taking the time to explain and point this out, i see the point you are drawing attention to now.
That sums up the entire banking system, not the people being evicted. Although 'thieves' is more appropriate.
The base rate is the lowest its been for 300 years. I agree. They should stop stealing money from savers, and put the base rate back up, and repossess anyone who cannot repay. Of course that would mean your house would halve in value overnight....[Which would only take houses back to their long term affordability as a proportion of income anyway] Still think the scroungers should be repossessed? Millions would enter negative equity.
It depends whether you 'own' property or not. Whether you have a vested interest.
'They' divide and conquer us, using a completely corrupt monetary system to control us.
The UK is a dictatorship of Land Labour and Capital. Run for the benefit of a few at the expense of the rest. And its been like that for a millenia.
According to the great jurist Coke, the State or the Crown has never even acknowledged that private property even exists. So strictly speaking, none of us actually own any land....
What should happen is real radical reform, like for instance, every person born in the UK is automatically entitled to an equal piece of land. As a birthright. Real equality.
will never happen though. Although if you look at the first English people in North america, they were given Land for free. So there are precedents.
When you begin to peel back the various parliamentary acts, like the poverty act etc, you begin to realise, these acts were not designed to protect the poor, but the rich.
Last edited:
Way to go political Dave - I would argue about the whole "wanting something for nothing" concept, but this is not the place.
Quote Coker on that point? And why were the Acts against the Poor? It is because the ownership of property was recognised and seen as the basis of all. Lose your property and you were done, that why the savage paranoia about losing it. Slavery was supported for years in the sacred name of property. A Major in the Ninteenth Century assaulted a woman on a railway train but the severest punishment he got was for stealing her property, an umbrella. In many ways private property in the USA has more resonance than in this country nowadays, at least that was the feelings I got on a recent trip to California.
But, it did make me laugh when you get criminals like Mad Frankie Fraser getting all indignate when somebody asked his reaction if somebody stole something from his flat.
Just deleted a rant on interest rates and Quantitive easing.
But, it did make me laugh when you get criminals like Mad Frankie Fraser getting all indignate when somebody asked his reaction if somebody stole something from his flat.
Just deleted a rant on interest rates and Quantitive easing.
Didnt mean to upset anyone Hugh. I didnt single out any political parties either. Nothing partisan.
I wasnt advocating the concept of something for nothing. My mind just wandered to the injustices of the general enclosures acts, and that famous quote by roussea
Last edited:
Quote from Cke would be useful on that point. Acts against the Poor were intended to preserve property. Lose your property or have it taken and you were done. Paranoia about losing property increased the savagery of the punishments.
A Major in the nineteenth-century assaulted a woman on a train and was most severely punished for stealing her umbrella. But, it was ine of tha cases leading to the installation of coomunication cords.
Made me laugh when the criminal Mad Frankie Fraser was asked what his reaction would be if somebody stole something from his flat and he got really angry at the idea and the affrontery of someone stealing from him.
A Major in the nineteenth-century assaulted a woman on a train and was most severely punished for stealing her umbrella. But, it was ine of tha cases leading to the installation of coomunication cords.
Made me laugh when the criminal Mad Frankie Fraser was asked what his reaction would be if somebody stole something from his flat and he got really angry at the idea and the affrontery of someone stealing from him.
Boatman, i'll try and dig out the quote for you.
I was referring to how prior to the general enclosures, where tens of millions of acres were stolen, [villages starved, evicted etc] by parliamentary landlords, and aristos, however poor people were, they had access to common land, to support themselves, even squatters had rights to the common land.
Poor laws/welfare/poverty acts were introduced to stop major uprisings against the wealthy.
Knowing If they give us the scraps from the table, just enough to survive, the people wont rise up. [Can you imagine the revolution which would occur if the government stopped benefits?]
Even today the poorest taxpayers fund the largest landowners. There was good book entitled who owns britain, by Kevin Cahill with some interesting facts, such as, just over 1200 people 'own' about 60% of Scotland. But they dont pay land tax! Instead they get billions a year, from the gov and the EU in subsidies, [our taxes] so the poor subsidise the super rich. I could go on and on....but I would quickly bore you to death...
Can you imagine what would happen today if an independently minded lad, homeless and jobless, attempted to support himself, 'outside the system' by going to a piece of apparently unused land and growing his own food, building his own abode?
I was referring to how prior to the general enclosures, where tens of millions of acres were stolen, [villages starved, evicted etc] by parliamentary landlords, and aristos, however poor people were, they had access to common land, to support themselves, even squatters had rights to the common land.
Poor laws/welfare/poverty acts were introduced to stop major uprisings against the wealthy.
Knowing If they give us the scraps from the table, just enough to survive, the people wont rise up. [Can you imagine the revolution which would occur if the government stopped benefits?]
Even today the poorest taxpayers fund the largest landowners. There was good book entitled who owns britain, by Kevin Cahill with some interesting facts, such as, just over 1200 people 'own' about 60% of Scotland. But they dont pay land tax! Instead they get billions a year, from the gov and the EU in subsidies, [our taxes] so the poor subsidise the super rich. I could go on and on....but I would quickly bore you to death...
Can you imagine what would happen today if an independently minded lad, homeless and jobless, attempted to support himself, 'outside the system' by going to a piece of apparently unused land and growing his own food, building his own abode?
Last edited:
"Rich" vs "Poor" is always partisan.
Everyone being given a land grant is so impractical as to be humorous.
Fred and Jane have a child. There is no land available in their area (unless the plan is to have great swathes of land unused to allow for future births), so what do we give the child? Land 100 miles away? Or do we trim a square foot of everyones existing land so the child has her allotment spread over 10 square miles?
I assume no-one can sell their land even if they don't want it? If they could, you would instantly end up with some people having more land than others! So on the basis people who don't want land cannot sell it, great swathes of currently productive land would just lie fallow.
I also have to assume that peoples land is taken off them at death - so they will never bother planting slow maturing trees, or undertaking any long term work - after all the land will be taken away not passed on to their family.
What do we do when the population expands? Take away land from the rest of the population?
Old people who cannot work their land who have no kids will also let it lie fallow of course since they cannot sell it.
If we want "real equality" we should all give up 95% of our income, free at demand healthcare, social security and all those other things most of the world don't have. Unless you mean those who are better off than 90% of the world are hard done by and should take from the 10% above them but give nothing to the 90% beneath them?
Its worth baring in mind that "real equality" means even the poorest in the UK being much, much poorer.
You could not squat on Commoin Land that was protected by the rights of the villagers and the Lord of the Manor. Established residents couls assart by making agricultural inroads into the "waste" that surrounded some villages. Scotlands laws did differ and there were customs permitting the building of a cottage on a roadside verge, for example, in England if you could build it and have the smoke coming out of the chimney in one day with the amount of land with it you could reach by throwing a hachet. The First Elizabeth did enact four acres as suitable for a cottager but not sure if this ever happened.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who takes things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who takes things that are yours and mine.
The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break;
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law.
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back.
Of course in the 16th century "sheep were eating men" with a switch to pasture rather than corn growing. Apparently Shakespeare was a forestaller or one who bought up grain in order to sell it dear when in a time of dearth. Obviously he had no need "a borrower or a lender be."
xylaria
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Thank you for the poem.
Its wierd how a mud hut with a turf roof can be pulled down by council as they say it is an eyesore biult without permission yet a fracking operation and mountian side wind turbines is built without anyone who has to live with it been asked. When government is something that is done to you, not works for you, it is wrong.
Its wierd how a mud hut with a turf roof can be pulled down by council as they say it is an eyesore biult without permission yet a fracking operation and mountian side wind turbines is built without anyone who has to live with it been asked. When government is something that is done to you, not works for you, it is wrong.
Similar threads
