Land, the peoples’ rights

Land, the peoples’ rights In the earliest times when there was loads of land and very few people, then the land was seen as a community asset, something recognised such that the whole community had the benefit of the use of the land. The whole community owned the land together.

Then someone, whether priest or king, decided that they were unhappy with their own land, because the water supply was unreliable or because their population grew so that the land could not sustain it, or just because they wanted to prove something. The neighbouring leader whether from the next valley or the next country, decided to invade and to steal your land and either drive you off it or make you into slaves or drudges.

That leader had taken your land from you, as a nation, by force. He had stolen it and that’s a crime.

In Britain we can identify specific land grabs and thefts:

  • The Vikings from Scandinavia
  • The Anglo-Saxons from what is now Holland or Denmark
  • The Romans
  • The French under William the Conqueror
  • Henry VIII in the dissolution of the monasteries and the Reformation
  • The Enclosure Acts, (Note 1)

The leaders of each of these took the underlying national land for their own purposes purely by theft, by having the largest army, and by being the strongest or the best equipped.

The leaders then gave so-called rights to use the land that they had stolen together with its property, as rewards in battle or in politics, for the new owners to use at their pleasure.

All land in Britain, even freehold land, is still owned by the “Crown” and the owner is allowed to use it. Note this only applies to the surface land, the subterranean ground is still wholly-owned by the Crown, and all mineral rights accrue to the Crown.

The people whose land they stole, whose lives they ruined, were seen as chattels, to be driven off their land or to be disposed of as the lords and kings felt (Except it was illegal for them to commit suicide.)

However the underlying fact is that their lands were taken from them by force, the land was stolen.

This was the case in Britain and it was the case in every country in the world. AND it still is the case. Everywhere there is a coterie of people who stole the land and who think they own the land.

Around the world the people have revolted whether the French, or the Russians or the Thais or even Mugabe recovering the land from the white settlers. Then you need to include the North American Indians, the Aborigines, the Canadian Indians.

As the lands are owned by the various nations, then each nation could say that an annual Land Usage Fee is payable set at 2%, a small figure roughly equivalent to the lowest bank interest.

It doesn’t matter how the current ‘landowners’ came by the land, its just a small fee for using it, everything else about their rights to dispose or use it as they see fit remain unchanged. At 2% the licence fee could solve a lot of problems for every nation and even encourage a more effective use of the land.

The Land Usage Fee should be very simple to calculate and collect.

The land was stolen and these people are continuing to benefit from the proceeds of a crime and that’s illegal and they could be prosecuted for dealing in stolen property and probably money-laundering. So the deal for them is to accept a simple Land Usage Licence Fee.

Note 1: The Enclosure Acts, when the price of wheat collapsed and the ‘powerful people’ wanted the land for herds, the peers of the realm changed the law so that they could ‘legally’ enclose the land which the community as a whole had previously used and enjoyed.

Power and Peace, now published on Amazon Kindle

Power & Peace, 16297 words, the original work on which the Tomorrows’ fiction books are based.How do we get better than we are? WE – whether in Brighton, in Britain, in the ‘West’ or in the World. How can we go about the process of getting better.

This is a series of personal observations and interpretations by a person trying to understand how we got to where we are (Where are ‘we’? Who are ‘we’?) and to look at various scenarios for our future world and also of Britain’s role within it.

Whilst it’s as good as I can get it, I acknowledge regretfully that it’s an imperfect piece of work. Hopefully it is a thought provoking view which might cause some people to think about how they would want the world to work or how we can work together to look after our world; how we in Britain can organise ourselves; and hopefully to get other people to look at how they can best organise themselves.

This book is about picking up strands of evidence, interpreting them, interpolating them and trying to visualise possibilities and options for the future. It’s also about trying to find if there may be a rational philosophy for a vision for the future.

If I’m not satisfied that there is a god, as I’m not, is it possible to create a revised ethos for our society such that the whole world could subscribe to it and which could co-exist with the religions of the world.

If Christianity is supposed to be based on ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love thy neighbour as oneself’ why have half the wars, ever fought, been between religions (in this meaning ‘Communism counts as a religion, a state religion’) Come to think of it why do people feel they need to kill each other? Isn’t there a better way than this?

The Good News is that we do have the first plank in enabling such a society to come into being, for the first time in the history of the world we virtually all speak the same language. Without the English language the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2010 could not have happened.

Rather than be sad that an agreement couldn’t be reached we should be overjoyed that representatives from one hundred and ninety two countries met and talked in (largely) one language about one of the problems facing us all.

However will it ever be possible to achieve agreement across the whole world?

Well, we can move forward, we can talk to each other and try to learn how to agree, or at least to learn how to stop disagreeing so vehemently or so violently.

Facing us for the immediate future are the actual and possible risks of:
– continuous on-going minor wars
– food and water shortages
– power shortages
– major war

So we need to get better than we are.
So how do we get better than we are?

Scroll to top