Rupert_Baehr Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 So if the 'landless peasants' don't own land (and live in council houses) - That's wrong? If they buy their council houses (and become peasants with a bit of land) that's wrong, too? What have you got against the peasantry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I've thought about all sorts of things, the human mind is a brilliant thing. Have you ever seen this picture? http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/04reich-graphic-popup.jpg Or considered that a man could brew his own vodka with potatoes he grows upon the land, rather than work for a sum of £6.08/hour in 2012 UK FIAT money doing it in the behalf of a few landed gentry via proxy? Does that graph relate to the UK, all the figures have dollar signs $ not £? I think I've got to the stage in my life where I recognise there will always be an elite. It may not always be the same elite, but when one power topples the next one is there to take its place. The Chinese revolution is an example. In the UK, we should ensure the vulnerable are looked after properly, and the rest of us should just get on with our lives, doing the best we can for ourselves and those who depend on us. Grow potatoes in a barrel if you haven't got a garden. http://www.gardeningdata.co.uk/vegetables/potatoes/potatoes_in_barrel.php Grow herbs on the windowsill, and aspire to an allotment, or a house with a garden. Or, why not have a look around some estates in Sheffield. There are people who have taken on a valuable commodity, a council house, who don't value the land around it enough to ever put a fork in the ground. I'm sure they'd love you to come along and cultivate if for them. You could grow all the spuds you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I've thought about all sorts of things, the human mind is a brilliant thing. ... a man could brew his own vodka with potatoes he grows upon the land, rather than work for a sum of £6.08/hour in 2012 UK FIAT money doing it in the behalf of a few landed gentry via proxy? So, have I got this right? You're suggesting that instead of using land to grow food, we should use it to grow crops which could be fermented and distilled to produce alcohol? That's a good idea! Then we could uses the alcohol to replace some of the oil we burn! We could use that additional fuel to import more food from impoverished 3rd world countries to make up the deficit caused by growing crops to make alcohol. (Barley is, of course, exempt. It is used to make barley soup. - I will be making 25 litres of barley soup later on today. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinyl Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 "You cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." JFK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/britains-land-is-still-owned-by-an-aristocratic-elite--but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-this-way-483131.html Britain's land is still owned by an aristocratic elite - but it doesn't have to be this way. This is what I would call land monopoly. It leads to exploitation of the landless peasants. This is unfair and unjust. What do you want the land for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muldoon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I reckon that the OP is having an 'EPPY' fit :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggsy Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I bought the land that my house stands upon- does this make me Landed gentry?? :heyhey: Biggsy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Instead of paying people millions of pounds to merely own land, we charge them rent for depriving others of land. This will lead to them giving up the land, unless of course they can use it productively enough to make a profit and pay the rent. You haven't really thought this through have you? If you charge, let's say, The Duke of Westminster, for owning most of London all he will do is put up the rents on the land he owns to pay your land tax. He already uses it productively and makes plenty of profit which he already pays tax on. How does that help landless peasants? I am completely at a loss to understand your argument. I would agree that the likes of his Dukeness should not own land just because at some time in history one of his distant relatives did the monarch a favour and was given it for free. All land should belong to the people, not the monarch. If you must change anything try starting with that instead of moaning about how someone else has got more than you. Socialism is dead and long since buried. The politics of envy just leads to bitter disappointment. Ask any Labour politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 ... All land should belong to the people, not the monarch. If you must change anything try starting with that instead of moaning about how someone else has got more than you... The concept of 'all land belonging to the Monarch' is little more than a concept. - If you hold the 'freehold' on a piece of land then it is - effectively - yours. The Monarch is hardly likely to take it back. But if all land was to be owned by the people, would that mean all the people own all the land or would that mean that each person could own his/her land independently of anybody else? If all the land is the property of all the people, then if you grow potatoes on a piece of land, what's to stop Chem1st from coming along and digging them up to make vodka? - After all, it's his land, too. If you think each person should be able to own his/her own land absolutely, then all you're doing is turning back the clock. Originally, a man held land, over which he maintained his 'peace'. If he couldn't do that on his own, he combined with (or was forcibly combined with) others. One of those others (probably the biggest and strongest) maintained the 'peace' for all of them. Hence 'The King's peace'. If you were to go back to each person owning his or her land, then effectively each piece of land would be a 'kingdom' in its own right. A kingdom with its own laws and its own king. No doubt they would group together (as they did about 1500 years ago) and form small kingdoms. If you lived in the right kingdom, you'd be OK. Do you think there would be much of a difference in standard of living between the Kingdom of Dore and the Kingdom of Parson's Cross? The Kingdom of London would probably be richer than the Kingdom of South Yorkshire. Perhaps the UK should become a federation of tiny kingdoms? (You could call them by other names, if you didn't like the word 'Kingdom'. The federal government would be responsible for International policy, defence, coining money and regulating its value and as few other areas as possible, limited solely to those vital for the existence and security of the federation. They would be able to raise taxes from all the Kingdoms to fund their limited responsibilities, but would be forbidden to interfere in those areas which came under the local Kingdoms. The local kingdoms would raise such taxes as they saw fit to run things the way they wanted to run them. Would that be a good idea? - There would be no more complaining about Central Government sending less money to Sheffield - because it would send no money to Sheffield. Sheffield would raise all the money it needed to pay all the bills from local taxes (including [but not limited to] benefits, education and the Sheffield Health Service). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nouxnoux Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 You seem to be very jealous of the landed 'gentry' as you call them is it because you want a slice of their land. Pathetic I say. Look at Chatsworth for instance, what an amazing place and how well is it looked after. Just cannot imagine what it would be like looked after by you and would you let the public in to enjoy it. I think not it would be mine all mine and totally ruined by someone who had no idea how to look after such a place. Stop being jealous and be satisfied with what you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.