£9bn inheritence

[h4rm0ny]

It's a bit hard to return it to the originally owners though - they've been dead for 5 thousand years.

An anarchist ethical view would be "no ownership without use". I.e. if you're not actually living there / growing something / working on it, then you shouldn't force someone else to pay you for using what you have no interest in using yourself.

 

[Dis86]

Are you some kind of commie?

Communism is a fantastic philosophy.

Doesn't work in practice.

 

[Mercutio]

Great day for the public when he gets his inheritance bill I'm sure.

Right.
Right?!

Oh, friend of the tories. ****.

 

[glenimp617]

Communism is a fantastic philosophy.

Doesn't work in practice.

I completely agree, but the world is centuries away from it

 

[Amp34]

So...like I said, historical theft. The land was taken and given.

Taken from whom? The Anglo Saxons? Who quite possibly took it from the the Britons, who probably liberated it from the Romans after leaving, who most probably took it from Britons in the first place...

So basically the land and money should be taken from Westminster and given to the Welsh, who probably have the closest original historical claim to the land.

 

[Amp34]

Correct.

This is all just because some plank got coughed out of a specific vagina.

So he gets handed 9 billion worth of land. Nothing to do with capitalism.

You could say the same about your life (and most of us in this thread). Some plank being luck enough to be coughed out of a "British" vagina, rather than an Africa or Syrian one...

 

[Dis86]

Taken from whom? The Anglo Saxons? Who quite possibly took it from the the Britons, who probably liberated it from the Romans after leaving, who most probably took it from Britons in the first place...

So basically the land and money should be taken from Westminster and given to the Welsh, who probably have the closest original historical claim to the land.

Or as I said later, make it state owned.

 

[Amp34]

In which case it should be given to the state.

Do you include your house in that? I'm guessing most land in the UK has gone down that route and have "questionable" pasts...

Or should it only affect land owned over a certain value (just above the cost of any land you own)?

 

[Amp34]

It's not a problem if you can afford it.

I think Patsy Palmers nose would disagree with you...

 

[Amp34]

An anarchist ethical view would be "no ownership without use". I.e. if you're not actually living there / growing something / working on it, then you shouldn't force someone else to pay you for using what you have no interest in using yourself.

So if you have 10,000 acres (or an acre for that matter) of woodland set aside for nature you should have it removed from you?

How would that work for companies and offices? If you don't use all of that tower block you built you have to give part of it away?

 

[Dis86]

Do you include your house in that? I'm guessing most land in the UK has gone down that route and have "questionable" pasts...

Or should it only affect land owned over a certain value (just above the cost of any land you own)?

Again read my earlier reply.

Also my land was bought, as no doubt were the majority of ours on this forum. Therefore that probably wouldn't be inclusive. Granted mine was bought from the Duke of Northumberland who I would include.

 

[Amp34]

Which reply? All you've said is it should be given to the state.

Buying stolen property doesn't mean you're allowed to keep it in law. As was already mentioned much of the land was given to the family by another, so by your logic that shouldn't count anyway.

Either all stolen property should be given to the state (which would mean most of the land in the UK, including most land built on). Or only land still owned by direct descendants of those given stolen land directly should have to hand it back, in which case most of the London Westminster trust would not need to be given back as it was given to them as dowry.

Otherwise you have to start putting arbitrary limits on what should be given to the state and what should not be.

 

[Dis86]

And what's wrong with those arbitrary limits? There have to be limits to everything. Roads have speed limits for example.

Why is it right that some people have profited (in this case to the tune of £9bn) for what is essentially proceeds of crime?

It's one of those hilariously comical things that you find in a lot of societies "woohoo, i've just gained from doing x. Oh but if you do x it's now a crime". Which is what we have here. The land was taken from it's original owners. A few people became very wealthy. They then protected that wealth by using it and the power it brought to pass laws to which everyone else has since been bound.

 

[glenimp617]

Nobody really owns anything. If you go back far enough, land was free. People claimed it as their own, and taken over through war. Then over time, sold.

 

[Rids]

I think Patsy Palmers nose would disagree with you...

You mean Daniella Westbrook!

 

[SquirrelMadness]

Am I the only one who opened this thread thinking OP inherited 9bn and came here to offer unmentionalble favours in return for a small amount?

 

[glenimp617]

You mean Daniella Westbrook!

Can't be hers, she doesn't have one

 

[Amp34]

And what's wrong with those arbitrary limits? There have to be limits to everything. Roads have speed limits for example.

Why is it right that some people have profited (in this case to the tune of £9bn) for what is essentially proceeds of crime?

It's one of those hilariously comical things that you find in a lot of societies "woohoo, i've just gained from doing x. Oh but if you do x it's now a crime". Which is what we have here. The land was taken from it's original owners. A few people became very wealthy. They then protected that wealth by using it and the power it brought to pass laws to which everyone else has since been bound.

Yet most others will be profiting from the "proceeds of crime". Your house for example, How did the duke of Northumberland get his land? Was it given to his ancestors after being taken from others? If so its any increase in your house price a proceed of crime?

What would your arbitrary limit be? Personally I'm not in favour of arbitrary limits, especially when it comes to money.

Just because he gained more than you doesn't mean he is more in the wrong than you, it's the same mechanism, just on a different scale.

 

[Nitefly]

Soooo much money... you'd kinda just feel bad for having it tbh. Superman curse - everyday you don't help people... you've let people die...

 

[HangTime]

They sometimes get their hand forced when leaseholders invoke their right to buy the freehold. The Duke got a bit miffed when that legislation came into force.

They've since introduced 20 year leases on some prime residential properties with assurances that leaseholders can renew as short leases don't allow the right to purchase the freehold. Surprisingly there is demand for these... as per the debt thread in GD some people from all walks of life like to spend and present an image of having more wealth than they really do... thus for some minor millionaires paying a mid seven figure sum instead of an eight figure sum for a 20 year lease in order to get an Eaton square addres is somehow worth it... after all your dinner party guests don't know you got it at a knockdown rate and will eventually have nothing to show for it.

I'm pretty sure last year I read about a some Knightsbridge(?) pad being up for sale for ~£500k because the remaining lease was so short. Renewing the lease would have cost more than buying the leasehold in the first place!