Wednesday, December 10, 2008

You thieving fucking bastards

It seems that our government just doesn't even give a shit about anything anymore: not even the committal of outright theft.
In the Queen's Speech last week, a Bill was proposed to change this. It would give the Government the power to establish a "corridor" at least 10 metres (33 feet) wide around the entire English coastline to which everyone would have access, whether or not the owner wished it. Land would also be made available for open-air recreation - or "spreading room", as the Bill terms it - for public use. The Government is adamant that no compensation will be paid to landowners whose property is contained within the corridor.

This is, as Timmy has pointed out, theft—pure and simple.
The taking of someone’s property, against their will and without compensation is theft. Just because the Ramblers Association is using the law to do it doesn’t change that fact.

If the National Trust or anyone else wants to create a coastal path then they can bid for the properties as they come on the market and pay their money and take their choice.

These thieving fucking cunts are taking land from someone else, and giving the rights to that land to other people: they are stealing property, and they seem to have no shame about it whatsoever.

And no doubt, lots of people who care—mostly the moronic middle-classes—will jump up and down and clap their hands in glee and enthusiastically trample up and down the corridor, whilst employing a lawyer to ensure that their next-door neighbour's tree roots do not impinge on their lawn.

Fucking hell, but I so loathe the majority of selfish, pusillanimous, moronic cunts who inhabit this country. No logic on earth, nor any creed can ever shake my faith that the libertarian way is the only morally and practically correct philosophy: no, the only thing that can make me question the wisdom of it all is the fact that this country is populated by unthinking fuckwits.

But then that is part of my personal belief, of course: if one stops pandering to unthinking fuckwits, then said arseholes will have to think for themselves, or die. I care little which option they choose: but I do hope that the cunts who have supported this Bill end up having their land stolen.

Mind you, I am not surprised that MPs were happy to consider this measure: those cunts steal from everyone in this country day after day after day. The concept of theft being a bad thing is entirely alien to them: stealing property from everyone else is simply water off a duck's back to these shitehawks.

Fucking hellski.

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's nationalisation of the coastline.

What about the costs for upkeep and so on (insurance) as well?

More looting and socialist largesse

no longer anonymous said...

Good point although where land has already been stolen by force in the past then there is a libertarian case for land reform. In this instance though it's not about giving people the right to acquire wrongly-held land but giving people the right to walk all over the land regardless of who owns it.

The Filthy Smoker said...

This will costs hundreds of millions of pounds, will dispossess thousands and will hardly ever be used by the public. And all to satisfy the whim of some fat fucking Labour minister who watched 'Coast' on the BBC and thought "looks nice, I'll take it".

microdave said...

But if it's Nationalisation of the coastline won't that mean they (sorry us taxpayers) will have to maintain it? So no more talk of allowing large chunks of Norfolk to simply vanish. Sorry I've just woken up from a dream...

assegai mike said...

Is there a *single* policy of Bob Mugabe which this government won't nick?

John East said...

Look on the bright side. Loads of middle class, leftie, liberal ramblers are going to fall off cliffs and drown.

Budgie said...

Socialism is theft.

Mr. No said...

If they start nationalising the coastline then what of the rest of us? A lot of the United (ha!) Kingdom is coastline after all.

i hope the 'MPs' die horribly and painfully. Preferably with issues to do with the stomach and anus.

Sabina said...

Thank goodness I don't live in England. It's worse than anything Orwell could have dreamed up.
Here in the US, if you trespass on someone's property, the owner may call the cops (and yes, there would be an arrest), or the trespasser may find themselves looking down the barrel of a gun. We take our property laws quite seriously here.

Sneaky Weasel said...

I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
These fabians are actually winning.
This land is being commandeered for jolly things such as walking and socialising with your comrades. If it goes uncontested, then what next?
No doubt, more shall be taken in the name of the Four Horsemen- Global Warming, Terrorism, Economic crisis, and the ever present, Crime.

I fear the fight is already lost.

Neal Asher said...

It's back to that quote, "They came for the Jews" etc. Drinkers, smokers, people with big cars, basically anyone who might be enjoying themselves or getting on. But they've already been land snatching to build pikey camps.

Live Free or Gripe said...

My God that is sick. It makes me glad to live in the United States, that's for sure. If I payed a million bucks for a seaside view and the government confiscated my coastline, I'd secede from the Union!

You curse like a sailor, by the way. Oh, and you've earned a loyal reader.

ukipwebmaster said...

The Neo-Coms are truly coming out of the closet.

James Barlow said...

On a related point, can I draw your attention to plans by Bristol City Council (Kerry McCarthy's patch) to turf a couple out of the home they've lived in since 1946 using a Compulsory Purchase Order.

http://www.jamesbarlow.co.uk/speaking-truth-power

The associated video of the couple's daughter pleading with the council to leave her parents alone is guaranteed to make any decent person blow their top.

Furry Conservative said...

So much for having a 'freehold'. A single socialist decree wipes out centuries of solid law.

Anonymous said...

Me first on Kate Bush's beach!

This is a what next? kind of post. What next. Your front garden your back garden. Your house?

Kay Tie said...

"This will costs hundreds of millions of pounds"

It won't: they aren't paying a penny in compensation.

Which is why the law will be ruled as incompatible with ECHR protocol 1 article 1. But we'll still have the announcement of the plan and for Zanu Labour, announcement is the same as doing.

Kay Tie said...

"So much for having a 'freehold'. A single socialist decree wipes out centuries of solid law."

Hmmn. Centuries ago, the law was that the King could take land from someone and give to someone else. Our freehold rights have evolved, and have never been absolute: compulsory purchase is needed in any advanced civilisation otherwise one landowner gets to veto projects of manifest public benefit.

In any case, a coastal path isn't much of a public benefit given that there are plenty of bits of coastline to walk already, and the "continuous" aspect is of only theoretical benefit.

Ian B said...

Bear in mind that the Ramblers Association was set up by the Young Communist Leage. Google "Benny Rothman". It was always intended as a direct assault on property rights- urban communists against the evil country squires, kind of thing.

Kay, if an "advanced civilisation" can't do something of "manifest public benefit" without theft and persecution of it's citizens, said advanced civilisation needs to advance a bit more and learn to do without. Or offer more money to the citizen(s) whose stuff it wants. If property rights aren't absolute, they're worthless.

Kay Tie said...

Ian B, how do you think a railway line gets laid? Every single land owner consents to sell their land?

You'd rather have no trains, planes, oil pipes, electricity cables, phone lines, motorways by insisting on absolute property rights?

You think a country without these things but everyone having absolute land rights "more civilized"?

Ian B said...

Kay-

If memory serves, most of the railway lines were laid during a massive bubble called the Railway Mania, in which acts of parliament were passed willy-nilly by MPs with financial interests in the railway lines, many of which Acts enabled lines that would never be built. It was mayhem. That was how they got laid.

There is no reason that people wishing to build canals or lay electricity cables cannot either purchase permission from landowners or lay them along the public ways, as many are already. My electric service and water mains are under the road. Where are yours?

Last I looked, planes fly in the air, rather than driving across land.

You're making the fallacious assumption that because things have been done one particular way (by state force) they could not have been done another way, just like those insufferable ninnies who seem to think there wouldn't be any TV or wireless without the BBC, and insist on forcing everybody else to pay for it because they like Radio 3.

Anonymous said...

Just the start.

How will they fund their clients ? They have destroyed industry, so no tax revenue. If they print money, it will have no value. Of course they will ignore private property rights.

Neal Asher said...

"Last I looked, planes fly in the air, rather than driving across land."

We've got vertical take-off passenger planes now? Residents around Stansted might have some disagreement with that statement.

Ian B said...

You want to build an airport, buy some airport-sized land off people. If they don't want to sell at any price, build it somewhere else. If nobody anywhere will sell you any land, that's a pretty good clue that people don't want an airport. What is the problem people are having here?

Kay Tie said...

So if Swampy buys a single square metre of land near Stansted, he gets to veto the new runway by refusing to sell at any price that the airport can afford? If an angry Lloyds customer buys one share in HBOS he gets to block the takeover until they wipe his mortgage?

Your absolute property rights concept is an unworkable fantasy.

Ian B said...

Indeed, greenies and other fanatics would be the most likely to exploit property rights (whilst otherwise despising them) in defence of Gaia or whatever, and may have to be shot. But Swampy would indeed have the right to do so. But in the normal case, the sale price of a piece of land would just be set by the market; the airport builders would have to pay sufficient compensation to landowners which the landowner might set as the price of relocating, plus a bit extra. He couldn't negotiate to infinity though, so a market value would be set.

What you're doing here is basically that "people should have rights until they get in the way of what I want to do, then they should be pushed out of the way" thinking. Sometimes in life you can't get what you want if you respect others' rights. When you reach that situation, you've found the limit of what you can get. That's freedom, y'know? You think it's more important that you can ramble on my (hypothetical) land because it happens to be on the coastline. So you want the government to force me to let you do so. To refuse that principle, to demand my right to my own property, is not "an unworkable fantasy". It's a basic social contract, and the only fair one, and the only one which can prevent tyranny descending. It protects me, and it protects you, because it stops me raising a mob and stealing your back garden as well, however many emotive and fuckwittish appeals to the "common good" I may muster.

And don't shareholders agree to vote democratically when they buy the shares? We're not talking about Swampy being one of a thousand communal owners of the land. We're talking about land Swampy owns outright. Apples, oranges.

Go build your airport on some land you can acquire in a proper manner. There'll be some somewhere.

The Nameless Libertarian said...

It is the audacity - the absolute arrogance of this - that I find so jaw dropping. Yes, I know the government is arrogant and pretty much things it can do whatever the hell it wants whenever it wants. But fucking hell, things like that just show exactly how arbitrary and alarming they can be in their exercise of power.

Yet another example (although I'm not sure we needed another example) of why the powers and influence of government urgently need to be cut back.

TNL

Kay Tie said...

"He couldn't negotiate to infinity though, so a market value would be set."

You mean he can decide not to sell, or that he is forced to sell at a fair price? The former is a veto, the latter is compulsory purchase.

"until they get in the way of what I want to do, then they should be pushed out of the way"

Err, where did you get that from? A compulsory purchase order can't be made by the purchaser, nor by me, or even by "the people". It's made by an independent court that balances the enormous public benefit of working railway system or a motorway or an airport against the preference of a farmer or Swampy not to sell his land at any price.

What we have with the coastal path law is missing two parts of the above: 'purchase' and 'independent court' (an independent court would, of course, not agree that enormous public benefit accrues from the scheme in relation to the rights of the landholders, which is why they are making a specific law to steal the land, and why this will fall under the Human Rights act or an ECJ ruling: there's plenty of precedent for this and I don't know why the Government is bothering to pass a non-compliant law other than to "send a message").

Anonymous said...

Kay Tie : “Your absolute property rights concept is an unworkable fantasy”

You are correct, but this does not alter the assessment of the potential for systematic abuse by the state. There is now a law that your property can be requisitioned by the local council if empty for 6 months. Spending time with a terminally ill relative – tough shit.

Stark

Dave H. said...

The Class War continues: let's piss off the ruling classes by letting the Workers trample and drop litter all over their land.

Bloody thieving envious bastards.

Is my irritation anything to do with the fact I'm in the middle of buying a stretch of land next to water? I intend to enhance its' wildlife value and that certainly includes keeping the grotty Oiks off it.

Whatever, any attempt by Gordon to get his nail-bitten snotty fingers on it will have me reaching for the gun.

Ian B said...

"Me-"He couldn't negotiate to infinity though, so a market value would be set."

Kay-You mean he can decide not to sell, or that he is forced to sell at a fair price? The former is a veto, the latter is compulsory purchase."

Neither, al I meant that if he wants to sell, he can't ask an arbitrarily high price. If he hopes to get 10 trillion pounds for his acre of land, he can't get that because the buyer can't afford it. That's all I meant. If he doesn't want to sell, he doesn't have to. But most people have their price, which is a Good Thing.

"Err, where did you get that from? A compulsory purchase order can't be made by the purchaser, nor by me, or even by "the people". It's made by an independent court that balances the enormous public benefit of working railway system or a motorway or an airport against the preference of a farmer or Swampy not to sell his land at any price."

Oh lordy, you're one of those people who believe the State is a high minded independent arbitrator. The problem is, it isn't. The "independent" court is actually the tool of the various corporate state lobby groups, be they big businesses or pressure groups or whatnot. Which is why modern society is so rotten. He who gets his way is he who can afford the best lobbyists. Or has a drink at the golf club with the magistrate, you know. There is no such thing as an unbiased arbitrator, however much you might tell them to be. It's impossible. They're human beings.

So when I said "you want..." I meant, you, like most other people, figure they can skew the system in their direction by various means. You want Farmer Giles to lose his land so you can have an airport. Fuck Farmer Giles for the Common Good. That kind of thing. An obvious real world example here is the Campaign For Rural England, who have successfully lobbied to create green belts, byzantine planning regulations and committee procedures to strangle land development and keep their country cottages in pristine rural settings.

You still haven't answered why you can't just go and build your airport somewhere else where Swampy doesn't own his square metre.

Kay Tie said...

"You still haven't answered why you can't just go and build your airport somewhere else where Swampy doesn't own his square metre."

Because no such place exists. Everywhere is a patchwork of landowners, any one of whom can stop a project because they don't want to sell.

"But most people have their price, which is a Good Thing."

The key word there is MOST. In your ideology, it requires ALL for a large project to happen.

This is the tragedy of the commons in reverse: only when everyone agrees to act in the same way can something important get done.

"Oh lordy, you're one of those people who believe the State is a high minded independent arbitrator."

No, I just believe that the state should exist only to do those things that cannot be done collectively. Certain things cannot be done collectively include large scale infrastructure projects, since it is statistically impossible to attain the free agreement of every single one of a large number of rights holders.

"you, like most other people, figure they can skew the system in their direction by various means. You want Farmer Giles to lose his land so you can have an airport. Fuck Farmer Giles for the Common Good."

How is Farmer Giles "fucked" by someone buying his farm and paying him for the inconvenience of him buying and moving to another farm?

"The "independent" court is actually the tool of the various corporate state lobby groups, be they big businesses or pressure groups or whatnot. "

Yeah yeah, don't forget the international Jewish conspiracy, the attempt by the Zionists to bring about world government by the collapse of fiat money through fractional reserve banking. Did I mention Halliburton too?

Ian B said...

"How is Farmer Giles "fucked" by someone buying his farm and paying him for the inconvenience of him buying and moving to another farm?"

Because only Farmer Giles can decide what his land is worth to him. Nobody else can. An independent assessor can't, a court can't, you can't, I can't. That is the whole basis of free markets; people assign values to things as individuals. Nobody can assign for Farmer Giles what the inconvenience of moving will cost him. He might be losing a farm that has been in his family for generations, that he has enormous sentimental attachment to. What value is the Commissar going to attach to that? He is fucked, because his property is taken from him, against his will. Some "compensation" doesn't change that. If he wasn't prepared to sell willingly, you can guarantee that being forced to accept the same amount isn't sufficient compensation to him.

As an illustration, consider a family photo album. What's its value? Next to nothing in market terms. But to the individual it may be irreplacable.

"Yeah yeah, don't forget the international Jewish conspiracy, the attempt by the Zionists to bring about world government by the collapse of fiat money through fractional reserve banking. Did I mention Halliburton too?"

Yeah, nice ad hom there. You don't believe that society is largely run by lobbies? That smoking ban, just happened by accident, didn't it? The CPRE, planning permission, green belts, just occurred randomly. Global warming, the green movement. They have no effect at all, do they? It's not a bit like groups of people get together to force the state in particular directions, is it? I'm just imagining things. Yeah.

Kay Tie said...

You shed tears for noble Farmer Giles having his ancestral lands bought from under him while conveniently forgetting just how his ancestors got the land in the first place (the Enclosure Acts).

You write your ideological missives sitting behind a computer powered by electricity routed to you over compulsorily purchased land, generated from nuclear power stations sited on compulsorily purchased land, eating donuts bought from a supermarket supplied by lorries driving on motorways built on compulsorily purchased land.

You take the benefits of an advanced civilisation while cursing the very mechanisms that achieved such wealth and comfort for all. If you truly believe your absolutist nonsense then by your own standards you are an immoral hypocrite.

Ian B said...

Kay, that "using stuff validates it" argument is a fallacy, as I'm sure you're aware. It's the standard argument of socialists- "you cannot be opposed to nationalised water supplies because you drink water from municipal mains". It's a silly argument.

I am not at all opposed to advanced civilisation, and have neither said nor implied that I am. I am arguing that these things which have been in some cases created one way could have been created another way, and could be created this other way in the future.

Imagine somebody in the 19th century using the argument, "you cannot argue against slavery because you wear cotton picked by slaves". That's how silly the argument is.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I have been watching this argument with interest, and I just had to comment on this...

"You shed tears for noble Farmer Giles having his ancestral lands bought from under him while conveniently forgetting just how his ancestors got the land in the first place (the Enclosure Acts)."

You have absolutely no fucking proof of that at all: it's one of the silliest assumptions that I have ever seen.

What if Farmer Giles actually bought his land off somebody else? Or what if Farmer Giles' ancestor bought the land off somebody else?

Is your argument then to be, "well, that person may well have gained the land through Enclosure Acts?"

In which case, how far back are you going to go? Shall we return all lands to the Royal Family? Or are we to parcel it up into tiny peasant farms and apportion them to the decendants of the original inhabitants of this island?

Further, you are presumably saying that the Enclosure Acts were a bad thing? And thus you undermine your own point: there are lots of things that were done badly in the "olden days" that we have now improved upon.

Which is, I think, Ian B's point, is it not?

DK


Word verification: "nowrite". Seriously.

charlie said...

The problem is that the laws are dreamt up by spoiled little rich boys from the city playing at communism, who have got it into their heads that everyone in the countryside is loaded. I'm in the countryside and I'm poor, so go to hell you urban elite motherfuckers.

How dare they rape us for their own enjoyment when half their income comes from buying up our properties at ridiculously inflated prices so we can't afford them, then renting them back at over half our salary.

The urban elite are the leeches of society and need to be put down quickly. They are the ones wanting to pass gay little laws that are all about control. Soon might be time to leave the country again.

Kay Tie said...

"in some cases created one way could have been created another way, and could be created this other way in the future."

You haven't explained how that could be done at all. I asked you to explain how unanimity can be achieved when there are many rights holders involved, and you never answered.

"Imagine somebody in the 19th century using the argument, "you cannot argue against slavery because you wear cotton picked by slaves". That's how silly the argument is."

It is silly? You obviously wouldn't have minded wearing slave cotton clothes. But would you have minded working for a shipping company that carried slaves? Would you have objected if your investments included southern US cotton bonds?

Plenty of people refuse to buy clothes made with child labour. It's clearly a hot issue for Primark etc. Obviously you have lower standards (I don't have such high standards either, mostly because the campaign against child labour is overly simplistic and often counterproductive).

I have to wonder why you hold such an absolutist view of rights. What's the purpose of any political system? Isn't it to make things better for people? If things are manifestly worse then it's a pretty lousy system. Socialism is evil not because the goals of making things better are per se bad, but because such a system inevitably leads to widespread misery, the gulags, and bullets in necks.

We criticise North Korea because they can't even feed themselves. Quite how in a true libertarian paradise we could build a motorway to run food deliveries is not explained. So I'll put "absolute property rights" in the basket along with "true socialism" as one of those things best left alone.

Kay Tie said...

"In which case, how far back are you going to go? Shall we return all lands to the Royal Family? Or are we to parcel it up into tiny peasant farms and apportion them to the decendants of the original inhabitants of this island?"

No!

"Further, you are presumably saying that the Enclosure Acts were a bad thing?"

No!

"And thus you undermine your own point: there are lots of things that were done badly in the "olden days" that we have now improved upon."

No. The idea of enclosures (to improve agricultural efficiency to the point where people could be fed) was right (unless you come from the Robert Mugabe school for feeding people). But the implementation was in many cases unjust (hence the lingering racial memory of the evil of the acts).

We have in some cases less injustice, and in some cases more (e.g. planning laws).

"Which is, I think, Ian B's point, is it not?"

I think Ian B's point is that never ever ever should property rights be sold from under someone. My point is that we'd all have starved if we did things that way.

Kay Tie said...

"How dare they rape us for their own enjoyment when half their income comes from buying up our properties at ridiculously inflated prices so we can't afford them, then renting them back at over half our salary."

Err, and who got the money from the "ridiculously inflated prices"? Would that be the "rape victims" by any chance?

If I were you, my country bumpkin friend, I'd hang in there just a bit longer: the "rich" are actually what we call "leveraged". You'll be able to buy your little whitewashed worker's cottage soon enough.

Jones said...

In the 1980's and 90's I used to walk coast paths (Devon & Cornwall mostly), backpacking up to 25 miles a day when the going was relatively easy. It was very rare to see more than a dozen people a day using the coast path. The odd dogleg inland past someone's property was part of the adventure. I did encounter occasional Ramblers (Socks over waterproof trouser bottoms, encapsulated maps swinging, no backpacks, no manners) as they occasionally brushed past me without a word, and the odd party of OAP's taking a two mile amble over the less rugged stretches before returning to their cars. Rarely a local using the coast path as a pleasant route home.

According to my walk diaries, on only one occasion did I come across more than twenty five people using the path in one eight hour day of hitting the trail (No pub stops). More often I saw fewer than six people a day actually using the coast path, and this during July and August.

Based upon this specific experience, I would say that there just isn't the demand for such a scheme. So what's the point of a ten metre 'corridor'? A nice occasional weekend walk for an elite few?

You're right DK. It's just theft.

charlie said...

"You'll be able to buy your little whitewashed worker's cottage soon enough."

I'll hold you to that.

Kay Tie said...

"I'll hold you to that."

Happy to oblige. One caveat: that this isn't a re-run of the '30s, economic collapse, rise of totalitarianism, etc. I'm not guaranteeing that worker's cottages will survive a nuclear blast, OK?

mmm said...

Wedgie Benn (ex Viscount Stansgate) is very protective of his bit of shore.
Enjoy it at Wedgie Towers.

Anonymous said...

"Quite how in a true libertarian paradise we could build a motorway to run food deliveries is not explained."

This comment is so retarded it's hard to know where to start, but I'll try.

Somewhere in Britain -- I've seen a photo but can't remember the location -- there's a house where the owner decided to hold out for an extortionate sum from the people building the road. Instead, the developers decided to not buy their land and just built around it; now their house is on the island between the two carriageways.

Similarly, if 'Swampy' refuses to sell you a square meter of land in the middle of your airport, so what? You build a fence around it, tell him that if he trespasses on your land he'll be arrested as a terrorist, and leave him to it.

Your argument is another example of the 'psychotic billionaire' nonsense that the left love to churn out: 'but if we were all free, psychotic billionaires would take over the world! Ha-ha, we must have an all-powerful government to save us from them'. You assume that, no matter where you want to build an airport, rich greenies will magically be able to convince people to sell them land which they will then use to prevent an airport being built.

More than that, you assume that motorways and airports are good in their own right; who says that we need either of them? The left, in particular, hate cars and planes and would be all in favor of local food sold locally; yet they're people who want to steal land to build airports and motorways. Why do you think that a country full of free people would be unable to find alternatives?

Ian B said...

"I think Ian B's point is that never ever ever should property rights be sold from under someone. My point is that we'd all have starved if we did things that way."

And Ian B's point is that you're talking pants. You're declaring that things could not have been done any other way, and that disaster would certainly have occurred. Whereas I'm saying that in a society with rights, things would simply be done a *different* way.

One way to look at it is this: compulsory purchase is a form of price fixing (and we know that price fixing is always bad, do we not). It is the state forcing a group to accept a lower price for their property on behalf of some other group. In the case of the Enclosure Acts, that price was zero, but let's not get too far into that as we get into the historic context of squires and tenants and who owned what.

One flaw in your thinking is the belief (and this is a common fallacy) that goods in the economy have an objective price. They don't. In any sale, each person has ideas of what they think a thing is worth, and if they can reach agreement then the sale goes through- and if not, the sale doesn't. What each person is prepared to sell for, or pay, is entirely an individual matter. What you are confusing with an objective price is what might be termed a "consensus price"; which is perhaps what most people think e.g. a plot of land is worth. Since you erroneously think it is objective, you conclude that everybody must sell at this price.

So a landholder wants to sell their land at 1000 groats per acre. You appoint an assessor who fixes the price at 500 per acre. The land is price fixed, (and ususally in favour of the compulsory purchasers). The issue isn't the occasional Swampy who won't sell at any price (and will he really not? He can use his leverage to get the airport builders to agree to build a nature reserve or something), the issue is the enforced price of compensation, which is fixed.

People are turfed off their land without freedom to negotiate the price which they wish to sell at, and we know that this is the case because if they were selling at the price they would in the free market there would be no need for compulsory purchase.

Imagine a Government Wages Board who set your wages and declare that you may not be paid more than the wage they decide for some nebulous "common good", even though you want more and could have otherwise negotiated it with an employer who needs your services, had the Wages Board not existed. How would you feel? That's what compulsory purchase means in practise.

"Here, take this amount. It's all we're going to get. Now get off OUR land!"

Kay Tie said...

"Somewhere in Britain -- I've seen a photo but can't remember the location -- there's a house where the owner decided to hold out for an extortionate sum from the people building the road. Instead, the developers decided to not buy their land and just built around it; now their house is on the island between the two carriageways."

You shouldn't go round making up a back story because of a photo you saw "somwhere".

You are probably referring to Stott Hall Farm 'in' the M62 at Calderdale. The owner didn't hold out for an extortionate sum because it would have been compulsorily purchased. In any case, the farmer was a tenant, not the owner. The split in the motorway has nothing to do with property rights: it was a solution to a geological problem.

Kay Tie said...

"And Ian B's point is that you're talking pants. You're declaring that things could not have been done any other way."

No, I've explained how it's worked in this - and every other country - since the industrial revolution.

You have asserted there is a different way yet haven't explained this "way". Please example how you obtain the simultaneous consent of every single on of tens of thousands of rights holders?

"One flaw in your thinking is the belief (and this is a common fallacy) that goods in the economy have an objective price. They don't."

I know they don't. I'm not suggesting they do. I'm suggesting compulsory purchase is a compensatory scheme. You do have the notion of compensation in your absolute libertarian world, right? That an independent court decides the value of your car I wrote off, right?

Ian B said...

You do have the notion of compensation in your absolute libertarian world, right? That an independent court decides the value of your car I wrote off, right?

Well, not a subject I've considered in depth, but I'd presume it would be covered by insurance, which would compensate me by an amount I had agreed when I took out the insurance policy.

Please example how you obtain the simultaneous consent of every single on of tens of thousands of rights holders?

You keep missing the point. I don't need to answer that, because it's a false dilemma. You are demanding a state in which it is impossible to stop the building of an airport by somebody who wishes to build an airport, and thus demanding that a way be found to always build any desired airport. In a free society, airports could only be built if airport builders could buy the land to build them on. There is no question to answer.

The "different way" I propose is the daring idea that people who wish to acquire property from others must buy it at free market rates from those others. If the property is highly desired by the buyer, or there is scarcity, that price may be quite high, and perhaps higher than the airport builder would like- but that is how free markets work. What would not be possible would be for airport builders to use state force to force the price down, because in a free society theft is always against the law, even by airport builders. Airports would still be built. They would be built on land freely sold, that is the only difference.

Ian B said...

Also, just to answer the "it can't be done that way because it's never been done that way" argument-

No, I've explained how it's worked in this - and every other country - since the industrial revolution.

You might like to note that no society on Earth had allowed women to vote until a few decades ago, either. Western society of the past few decades is the only human society in Earth's history that has attempted to apply equal status to both sexes. It is a very radical idea.

Kay Tie said...

"Well, not a subject I've considered in depth"

Ponder a little more. Damage is a form of compulsory purchase: the damage has occurred now all there is to do is argue about the worth. If you like, you can think of a compulsory purchase order as a mere matter of temporal ordering: the compensation occurs before the damage takes place.

"but I'd presume it would be covered by insurance, which would compensate me by an amount I had agreed when I took out the insurance policy."

Nice of you to offer your insurance, but wouldn't it be fairer if my insurance paid out?

Ian B said...

"Nice of you to offer your insurance, but wouldn't it be fairer if my insurance paid out?"

Dunno whether that's the best way of things. It means somebody has to force you to have insurance, or I'm fucked. Far better for me to insure myself, isn't it? Then I know I'm covered.

Damage is a form of compulsory purchase: the damage has occurred now all there is to do is argue about the worth. If you like, you can think of a compulsory purchase order as a mere matter of temporal ordering: the compensation occurs before the damage takes place.

Oh good grief. The principle you're missing here is that people are supposed to avoid causing damage. Just becuase your car is insured doesn't mean I can smash its windows in, does it?

You're trying to build an fake model regarding "compensation" here. It's nothing to do with compensating people. It's a forced sale at an artificially low price, not compensation for damage. Even if it were compensation for damage, the existence of compensation does not grant a right to cause damage.

Mark Wadsworth said...

What Kay Tie says.

The whole thing would be fixed at a stroke with Land Value Tax. You wouldn't need compulsory purchase orders at all. If Farmer Giles says that his farm is worth £1 million (when it's really only worth £50,000) then instead of owning low-value agricultural land that would be exempt from LVT (it wouldn't be worth the hassle of collecting it, for a start) he would then be expected to pay LVT on £1million instead.

Ian B said...

Well, perhaps Farmer Giles will assess the value of the land at a fortnight of passion with the airport building company's CEO's lovely daughter. How's your nasty little tax inspector going to tax that, Mark?

James Higham said...

It seems that our government just doesn't even give a shit about anything anymore

What are you talking about "anymore"?

Kay Tie said...

"Well, perhaps Farmer Giles will assess the value of the land at a fortnight of passion with the airport building company's CEO's lovely daughter."

Aha! Private currencies. One fortnight = 21060 minutes. That's 20160 MOPWLDs, at shall we say 1% tax, giving 201 MOPWLDs. Of course, CEO-issued scrip is more convenient than 201 MOPWLDs for good-delivery.

I wonder what the interest rate should be? Obviously MOPWLDs are inherently inflationary, so the rate needs to be fairly high. Unless the CEO also issues swaps for MOPWLDYSs.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Ian B, Farmer Giles and the airport people can agree any price they like.

It is only if they fail to agree a price that FG's requested selling price would have to be valued. They can always ask FG "How much would you pay (in cash) for a fortnight?" etc, and ask others who might have met the lady in question, or indeed ask her how much she would charge (which she would no doubt set at a very high figure, in which case FG ends up paying a lot more than he bargained for - serve him right for being silly).

Don't forget that the value is ONLY subject to LVT if they cannot agree a price. If they can agree a price, the land gets sold to the airport. That price is irrelevant, as under LVT there'd be no need for capital gains tax (a monumentally stupid tax that raises relatively little revenue).

cookie said...

@Kay Tie
The 'homeowner who refused to sell and thus the road was built around them' story is not made up as you said - the land and house is still there on the M62 between Manchester and Leeds.

Boy on a bike said...

Look, if some jumped up bureaucrat wants to nick your beachfront, you simply tell them that it was mined as an anti-invasion measure in 1941 and there is still UXO out there.

'Elf and Safety should ensure that the public are kept out for at least eternity.

Kay Tie said...

"the land and house is still there on the M62 between Manchester and Leeds"

Duh! I know it's still there. I used to drive past it every week.

The story of "holding out and refusing to sell" is utter bunk. Try using Googling "Stott Manor Farm" and then use a wonderful technique called READING to find out some facts rather than repeating made up shit.

Paul Lockett said...

Ian B: "Last I looked, planes fly in theair, rather than driving across land."

Prior to the advent of aviation, the general principle was that if you held land, you had control of all the space an infinite distance above it.

Planes came along and there were two basic options:

(1) Reduce the height the landholder controls up to.

or

(2) Make anybody wanting to fly negotiate with every landholder under their proposed flight path.

Option 1 found favour. You might consider that to be theft, but as the supposed property was merely a state granted privilege in the first place, I don't see too much cause for complaint.

That's why I don't think control over a location can be viewed as property in the same way as a tangible object.

Richard said...

Yes, this is theft - but sadly it's not new; they've done it before.

There is no difference in principle between this coastal access and the "Right to Roam" in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

The legal difference is that the "right to roam" was restricted (mainly to moors and heathland), whereas the coastal access will apparently apply to cultivated land and even gardens as well. But private property is private property - the principle is the same.

Giolla said...

Do have to wonder how this will apply to the bits of coast the MOD have a habit of using, such as round Shoebury way. I suspect it'll be continuous except where it isn't.

MP's and friends will no doubt also have their land exempt for security reasons.

James said...

This land is my land...
It isn't your land...
This land's
My Private
Property

Fabian said...

The land, the land,
'Twas God who made the land.
The land, the land,
The land on which we stand!
Why should we be beggars with our ballots in our hand?
God made the land for the People!

kiki said...

情趣用品,情趣,情色,成人,A片,自拍,情趣用品,情趣,色情,成人影片,色情影片,免費A片,情趣用品,情趣,成人網站,A片下載,日本AV,做愛,情趣用品,情趣,美女交友,A片,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,情趣用品,情趣,色情聊天室,聊天室,AV,成人電影,A片,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣商品,情趣,情趣情色,A片,AIO,AV,日本AV,色情A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,A片下載,情色A片,哈啦聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,色情聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080視訊聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,上班族聊天室,080中部人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,成人聊天室,一夜情聊天室,辣妹視訊,情色視訊,成人,成人影片,成人光碟,成人影城,自拍情趣用品,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,日本AV,寄情築園小遊戲,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,色情遊戲,一葉情貼圖片區,色情網站,色情影片,微風成人, 嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人貼圖,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人影片,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,080視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室情趣用品,A片,aio,av,av女優,a漫,免費a片,aio交友愛情館,a片免費看,a片下載,本土自拍,自拍,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,色情影片,情色網,色情網站,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人小說,成人電影情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,自拍,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,H漫,A片,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,SEX,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣商品,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,中古車,二手車,情色小說,色情,情色視訊,寄情築園小遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,色情遊戲,情色交友,嘟嘟情人色網,言情小說,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,情色網,色情漫畫,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,視訊聊天室,080聊天室,視訊聊天,美女交友,視訊做愛,情色視訊,免費視訊A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人光碟