Fuedal Land ownership - The root cause?

[Jason Swindle]

Hi People,

Some background to my question first. ALmost twent years ago a Ghanian friend and I were chatting about the world and I was talking about what needed to be done to relieve the poverty in Africa when he said to me "Why don't yo focus on the problems in the country you are from?" It was a simple, sincere question that really got me thinking. I realised firstly my arrogance in thinking I had the solutions to another person's/countries problems and secondly how can I understand another country if I don't understand my own. It made me focus on the country I was born in.

In the summer of 2004 I was working in Stamford, Lincolnshire on the film Pride and Prejudice. Spent a couple of weeks at Burleigh House then 6-7 weeks in Stamford town centre. Burleigh House and grounds is a stunning landscape with approx. 14,000 acres and I observed the fLord Burleigh and his family's wealth and privilidge first hand. This great benefit was awarded to Lord Burleigh, through his birth rights, as a result of the original act of some king/chief/bully stealing land using a paid force and murdering the innocent indgenious people who lived there. Immoral and unjust were my immediate thoughts. Then working in the town the following weeks I was stunned observing the subservient relationship between the landowners/those who have and those who worked for the landowners. Living fuedalism was the only term I could think of to describe it and everyone seemed to fit into this "society" on one side or the other. Coming from Ilford, Essex AKA another grey suburb of london, Lords and aristocrats don't walk around in public so I was shocked and then deeply angered by the arrogant attitude of rulership of the families of those who stole (aka owned) the land and the cowardice and subservience of the people employed by the landowners. I realised the fact that those people (The Normans/European Aristocracy?) who had subjugated with force the people of this land and had been utilising the natural resources of this land had been very successful. Once this system of subjugation was entrenched and streamlined here and in the other nations in Europe the natural progress of such force was to use the same formula on the other nations/continents around the world. Hence the past 500 years of European history, murdering hundreds of millions of innocent people, subjugating the rest under the threat of brute force and stealing the natural resources of these lands. So I realised, if there is a way to bring an end to the stolen financial benefits these aristocratic people were accumulating on this land that I am from then this would/will bring an end to the same system of "subjugate with force and pillage" that has been enforced in the lands since the British and other European empires spread their wings.

I came back to London in September 2004 and in December noted an article on teletext stating "Abolition of Fuedal Land Tenure Tax in Scotland". I read the article and did a little research as to what it means. A feu tax is paid to the orginal landowner aka landstealer for eternity by whoever buys any properties on such lands. 30% of the UK is currently owned by landowners. I'm no legal head so have struggled through the years to make connections and forward momentum re this. My basic understanding is that this could be a key step in empowering ourselves and others in this country, similar to the action of the salt march Gandhi held or the action of siting in the white section of the bus that Rosa Parks employed. I'm asking here if there is anyone with either an interest or knowledge who is willing to work with me to learn more about fuedal tax in the rest of the UK and whether trying to bring a similar act through parliament here can be the first step in bringing the great injustice of benefiting from stolen land to justice?

I've attached the summary of the Abolition of Fuedal Tax Tenure System Act that Scotland passed through it's parliament in 2004.

[Freeman Stephen]

You've hit the nail on the head. Let me flesh out a bit or two for you though. They didn't murder all the people. Many escaped and lived as outlaws to the system being imposed until they were caught. Others surrendered immediately, their property and their self determination over their own lives and that of their children and their children's children's children to come. We are the progeny of the serfs and to this day remain attached as chattel to the land of the state as our forebears were to the land of the estate - born into a prison we cannot smell or taste or see or touch, a prison for our minds as it is put in the scifi commentary of the matrix.

The other thing is that feudalism is not abolished in scotland, if you read the actual "abolition of feudal tenure act". Feu tenants (land "owners" with limited property rights) have the option of saying their feu superior a lump sum the interest on which will keep the feu superior with the same income. Though by 2004 many feu duties (the tax you speak of) had already fallen into disuse. (due, i believe, to the feu contracts having been written during the gold/silver standard and the amounts of duty becoming insignificant as inflation hit the value of the currency required to be paid each year. Ie three shillings is a significant amount of silver but not worth collecting in the cupro nickel coins or paper used today.)

One aspect of feudalism which has been abolished is the requirement for permission from the feu superior to build a house or change the use of land, but long before "abolition" that power was assumed also by the state in the form of "the planning authority". So no significant rights have been gained in this aspect either.

However the feu superiors continue to own the mineral rights and the various other servitudes over the land they always have done except that with the intention of aviation no longer own "from the centre of the earth to the heavens" but only up to 200 metres. But then theres also those people who own a square inch of the moon and entire stars eh?

Ive claimed a piece of land that nobody owned and hold it to be at least allodial (prefeudal as opposed the "real" estate they claim is the same as allodial since the 2004 act), but certain indicators point out that it may well be an independent country since it is not vested in the crown, has no midcouple to a local authority, is not reliant on and does not receive any state services and i am the nearest to anyone exercising political administration here. In addition to this i have been denied certain priveledges that everyone with a uk address is entitled to. I live just outside of glasgow.

[vanilla]

The main problem I have with the idea that the land was "stolen" is the implication that whoever was on it immediately prior to that was the rightful owner. e.g. the Saxons who were killed or displaced by the Normans were the true land owners. But before that the Saxons had displaced the Britons to acquire it, and so on. Then there's the smaller changes between tribes and individuals where Briton A bops Briton B on the head and occupies the land he was using.

It's pretty obvious that unless you're the first person ever to set foot on some land, there were people there before you, so it's not your land by default in most people's eyes. That's making the assumption that somebody owns the land purely because they use it and occupy it, and the further assumption that human beings are the only species who can rightfully own land.

I'm interested to know what you both about how the rightful owner of land should be determined, and what rights they have over it.

[Freeman Stephen]

The rights to enjoy and protect the labour they invest in the land. With the exception of some insects animals do not cultivate the land and are simply predators on the vegetation growing without help. If someone works hard tilling the soil to make it easy for good food crops to be planted and grown, or builds a hotel or does something bringing land from the wild into some kind of useful amenity what right has anyone to that amenity without grant from its provider? Theres also a part of my claim where an unknown has provided some cultivation. This could be sticky if the unknown or the person who was granted the rights to the cultivation comes along because now their labour is invested inseparable from mine in this part of the claim. If theres no challenge within the period of limitation the state wont protect their rights to the labour carried out by them. Im assuming it was abandoned many moons before the uk was in existence but will i not technically be a thief if the unknown appears in regard to this part of the claim? Theres also the approach of taking a piece of land by force which is perfectly legitimate for the state (within its own eyes) both within its territorial claim regardless of dispute and outwith if you consider the "moral crusade" in the middle east going on as we speak. Its that last might is right approach i find hard to justify. At least with my technical thievery i have some basis to believe no one wants what im acquiring and im not using violence as my means of acquisition.

[Jason Swindle]

Thanks Freeman Stephen and Vanilla for your great comments! Re the rightful ownership of land I feel that it belongs to no one, that we are one of millions of species who has the great fortune and equal responibility of nurturing this land that sustains our lives on Earth. For me it is not about proving who was here first but pursuing the dialogue and then action to challenge and transform the glaring injustice that the present day aristocrats/people are benefiting from the riches emanating from these vast estates. It's the forerunner equivalent of blood diamonds.

I'm not sure, even more so in light of Freeman Stephen's comments, if the abolition of feu duty is a path that creates value though I am sure a challenge to this unjust system is required.

Freeman Stephen, what size is the land you live on? I'd be interested to know more about how you came about the land and how the relationship with the UK is developing?

[Freeman Stephen]

Theres virtually no contact with the uk. The police have been here twice and that's it. The first time they carried out a search which would have been unlawful in the uk and just as much an offence against me here but just as anyone who comes here with big sticks making unlawful demands theres very little a peaceful man can do. The second time was a little more tolerable as i wasnt present when they crossed my threshold without invitation to be under any duress. All things went diplomatically though despite the transgressions and i escorted them to the border in a friendly manner. Outside of that the only other problem with the uk is their civilians will occasionally steal things when im not here. Its very tempting to just go and register it to the uk as the statutes there will recognise me as the owner but it means signing up to lots of stuff effectively making them a higher ranking owner despite their complete disregard for even the existence of this place for at least centuries. I want to know what direction this will go and dangerously if they would take it by force if they wanted it for something and i had committed no transgression against them. I note what was done to dale farm and it dawns on me that the crop burnings of the middle ages are only a thing of the past in that everyone does what they are told.

[vanilla]

The rights to enjoy and protect the labour they invest in the land. With the exception of some insects animals do not cultivate the land and are simply predators on the vegetation growing without help.

What about the insects that do cultivate the land, or instances where humans are predators on the vegetation?

If someone works hard tilling the soil to make it easy for good food crops to be planted and grown, or builds a hotel or does something bringing land from the wild into some kind of useful amenity what right has anyone to that amenity without grant from its provider?

Well this is related to what I was getting at with the first part of the query. How are the rights of the "creator" and the "infringer" determined? Where do they come from?

Theres also a part of my claim where an unknown has provided some cultivation. This could be sticky if the unknown or the person who was granted the rights to the cultivation comes along because now their labour is invested inseparable from mine in this part of the claim. If theres no challenge within the period of limitation the state wont protect their rights to the labour carried out by them. Im assuming it was abandoned many moons before the uk was in existence but will i not technically be a thief if the unknown appears in regard to this part of the claim?

In whose opinion, or was that a rhetorical question?

Theres also the approach of taking a piece of land by force which is perfectly legitimate for the state (within its own eyes) both within its territorial claim regardless of dispute and outwith if you consider the "moral crusade" in the middle east going on as we speak. Its that last might is right approach i find hard to justify. At least with my technical thievery i have some basis to believe no one wants what im acquiring and im not using violence as my means of acquisition.

I'd find it hard to believe that there's an inch of land on this Earth that no one wants. I think people in this country have just got used to the idea that somebody else more than likely owns any land that appears unowned, even if that just means it's fallen back to the Crown.

As for the violence, why is that an inherently less valid means of acquiring land?

[vanilla]

Stephen?

[Freeman Stephen]

The rights of the creator come from the creator. The infringer has no rights which is what is implied by the term infringer. A mans labour is by definition his own, if it were not so would we not call it someone elses labour. This is not deductive truth but definitive truth in the same way we define the colour we see in say a clear sky to be "blue". We could have defined it as "red" and that would have been the definitive truth. In the same manner labour is defined as the work that its doer does. It is thus their labour. Does it not follow, by the same principle, that anything that is a faculty of labour belongs to those whos labour it is? You could argue that violence to extract that creation from its owner is itself labour but then so is the violence to defend it or the stress in being a prisoner for the instant the creation is taken by force. I have heard it said that there is a contract in robbery where the robbed offers the loot in consideration of the right to not be physically injured, but it presumes that the robber has the right to physically injure the robbed despite having no faculty in the robbed.

[vanilla]

The rights of the creator come from the creator. The infringer has no rights which is what is implied by the term infringer.

How is that any different from "The rights of the invader come from the invader", "the infringer", "the rapist" or anything else I can put into a sentence that might justify its own actions simply by existing?

A mans labour is by definition his own, if it were not so would we not call it someone elses labour. This is not deductive truth but definitive truth in the same way we define the colour we see in say a clear sky to be "blue". We could have defined it as "red" and that would have been the definitive truth. In the same manner labour is defined as the work that its doer does. It is thus their labour.

I think that's a strange way of looking at it. The labour is an action performed by the man. If I kick something it is right to say that it is my kick, but I don't think it is right to say I own the kick.

Does it not follow, by the same principle, that anything that is a faculty of labour belongs to those whos labour it is?

No, I don't think it does for the reason above. It may well be "my work" in the sense that it is work that I have done, the product of my actions, but not necessarily "my work" in the sense that I own it.

If that were true we may as well argue that a carrot has rights over its body because it is a product of an action performed by that organism (i.e. growth... converting air, water, etc. into proteins and such).

We seem to have completely skipped over the fact that we're making the implicit assumption that ownership is a valid idea and can be independent of any agreement.

You could argue that violence to extract that creation from its owner is itself labour but then so is the violence to defend it or the stress in being a prisoner for the instant the creation is taken by force. I have heard it said that there is a contract in robbery where the robbed offers the loot in consideration of the right to not be physically injured, but it presumes that the robber has the right to physically injure the robbed despite having no faculty in the robbed.

You could argue those things, yes.