Are you seriously about to make the argument that something bought in a real estate deal using money gained from the agricultural product of hereditary estates is illegitimately owned?
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
yes, i've already made it. the royal family derived their wealth from the land and its people. simple and plain. there's no nuance to it. an entirely illegitimate institution which they knew damn well in the 17th century but for fear of working class revolution they've held onto the vestiges of feudal britain long beyond the time of other states reaching maturity.
Of course. Change the law and we can also make it illegal as well as illegitimate.
It won't happen of course but it should.
okay bud
Maybe the next time I live in the area and drive past it at least 10 times a week.
What about land purchased using coloured beads and firewater?
The funds weren’t illegitimate
Parliament has even repeatedly upheld financial the purpose of the Duchy of Cornwall.You’re advocating stripping property from someone purchased by an ancestor with completely legally obtained funds.Even if you did, what are you going to do about lands already privately owned? Apply the law ex post facto going back to the Norman Conquest? Give England back to the Danes?
The Parliament would tug it's forlock and do more of less what the Monarchy wanted. They just about always have.The funds weren’t illegitimate
Nationalise them then work out if reparations are needed to former colonies etc.
That’s my point. You can’t just go back and retroactively kick everyone off everything at this point. It’s happened. It’s done. The idea of stripping private property and returning it “to the state” is silly.
40 acres and a mule, please. that's what i'm advocating. same principle.The funds weren’t illegitimate
If you’re looking for a historical example of success for your plan, that one ain’t it.
Just out of curiosity: What's your opinion on taxation?
I thought your point that the argument itself was totally unknown to you. The one in which the United States bought, stole and killed for and then using for monetary gain to increase their holdings again and again is the argument you must have come across as being valid to be returned to the people it was stolen from/bought with coloured gear/murdered for that should be returned.
yes you can. history isn't set in stone. just because something is doesn't mean it has to remain. the entire concept of redistribution of wealth revolves around the idea of wealth taxation. what do you think that means in practice?
I’m for it.
Oates… what?
Okay, so, again… you gonna give England back to the Danes? Then kick them off to give it back to the Anglo-Saxons? Then kick them off… etc?
no, i'd suggest giving it to the people who are currently alive and living here. you know, like thomas paine suggested two hundred years ago when the french revolution was kicking off.
I'm just going by your previous posts. You can't claim the idea as absurd unless you are totally unaware of the Native Americans or Aboriginals campaign to reclaim what is now in many places privately held hands unless of course you've never come across it before which I find hard to believe you've not come across the concept before. It seems to completely banjax you.
So if the royals had to pay property taxes on their vast land holdings and that resulted in them going bankrupt you would be ok in the state taking the land in lieu of the taxes?
Yes, I am aware of Native Americans wanting to get their lands back… but it isn’t going to happen and it is absurd to think it is.
to use the ship metaphor. it's like saying the captaincy is inherited not by merit but by nepotism and that you ought not change that because it already happened. if people thought like that there would never have been any emancipation movements.
it is, ironically, close to the uber republican ideal of the holy constitution that should never change, except when it suits them.
it is, ironically, close to the uber republican ideal of the holy constitution that should never change, except when it suits them.
If they had to pay property tax and couldn’t, sure. But they don’t have to, and voluntarily do… so that’s rather moot.
It is of course your opinion that it is absurd to think it might happen. However I doubt that the desire and idea held by the American Natives to be an absurd concept or one that could be new to you.
I’m fairly certain the belief in inheritance rights predated, was contemporary with, and continued after, emancipation movements.
Cool.
So if you’re going to connect that to the modern day United Kingdom, who has the legitimate claim to Cornwall?
Right now? Probably Jamaica.
Personally I find the royal family as an institution rather repulsive. But I think if some one is sad because some one else has died that shouldn’t be mocked. But I think people should keep perspective, approximately 150,000 died in the world today. And the person who gets the most sadness is one of the most privileged humans ever to have lived. Who died in a castle after a really long life with her every need tended to, paid for by people poorer then her. Personally I think the out pouring of sadness for her shows the issues we have as a society. But that’s just my opinion.
I'm connecting your seeming lack of knowledge of the very similar concepts.
The common people within the Islands of Great Britain and if it be their choice to distribute it as part reparations to previous colonies, so be it.
yes, with the exception that every emancipation movement implies less inheritance by those who already owned things. slavery ended. so the slaves weren't inherited. the working class and women's movements meant that the share of the vote given over to the old aristocratic and mercantile class was diluted. the 1960s meant that public land became more public inasmuch as black people were now also able to be viewed as actual people.
there's a difference between passing on a family home, typically modest, to a network of kin and inheriting the majority of land a country possesses as well as the right to be head of state. you have to be logically blind to argue in favour of this kind of inheritance.
You’re not doing a good job of it. The common people of Britain aren’t analogous to Native Americans and their claims on America’s territory.
Who are the Native Cornish people that Cornwall should be relinquished to?
the people who live there?
I believe I am doing a good job of expressing my opinion, I don't believe you have the right to demand something I have never offered.
Humans aren’t legitimate property. Land and homes are.
That rather undermines his point about the Native Americans then, doesn’t it?
I think I have the right to ask you to take your opinion to its logical conclusion. You are, after all, the one who introduced Native Americans and their claims to ancestral lands to this discussion.I believe I am doing a good job of expressing my opinion, I don't believe you have the right to demand something I have never offered.
humans were legitimate property, though, weren't they? if that hadn't been challenged then it would still be as it was. the same goes for land and homes when that land and those homes evidently belong to the people.
it's common sense, afterall. see the tory party and current political , etonian, class for more proof.
also, what makes land a legitimate property? only the custom which prevails in any given day. land is the property of the people who live on it, the entire people, not just a few. because i'm not in favour of massive land barons retaining their portfolios either, or of a few billionaires owning more than 50% of an entire country.
The things she must have seen and experienced. The world isn't a better place without her
This thread has gone exactly as expected.
Again, it is one concept shared by two instances that you seem to have trouble understanding.