BS: ...this land is private property

Subject: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:05 PM

Five white men own more of the US than all of Black America put together:

http://inequality.org/owns-land/

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:14 PM

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/ 

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:48 PM

No-one ever made the land. Apart from inheriting it, the only way you can come by land is to put a fence round it and tell people that it's yours from now on. In other words by stealing it. All private land was stolen at some time in the past. Just because it has been passed on to you doesn't mean it was never stolen. There are penalties for stealing. The penalty for stealing land should be a tax on it. There wouldn't be much tax per acre on land that not much can be done with, such as mountains and deserts. Land in urban areas, and the best agricultural land, is far more valuable and should be highly taxed. My land tax would only kick in once you owned more than a certain amount of land. In London that might be a quarter of an acre. In the mountains it might be a thousand acres. If you owned land that you were doing nothing with, or were using to the detriment of the environment, you would forfeit it. A land tax that made no exceptions, not even for the Queen, would soon have people throwing their fences away. We don't need big landowners wielding power in unjust and undemocratic ways. What we need is millions of small landowners. They would use the land in the best way they knew how, because it was theirs, not someone else's. Someone working the land for Prince Charles is never going to invest the same love, care and standard of efficiency than they would if it was their own land.

That's my impossible fantasy and I'm sticking to it.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the Intel Quad Core
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 02:58 PM

The US and UK are somewhat different. You might be interested (as to the UK) in the Inclosure Acts and indeed how the UK lost most of its common land when Commons Registration was introduced. Likewise many minor highways have been lost and the possibilities to prove new ones (no matter how strong the evidence found) ahve been truncated.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 03:11 PM

If only solicitors were better at dealing with it than politicians, we'd be able to truncate Cameron.

Eyup Bridge. Quad core eh? Four times the confusion me old blossom.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: gnu
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:08 PM

Her Royal Beth? Nay. She doesn't "own". She is the figurehead of a system that subjugates through military prowess. As do all "rulers" and dictators.

To be a true landowner, you have to hold the land "freehold" under whatever system or jurisdiction or whatever. Now, nobody really owns land, even under such systems. Just try not paying taxes to, say, Beth, and your title gets POOF! I won't get into the discussion of "stealing" land or holding it by force because I wish to impart something that affects me personally.

Few people know this but the largest private land owner on earth is from NB.ca, my home province in the Great White Frozen. The Irvings. They now live in Bermuda... tax laws. They like to pay no taxes in Canada. Nice work if you can get it eh?

They also are ranked a ways down the list on the richest people in the world. Yeah, right. Let's see the likes of Bill Gates or others can cash in their bank accounts if things go squirrely. Irving has land and resources and factories and... well... the biggest oil refinery in NA comes to mind. And, they privately own the most land on earth. And they own most of the newspapers here and they own radio stations and they own hundreds of companies and they own... whatever the fuck they want. And I don't just mean NB. Canada. Maine is now and "next".

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Thanatopsis
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 06:44 PM

Steve Shaw sez: ...Someone working the land for Prince Charles is never going to invest the same love, care and standard of efficiency than they would if it was their own land...

Unless they're scared

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:13 PM

What the linked article actually says is: "The five largest landowners in America, all white, own more rural land than all of black America combined." (bold type is mine.)

Ref: Pigford v. Glickman

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:17 PM

Really? You tend your land with love because you're scared?


To continue with my reverie, imagine a world with millions of small landowners instead of a few big ones. To make it pay you'd have to use your land intensively. Think of the diversity replacing the tedious sameness of huge holdings. No more barley prairies. You would have to improve the soil and replant hedgerows to provide shelter. You would have that incentive. You'd have to use real skills instead of driving a tractor all day, inhaling dust laced with pesticides and getting fat through boredom and inactivity. No investing in land, no speculation. And you can't hide your land. You can't put it in an offshore account or pretend you haven't got it or get an accountant to prove that you have a lot less than you really have, unlike money. And the tax raised on excessive land holdings would drastically reduce the tax burden on working people. Sanity restored: the incentive to make your land pay, an end to the tax burden disincentive of going to work. No more taxing people's hard work. And an end to landlords, the biggest sharks on planet Earth. They'd offload their holdings like they were dropping hot potatoes. Blimey, I'm getting carried away here!

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:36 PM

"We don't need big landowners wielding power in unjust and undemocratic ways. What we need is millions of small landowners. They would use the land in the best way they knew how, because it was theirs, not someone else's."

Now how do big landowners wield power in undemocratic and unjust ways?

Millions of small landowners all doing their own thing as best as they know how would be a recipe for disaster even allowing for the not insignificant hurdle to be overcome in simply finding the millions of people with even the remotest interest in working those millions of smallholdings. But there again I could be wrong and the job centres of the UK are inundated with people battering down the doors all eager to become farmers, but I rather doubt it.

Somebody has got something so let's take it from them - "Socialism" is not known as the politics of envy for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Thanatopsis
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 07:42 PM

Scared of Prince Charles silly (or maybe Camilla) sending me to the Tower for mis-mowing the verge

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 08:03 PM

Your facile politics of envy point has been answered in another thread. You must be getting desperate, raising it here as well. Big landowners wield power unjustly by being landlords. No landlord born ever made so much as one square foot of land. Well I suppose that the Dutch made some land by reclaiming it from the sea. I'd let them hang on to that. Landlords use their wealth to make (not earn) even more money by charging rent. Right-wing governments like landlords so much that they let them charge as much rent as they like unfettered. The rent is paid on houses and on land and the payers have little security of tenure. Tenant farmers have to do all the work but still pay rent to a landlord. Prince Charles makes millions out of his farms yet doesn't know the first thing about what farming really entails. Well he does wear green wellies, has a Harris Tweed jacket and plus-twos and rides a horse I suppose. He and his fellow landed gentry are parasites on their tenants. But I wouldn't dream of taking away their land. I'd make them pay such punitive taxes on excessive holdings that they'd voluntarily ditch most of their holdings. Land would become cheap and thousands of tenant farmers would be able to own their own holdings and plough the profits back into the land instead of into the pocket of some useless twerp who talks to his pot plants, believes in homeopathy and conducts symphonies to his bedroom mirror, oh, and shags his old flame the day before he marries his bride, tricking millions the world over into thinking he meant it. Anyway, I know you're loving this, so let me just tell you that I know this will not happen in this green and pleasant land. There is a place called cloud cuckoo land. I can but dream.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: olddude
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 08:21 PM

Small US farmer's are getting rare, big corporations own all the farm land anymore

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 08:40 PM

Exactly. And isn't it boring.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 16 - 09:14 PM

Your green and pleasant land is Mary's Dowry, don't give up 

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 03:19 AM

""Socialism" is not known as the politics of envy for nothing."

If I condemn thieves for robbing a bank, am I displaying envy?

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:04 AM

You can't own land.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 04:38 AM

To simply answer your question Shimrod - No would not be displaying envy you would be condemning a crime. Now if you were to condemn somebody on the basis of their wealth, and made demands that they must be stripped of it - then you would be displaying envy.

As to that other thread Shaw:

Two teachers did as you did and took advantage of the property market back in the 1980s - you moved and bought yourself another house, they took their profit and converted it in the course of the next 26 years into a property empire worth £180 BILLION. Their properties were let and they charged what was the market rate, had they pitched the rents at the "as much as they liked" as you claim their properties would never be let and their "EMPIRE" would have never have got off the ground.

Now then let us take an equally jaundiced look at the problem from the landlords side just to balance things up. Who is "Housing Benefit" paid to? The Landlord, or the Tenant? It is the latter who can then spend that money on anything he or she wishes, the automatic and reasonable assumption that it is given to the landlord to cover the expense intended by the Welfare System is often not the case, the money goes elsewhere. I know five people who have property for rent and after having been stung by poor payers (Who take months to evict and leave the property completely trashed) will not let out to anyone on "Housing Benefit", meanwhile the local authority is left with the problem of rehousing tenants with a track record of being feckless and irresponsible - the problem being dumped on another unsuspecting landlord.

As for the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall contribute massively to the Exchequer before the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family pay their own taxes it amounts to somewhere between £320 and £240 million a year.

Now tell us where all your "makee-learnee" farmers and smallholders are going to come from? Then explain to us just how efficient and productive they will be? There again Shaw you probably think all the food we eat comes from abroad or from the supermarket - for the 64 million people on these islands to eat our farming has to be as efficient as it possibly can be and that does not happen with millions of smallholdings - History tells us that.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:18 AM

History tells us the exact opposite. We live in one of the most fertile and well-watered countries on earth but we import food by the millions of tons. Why, I found one day last summer that a certain supermarket was selling courgettes from Holland when they were growing so bloody fast in my garden that I couldn't even give them away. This country was self-sufficient in food in your bad old days and people didn't die of diabetes, heart attacks or fat rot, and the countryside was replete with a diversity of habitat and wildlife that has all but disappeared thanks to your modern "efficiencies". And thank God for the Haber process, eh? Why, I wonder how those country bumpkins of old managed to get almost the same tonnage of grain per acre as modern farmers without all that damaging nitrogenous fertiliser?

The owners of those Duchies you refer to wouldn't know what an honest day's graft was if it reared up and bit them on their royal backsides. While the tenants are working their land for them and generating all those profits, they're off somewhere hot and colonial, waving at all those foreign chappies who are standing behind a rope waving cheap flags at them. And don't tell me that they're good landlords, etc. They have massively-overpaid "estate managers" to make sure that things are running smoothly at home and to make sure that the plebs can't get in to disturb the grouse or poach the salmon. That's what landlordism is all about.

"I moved and bought another house..." Well I had to find someone to buy the first one first. Then I had to borrow a ton of money that has taken me 35 years in all to pay off, all to buy my HOME, not "another house", a property or an investment. As for your market rate, well you know as well as I do about the blind workings of the market, supply and demand and all that. Thatcher and all her successors ensured that there was a shortage of public housing to rent by selling off over a million of the choicest houses at massive discounts in order to further her agenda of making the country a nation of little capitalists (as well as selling off our public utilities cut-price to allow anyone with spare dosh to make a killing on the shares. Look at them now: ripping people off with complicated, impossible-to-understand forests of tariffs and laughable customer service provided by call centres in the cheapest countries they can find). Housing shortage equals landlords' market. Remove rent controls (well done again, Maggie) and there's your recipe for out-of-control rent increases. Round here, the lowest-wage economy in England, a couple working full-time on the local average wage can scarcely afford to rent a two-bedroom house on a new-build estate, let alone get a mortgage, and I'm not talking posh here, I'm talking about houses with a lovely view of Morrisons' delivery yard or the back end of our new Lidl.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:34 AM

A LIDL within walking distance, thats something to be really envious of.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:37 AM

I heartily recommend a little book by that self-sufficiency guru John Seymour called Bring Me My Bow. You can pick up a second-hand copy on Amazon for a couple of quid. He blows all Teribus's guff about modern efficiencies and his defence of landlords clean out of the water. And John was no leftie. In fact, I find some of his rather right-wing views to be slightly obnoxious. That's just in case Teribus thinks I'm advocating this as part of some Marxist agenda. He has some very interesting things to say about modern agriculture in particular (he was a farmer for most of his life) and the economy of scale.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:39 AM

When I was down in Steve's neck of the woods last week I heard a young lad saying he had just managed to rent a house. The cost was £1100 per month. £1100 was, he said, the going rate for a two bedroomed house.

Ye gods and little fishes.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 06:47 AM

I think, to be fair, round here £1100 would probably be about right for rent plus council tax and fuel bills for a two-bed, decidedly non-posh house.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM

You are a good fellow, Steve, and a fine idealist. You can give us all a true lesson, a masterclass, in basic morality.

But the fact remain that one can OWN land under our laws. It might not in your opinion be right that this should be the case; but such, alas for you, it is. You are rather reminding me of the famous yokel in the old joke, asked the way to somewhere, and replying "Well you can't start from here".

Here, where we happen to be, is, woe·and·alack for bien-pensants of your sort, the only place where you can start.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:04 AM

I never said you couldn't. I don't even believe that you shouldn't. I think that your land ownership should be a bit like your tax allowance. Above a certain amount, the more you own, the more tax you pay. But the tax should be graduated, based on the real value of the land you own, as I mentioned before. The main point about land is that no-one made it. Go back far enough and you find that someone stole it in a war or enclosed it using force to keep other people out. You can make a house, which is then yours, though if you build it on land that you stole you can expect to be challenged. You can improve your parcel of land, which gives you the right to be its steward, unfettered, as long as you did it without exploiting or disadvantaging people. If the law says that you can own tens of thousands of acres or square miles of land, and lets you use that land for improper purposes such as rearing grouse for brainless rich idiots to shoot at, or allows you to rent it out at extortionate rents to the tenants who work it for you, or allows you to stop me from walking over your moors and mountains in case I frighten the deer that you want to shoot at for sport, then I think the law is wrong. And I've never pretended that my ideas can ever be carried out. But I don't mind telling you what they are anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:53 AM

"Here, where we happen to be, is, woe·and·alack for bien-pensants of your sort, the only place where you can start."

No, woe and alack the poor souls who think they own the land. You can't own the land, it's a delusion that you can. All these rights of ownership are transient; the fripperies and conceits of the small-minded and greedy, who cannot see beyond their own brief lifespan.

How much do you own? The crust? The lithosphere? The mantle? Is it geostationary or do you own your floating patch until it's subjected beneath another tectonic plate? Do you own the birds that live there? The badgers? The worms they feed on? Do you grant them the 'right' to live there? What if they themselves are transient? Do you own some and not the others?

"Therefore we require, and we resolve to take both Common Land, and Common woods to be a livelihood for us, and look upon you as equal with us, not above us, knowing very well, that England the land of our Nativity, is to be a common Treasury of livelihood to all, without respect of persons"

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:32 AM

Here's something that a mate of mine wrote recently with respect to the Government's proposal to abolish the Wildlife Crimes Unit:

"I have just visited a valley on the Yorkshire/Derbyshire border that was shockingly devoid of life. There were plenty of Red Grouse on the tops, but I saw no Mountain Hares (they eat heather - grouse-food), Crows or Goshawks. There were 8 pairs of Goshawks a couple of years ago."

Far too many "land owners" are greedy, selfish, life-hating bastards who would sterilise "their" land of everything that doesn't bring them in a profit. There's no doubt, in our minds, that the hares, crows and goshawks have fallen prey, illegally, to the guns of those charged with maximising the numbers of grouse that rich bastards like to shoot.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:46 AM

When we are all suffering from food shortages, housing shortages and medicine shortages, the only private land left will be that defended by armies or citizens with guns.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:07 AM

All v well, Stu, to quote The Levellers or The Diggers or whoever it was, as if you have made some sort of unarguable knockdown point. And to cite the well-known adage that "You can't take it with you" as if you had made some sort of profound & original statement: of course our ownership of anything stops at death; but what of it? The fact remains that the laws by which we are governed recognise a concept of ownership; so you better learn to live with it, mate -- or else look silly as some dear old lone voice crying in the wilderness...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 12:40 PM

God, Michael, you don't half harp on about this. Yes we know that people possess legal titles to land. Once upon a time it was legal to hang peasants for sheep stealing too. Just read what we're saying. Forget legal. Think moral. Consider that nobody ever made the land. Consider that what we call the land is a shallow interface 'twixt Heaven and Hades. Do you want the landowners to be able to claim the atmosphere right up to the Van Allen belts and the ground right down to the Moho? Reread Stu's post, properly this time. You can claim land if you're big and strong but you can't own it because it's everybody's and not yours to own. Why? Because you didn't make it, and your ancestors had no authority to usurp it, just raw power. You can be the custodian of a fair share of it, even call yourself the owner of it you really want to, but that comes with responsibilities. That's allowed, morally. If you are in charge of more than your fair share then you should be given sharp incentives to offload it. The pheasants and the grouse would just have to put up with it.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:20 PM

"so you better learn to live with it, mate"

You see, that's where you're wrong, I don't at all. In fact, I don't recognise the concept of land ownership, although I have to deal with the consequences of the delusion of land ownership with some frequency.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,wysiwyg minus cookie
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:46 PM

HELLO--

...one can OWN land under our laws BECAUSE European colonizers STOLE it from its original inhabitants!!!

But you'd all rather make another vain attempt to win a meaningless pissing contest than feel for THEM, obviously!

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:56 PM

I hope that large-parcel land ownership goes into decline. I'm not sure it's all bad, though. The first post links to an article that says that Ted Turner owns a huge amount of land. I think I've heard Turner is a pretty good steward of his property, and his ownership may well be an advantage to the common good.
Here in the western US, much of the land is owned by the federal government, and conservancies are acquiring more and more land. That's a trend that I'd like to see continue.
The Bundy family of Nevada disagree.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 05:21 PM

"The fact remains that the laws by which we are governed recognise a concept of ownership ..."

And you can be damn sure that "landowners" had a very big say in framing those laws!

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:22 AM

Steve -- I harp on about it, do I? While you are maintaining a dignified silence, I suppose? The fact that there have been unjust laws in the past doesn't alter the fact of the existence of the present rules by which we are governed. No good your going on as if they don't apply because The Great S.Shaw doesn't happen to approve of them. Have you not yet learnt the difference between what you think ought to be the case, and what is indeed the fact of the matter? Till you do, you were best to keep quiet; you are just making yourself look silly.

Regards ≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:42 AM

In case you haven't been following, Michael, the whole tenor of my posts in this thread has been that I recognise the facts of the matter quite well, am proposing a utopian alternative that I know isn't going to come about, but can talk about it anyway. And why not if it helps to point to injustices. Go back and have a look.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:43 AM

And I wish I'd edited that big sentence. Tried to stop it, too late I was.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:45 AM

OK -- apologies for misrep.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 12:53 PM

Jack this is important. If we all could instantly see who owns what,
revolution would be seen as necessary.

Americans are visual beings thanks to our screen education and the hypnosis that resides there.

It is said the image called Earth Rise changed our consciousness.

If an image of America showed the joint ownership of private State and Federal Land were, lets say a google map, the average American would see reality for the first time. Bernie should have one made.

To begin we need a map of just the border and coastline ownership !

A project like this may be easier than it was 10 years ago.

Some of the ownership would be a great surprise to all.


If only we could see that access to the ocean is not our land or your land but less than .001 % public beach.

Did you know that of the 5 Hawaiian Islands, one is TOTALLY private?

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:20 PM

The map does not exist.

It looks like one must go county by county, state by state.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:40 PM

If an image of America showed the joint ownership of private State and Federal Land were, lets say a google map, the average American would see reality for the first time.

Something like has existed for years, but not just for Ameica and not for "average" anybody. The new technology of global mapping is a crucial tool for the landowning elite to figure out what they can grab next.

(I first heard about that from the political scientist Janet Laible at Lehigh University - dunno what she's published about it. Her pal Any Wightman in Scotland has been doing some good work on these issues for his entire career - he's standing as a Green candidate in the next Scottish election. His Twitter is well worth following: https://twitter.com/andywightman).

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 03:13 PM

No color coded easy to see map of privatized America there.

I think it is a project not yet made.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:44 AM

Donuel says: Did you know that of the 5 Hawaiian Islands, one is TOTALLY private?
Wikipedia says Hawaii has "approximately 152" islands, although the State of Hawaii acknowledges only 137 because the others are tiny or spend a lot of time under the surface of the sea. All but 127 state-owned acres on the seventh-largest island, Niihau, is owned by the Robinson family, who also own other properties in the state.
Lanai, the 6th-largest island, is 98% owned by Larry Ellison, founder and chairman of Oracle Corporation. The rest of Lanai is owned by the State of Hawaii. I can't imagine that any of the five major islands are totally in private ownership. There seems to be a lot of public land on each of them.
Here's (click) an article on the ten largest landowners in Hawaii. The State of Hawaii is the top landowner, and the U.S. Government comes in second.

There are many people in the western U.S. who believe that government land ownership is tyranny...or socialism. I rather like the fact that the people of the U.S. own huge portions of land in the West.

I suppose it's mostly casinos that are responsible for the improvement of the lives of Native Americans because their land is so poor, but I think there's justice in the fact that vast amounts of land in the Western U.S. belong to the tribes, as almost-sovereign nations existing within the territory of the U.S. And now, many of the tribes are doing well. Our local tribe makes generous donations of casino profits to community charities. They sure help us nonprofits out.

-Joe-

Click here for a map of federal lands in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 04:59 PM

"History tells us the exact opposite. We live in one of the most fertile and well-watered countries on earth but we import food by the millions of tons. Why, I found one day last summer that a certain supermarket was selling courgettes from Holland when they were growing so bloody fast in my garden that I couldn't even give them away."

Does history tell us the opposite Shaw? Don't think that it does but perhaps you could provide some examples from history - but I doubt that you will.

You still haven't told us where all these "makee-learnee" farmers and smallholders are going to come from.

We import food through choice, we are a complex multicultural, cosmopolitan country, we are part of the EU and we trade with them. What efforts did you make to get rid of your crop of courgettes Steve?

"This country was self-sufficient in food in your bad old days and people didn't die of diabetes, heart attacks or fat rot, and the countryside was replete with a diversity of habitat and wildlife that has all but disappeared thanks to your modern "efficiencies"."

Poor education, know all, baby-boomer generation who craved for junk food and fizzy drinks, who did everything in excess and thought that they could get away with it. That Mr Shaw is what caused the increase in diabetes, heart attacks and fat rot - it had S.F.A. to do with modern farming.

"Why, I wonder how those country bumpkins of old managed to get almost the same tonnage of grain per acre as modern farmers without all that damaging nitrogenous fertiliser?"

Between 1885 and 1945 wheat yields remained almost static at around 2.5 tonnes per hectare.

From 1945 onwards there was a marked increase year on year in yield from 2.5 tonnes /hectare to 8.6 tonnes/hectare in 2014. Our acreage is dropping but productivity is still increasing.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 08:40 PM

Donuel: look for "google earth parcel data". What you were asking for was briefly available free, but Google removed it a few weeks ago. And they don't seem willing to say why, or what it might cost to get it back.

https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/maps/2Bpdn1eQeuQ

It seems if you have a few thousand dollars a year to spend, you can still get that functionality by licencing it from the firms that were supplying it to Google. Good luck finding what data is available, who owns it and what software can display it to you.

That article implies that usage of GIS data is MUCH more widespread by an enormous range of businesses (which do have that money to spend) than I ever imagined. I knew it was huge, but I didn't realize it was THAT huge. The GIS data industry must have an annual turnover in billions, but it's so diffusely organized almost nobody has an overall picture of what it's up to. (Google probably does).

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:53 AM

"From 1945 onwards there was a marked increase year on year in yield from 2.5 tonnes /hectare to 8.6 tonnes/hectare in 2014. Our acreage is dropping but productivity is still increasing. "

This is due to improved fertilisers and pesticides. And the start really was National Growmore, introduced in 1945. But available to large farmers, small farmers, smallholders and hobby gardeners alike. I don't think we need the land to be in the hands of large farmers, there should be a more equitable distribution. But I am not with all this organic nonsense. Apart from GM, thats unproven and we are kept in the dark about the consequences by the likes of Monsanto who squash all opposition.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Jack Campin
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 06:52 AM

Financial Times investigations into global land issues, starting with near-genocide in Ethiopia:

https://ig.ft.com/sites/land-rush-investment/ethiopia/

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:04 PM

you are making well-made points here steve. don't know what to add

except a question. is the situation in england the same as in scotland where who owns the land is largely classified information? the snp government is making some rather weedy attempts to improve the situation but it's still scandalous. yet more nonsense about grouse being more important than people. or fairness. or mountain hares.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:26 PM

and another thing ....those folk who own woodland on dartmoor and are trying to live an environmentally friendly and positively alternative life. their existence is threatened by the local council who apparently disapprove of well-intentioned hippies. what is wrong with our country (apart from capitalism. obviously) that we can't enjoy and support some diversity and eccentricities? isn't that what freedom is about?

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 05:01 PM

A good read - Kevin Cahill in The New Statesman. Google it, I'm useless at doing links:

"The great property swindle: why do so few people in Britain own so much of our land?"

Makes you spit really. And all of it nicked from all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 05:39 PM

Just had the Dartmoor folk on our local news. They've been there for donkeys' years. Apparently they're spoiling the look and feel of the national park. Nothing like as nice as the MOD firing ranges then.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 11:12 PM

Here in the PNW the Spotted Owl put a whole lot small timber companies out of business. Weyerhaeuser was happy to buy their holding of course

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 02:15 AM

"I don't think we need the land to be in the hands of large farmers, there should be a more equitable distribution."

Who decides who gets what? Who defines what is "a more equitable distribution."?

If the marked improvement in crop yields was "due to improved fertilisers and pesticides. And the start really was National Growmore, introduced in 1945. But available to large farmers, small farmers, smallholders and hobby gardeners alike." - Who was it that did most with that advance to feed a country that economically was on its knees? - The large farmer. You also forget the contribution made to more efficient farming brought about by the humble tractor - compare the numbers of those working on the land pre and post Second World War.

MOD land and firing ranges have saved more of this country's "wild habitat" than they have destroyed, and oddly enough the vast majority of it is let out to farmers.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Thompson
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 02:48 AM

This land is my land (rubs hands)
This land is my land
From California
To the New York island…

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:37 AM

Then of course Thompson there is always the Ben Cartwright song which if memory serves me correctly starts off:

"From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli
The land is called the Ponderosa
And it all belongs to me"

Do I begrudge, or am I envious of, what others have and own? No I most certainly do not, to do so is pointless and idiotic, what others have does not affect me whatsoever, they are welcome to it. I can do as I wish, those born to an inheritance accompanied by stewardship are born with a millstone round their necks as they bear the responsibility to maintain what has been put in their hands.

A more equitable distribution is recommended yet nobody can define what equitable means or who should be given this land. Shaw wants millions of smallholdings yet having been asked on an number of occasions cannot say who would take on and run these smallholdings - Cloud Cuckoo-land is what I would call it and a guaranteed recipe for disaster as far as the country would be concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:59 AM

" those born to an inheritance accompanied by stewardship are born with a millstone round their necks as they bear the responsibility to maintain what has been put in their hands."

Spoken like a true serf Tezza, a fine piece of cap doffing to your betters! The Bastard would be pleased to see the Norman Yoke was still in place and educating the peasants.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:01 AM

How often do you replace your hat Teribus, it must get terribly worn out doffing it all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM

Stu you beat me to it, apologises for cross posting the same thought.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:23 AM

Very pleased to say Stu and Raggy your posts say more about you than they do about me. Also extremely pleased that I do not live in your mean world of spite and envy.

As to what you think about me? I couldn't care less.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 09:30 AM

I hold land in Scotland Terriblossom, you can doff your cap next time I'm up visiting it.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:15 AM

Not one of those square feet in Islay, Raggytash? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:10 PM

The private property allowances by the USA is a wonderful thing.
That is not the point.

The point is that under the concentrated wealth policies there is no space for citizens but plenty for the 1% and corporations.

We become trespassers in our own Nation.

Well posted Joe offer complete with multiple links that show the 7th largest island to be private and not the 5th largest as I said. In fact Joe has formed a inflammatory pre conception of my posts that is not in keeping with reality. Joe, check your ideas about making/keeping federal land private. You are on the slippery slope of becoming a Texas and Oregon terrorist sympathizer.


Joe Campin, you are a true hero. Your research seems stellar so far and raises many intriguing questions.

like:

Why try to virtually hide the data just now?

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:35 PM

47% of the Amazon Rain Forest is now destroyed in relation to its pristine state 100 years ago. It is the trees and vapor that creates low pressure that makes a global rain cycle.

Without remediation, drought is the outcome everywhere.

There is a scientist that has found that the planet Earth would need a 50% policy of a no human interference policy for the oceans and land for the planet to have a reasonable chance of healing itself from a runaway global heating event.

If you think a private property takeover by a few is a hard problem to solve, think about a 50% solution conundrum.

Few are informed and many are not. Doom awaits all but the rich who will lose the same Earth we all used to share. They simply will have a little more time in outlying areas. Or we could see the sense that visionaries are telling us how to save our Planet.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 01:37 PM

Steve, I've managed to lose your email address. Could you drop me a line.

Ta

Nick

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:38 PM

Oooooh Raggy you "hold land in Scotland" do you? Now ask me the important question - Do I actually give a fuck? The answer is NO. Would this land that you "hold" be where you live and was IT equitably distributed?

Tell me Raggy why should the fact that you "hold" something mean that anybody has to doff their cap to you? Is there some fundamental need of yours that needs filling? Do many people do it? I cannot ever remember doffing my cap to anyone and throughout the course of my life I have met the Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords and I as I did not doff my cap to any of them I rather doubt that I would see the need to doff my cap to the likes of you.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:42 PM

"47% of the Amazon Rain Forest is now destroyed in relation to its pristine state 100 years ago."

So did they have it right 100 years ago? What is it that has changed over that 100 years?

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:54 PM

@Jack Campin "Financial Times investigations into global land issues, starting with near-genocide in Ethiopia"

I think that is miss-representation of a well-written report about a complicated issue. Did you notice that not a single grain of rice has yet been exported? It seems to have gone into the local market to feed hungry mouths. Not mentioned in that report is that Indian firm that has had its contracts cancelled claimed lack of investement was due to government export restrictions on grain - sneaky that, but handy when the rains fail.

Human Rights Watch also writes some excellent reports on Gambella, with more circumstantial 'evidence' carefully caveated. I think this is because they have a more legalistic approach and want to win their formal battles with authoritarion regimes.

Of course, they can always rely on the lazy western press just picking up one aspect for a good headline.

And mudcat commentators as well it would seem. Worse though, 'near genocide' is a very weasely term.

Bad things happening, but in a complicated situation.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:18 PM

teribus - are you a very angry man? what's the matter? we are all friends (?) here . get it off your chest.....

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM

" ... I have met the Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords and I as I did not doff my cap to any of them ..."

I bet, though, that you bowed and grovelled and curtsied like a simpering, grinning mad thing, didn't you Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:43 PM

Donuel says: Well posted Joe offer complete with multiple links that show the 7th largest island to be private and not the 5th largest as I said. In fact Joe has formed a inflammatory pre conception of my posts that is not in keeping with reality. Joe, check your ideas about making/keeping federal land private. You are on the slippery slope of becoming a Texas and Oregon terrorist sympathizer.

Yes, Donuel, I confess I do have a preconception of your posts. Experience has shown me that the data you provide, which is almost almost undocumented, is almost always wrong. While I may question what you say and may ask for proof, I never attempt to refute your data unless I have documentation.

I said, "I rather like the fact that the people of the U.S. own huge portions of land in the West." Maybe that isn't as clear as I thought it was. If I said "I rather like the fact that the people of the U.S. collectively own huge portions of land in the West," would that make more sense? Whatever the case, I like the fact that much of the Western U.S. is government land, managed for the common good instead of to serve the interests of a wealthy few.

I spent the last week driving through huge expanses of government-owned desert. There were wildflowers everywhere, and very few buildings or electric wires. It was absolutely beautiful. But for miles and miles around Reno and Las Vegas and most desert cities, there are five-acre plots peppered with mobile homes and junk autos and other trash - and plastic grocery bags everywhere. If we were to break our nation into parcels and distribute it evenly to the public, the whole nation could become a dump. I think people should live in communities, and vast areas should be left open for all to enjoy.

But the same thing can be accomplished by private ownership, if the owner is benevolent. The emerging land conservancies are doing a wonderful job of this. I have belonged to the Nature Conservancy for at least two decades. It has protected huge areas and preserved them for wildlife and nature.

Here's an interesting article about Ted Turner and other large landowners:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37837555/ns/business-us_business/t/their-wide-open-spaces-are-really-wide/#.Vtt8IJwrKUk

-Joe-

P.S. By the way, I saw the 6th largest island in Hawaii. It wasn't very big. The four biggest ones are quite large.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 01:19 AM

Re hats: I always raise [or at least touch & ½-lift], mine to any female acquaintance I may chance to meet & greet, as gentlemen of my generation were brought up to do. It is likewise, I believe, regarded as a customary courtesy to bare one's head in the presence of royalty. I was once meeting some friends off a train at Ely (Cambridgeshire) Station when I found a crowd assembled round the entrance; and on enquiry learned that HM Queen was visiting the city for some ceremonial purpose, so joined the group. As she emerged, I instinctively took off my hat, and, as I was standing fairly far forward, was aware of a sort of sussuration behind me as other men did likewise. I regard that as one of the virtuously exemplary acts of my life.

YMMV!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:34 AM

I took my hat off at a funeral the other day ...

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:54 AM

You'd have lost your bet GUEST,Shimrod - 05 Mar 16 - 06:34 PM, but there again Shimrod you could have absolutely no idea of the situation and circumstances under which I met them (Another one I met but missed out was the late Queen Mother - lovely lady, full of fun - didn't have to doff my hat to her either.).

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:56 AM

But surely, Teribus, if you were wearing a hat you would have raised it [see my last post] to any lady you met, royal or not?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:55 AM

""47% of the Amazon Rain Forest is now destroyed in relation to its pristine state 100 years ago."

So did they have it right 100 years ago? What is it that has changed over that 100 years?"

The clue is in the word pristine. Nature had it right. God had it right. Take your pick. Whats clear is that the change since then is a result of human intervention, which is not good.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 06:20 AM

Anyone who thinks that people who were born rich deserve having caps doffed to them requires a brain transplant.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:35 AM

"Anyone who thinks that people who were born rich deserve having caps doffed to them requires a brain transplant."

Take that up with Raggytash he clearly thinks that caps should be doffed when he goes by.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:44 AM

I already have done. 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 07:58 AM

"Also extremely pleased that I do not live in your mean world of spite and envy."

It's world of wonder and discovery, tempered by the attitude of those whose sense of entitlement and self-worth who con the gullible and self-hating millions into servicing their unsustainable, selfish and uncaring sub-society.

"Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, Princess Anne, the King of Norway, four First Sea Lords"

Blimey, what a shower. I wouldn't doff my cap to that lot either. Good on you Tezza, there's hope for you yet.

I'd doff my cap to you though mate, no worries.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 08:14 AM

I wouldn't. I'd make bloody sure my cap was left at home if I ever suspected I might be in his vicinity.

Come to think of it, I haven't had a cap since 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:12 AM

I've still got my school cap from 1966, never been worn, except in jest.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 09:52 AM

I wear a flat cap, Donegal tweed is my favourite. I've a cloth cap since school and will wear one until the day I die. Best. Hat. Ever.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,H.H.H. jr.
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 03:50 PM

Re: Desert Folk, I'm getting a triplewide like Gov Huckbee's Mobile Mansion when I hit the Jackpot and the Junk Cars are for my Car Museum and the Other Trash well if you don't have anything nice to say...

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 04:06 AM

MGM - you need to check English land law. The only allodial land in England is the Kennedy Memorial on Runnymede. All other land is held under (reformed) feudal tenures directly or indirectly of the Crown.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 05:43 AM

RB -- Regret have not the remotest inkling what of mine you refer to. But never mind, eh?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 10:00 AM

I suspect, MGM, that the esteemed MrB is referring to freehold & leasehold being both forms of tenure under the crown rather than of outright ownership. But as they say; IANAL.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:01 PM

Yes Joe Offer;


My non existent sources and I am almost always wrong. I rely on audio memory more than not, while my hearing is below 50 %. I am not likely to find a cure for language dyslexia in this lifetime so do not expect improvement.

Your posts on the other hand are always correct and at their best are eloquent sermons.

With an IQ of 88 it should be apparent I am doing the best I can.

If you wish to honor me by quoting me, plies include my commas

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 01:11 PM

Teribus, long ago I was under the impression you were an American and now I am not sure..

You already know about the burning of the rain forest.
What is it that you want to say directly. Oblique messages go over my head.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the AMD quad core
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 02:14 PM

MGM, you said

"Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 07:19 AM

...

But the fact remain that one can OWN land under our laws. It might not in your opinion be right that this should be the case; but such, alas for you, it is. You are rather reminding me of the famous yokel in the old joke, asked the way to somewhere, and replying "Well you can't start from here".

'''

≈M≈"



Uncharacteristically for you, your grammar is awry as well as your law. You probably meant to say "the fact remains". Which it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:02 PM

Joe Offer has a "preconception" of Donuel's posts. That is a very bad idea. Donuel is the finest loose cannon on this board, often impenetrable, often not quite the ally you may wish for, apparently offbeat on occasion, but never less than intriguing. And he's a bloody liar when he says his IQ is 88. As if it matters anyway. Mine was 182 in the early 60s which was so good that I'm frightened of ever having it measured again. ;-) Eysenck was a bit of a fascist anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:05 PM

I tell a lie. It was 188. "Was" could well be the operative word.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge on the Intel quad-core
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 08:59 PM

AFAIK the highest possible IQ is 160 or 162. http://mentalfloss.com/article/73556/11-year-old-just-earned-highest-iq-score-possible

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 16 - 09:07 PM

Not so. Apparently, someone once scored 230. But listen. It's all bollocks. I got 188 when I was ten and I don't give a shite. It's a meaningless scale.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 07:14 AM

Thanks for elucidation, Mr RB. Appreciate your implied compliment as to my customary grammatical usage, which was indeed marred on this occasion by a typographical omission. Oooohh dearie·weary·me! Mea maxima culpa!···in ♠♠♠!

Have generally understood that the concept of 'freehold' implies legal ownership to all practical intents & purposes. It is of course a truth universally acknowledged that lawyers would all starve if the wording of any law or act were ever actually to mean what it appears to mean.

Would the thought of Mr RB's starving cause me any distress or concern? Hmmm -- glad someone asked that...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST, Richard Bridge etc
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 02:35 PM

Being the charitable left winger that I am I hasten to assure Metro-Goldwyn that he need not concern himself, and indeed to suppress an uncharitable impulse towards him not least in his capacity as a doyen of philological fog and exhibitionism.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 04:44 PM

He thinks 'Metro-Goldwyn' a joke, by the way, I take it, due to the coincidence of my initials. In fact --

(despite diffce in spelling — some of my cousins in US still spell it with an a in 2nd place; like my cousin Danny Mayer, who was a dancer in the sewer in Guys & Dolls, and whom I met when he was over here in Judy Garland's company the year she died)

-- Louis B Mayer [the M part of Metro Goldwyn Mayer] was my paternal grandfather's first cousin, so my first-cousin-twice-removed; so the initials not so adventitious after all. Louis B was born in Minsk; my grandfather Morris Mayer in Bucharest, Romania: altho in different countries, they are only a couple of hundred km apart, as ref to google maps will show.

♫So starve on, starve on, Richard B
Way up on your plinth...♫

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:15 PM

Donuel says: My non existent sources and I am almost always wrong. I rely on audio memory more than not, while my hearing is below 50 %. I am not likely to find a cure for language dyslexia in this lifetime so do not expect improvement.

I'm sorry, Donuel, but I think that much of what you present as factual is incorrect. You and I often agree on the general ideas, but you do not help your case by presenting information that is consistently incorrect. This time, you started off by saying Hawaii had five islands, one of which was privately owned. Hawaii has well over 100 islands, so many that experts can't agree on how many. And while the 6th and 7th-largest islands (which are quite small) are over 90% privately owned, they have areas that are owned by the State of Hawaii. If you don't know something, why give us incorrect information under the guise of facts?

I belong to a group that operates a homeless shelter, and I often speak at public meetings on behalf of the shelter. I make sure the information I give is accurate, even when it makes us look bad. We have a very well-intentioned supporter who also speaks in support of the shelter, but she invariably gives incorrect information. We all cringe whenever she gets up to speak, because her misinformation likely to harm our cause more than help it. Speak from what you know - don't manufacture information and issues.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the network
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 05:20 PM

Well, Metro, have you bothered to consult history to see how well your relative was generally regarded? You DO remember some of my back-story don't you?

And my conscience is clear whereas your should trouble you. I don't suppose it will, but it should.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Mar 16 - 10:24 PM

I made a circuit of the southern two-thirds of California over the last two weeks, and I went past the properties of a number of large landowners. I first went to Mission San Antonio, which is surrounded by property which was once owned by newspaperman William Randolph Hearst. Hearst sold off a huge portion of the estate to the U.S. Army in 1940, and that became Fort Hunter Liggett. The Hearst family still owns most of the land from the fort to the ocean, thirty-five miles away. The "Hearst Castle" near the ocean now belongs to the State of California; but most of the Hearst land is untouched and undeveloped, and provides great habitat for wildlife. The Army land is under consideration for transfer to the National Park Service. It includes the gorgeous "Hacienda Milpitas," which was built by Hearst as a hunting lodge. The Hearsts also own a large estate in Northern California, near Mount Shasta. It's supposed to be an architectural masterpiece, and I'd love to see it.

Oilman J. Paul Getty owned land from the San Diego Freeway to the Malibu coast in the Los Angeles area, with a villa on the ocean that resembles a villa from Pompeii - it's now a museum for antiquities, and there's a new museum above the freeway that houses the bulk of the Getty collection. The estate, now owned by the Getty Foundation, preserves a huge amount of mountain wildlife habitat in the middle of the Los Angeles megalopolis. Land once owned by Howard Hughes also provides open space and wildlife habitat in the L.A. area.

And then there's the Tejon Ranch, on the Interstate 5 Grapevine pass just north of Los Angeles. I think the property was once a Spanish Land Grant. It's still a working ranch, but it preserves a lot of valuable open space for the near-extinct California Condor.

Can't say I know much about large, privately-owned land parcels outside of California and Hawaii, but I do know that in those two states, the huge private properties have served to preserve habitat for native fauna and flora. I'm sure there are landowners who have destroyed the land they own, but there are also many large landholdings that do a lot of good for all of us. I really like the idea of public land ownership, but many public lands in the U.S. are open for mining and oil drilling and cattle grazing and hunting and those damn four-wheel-drive vehicles.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 06:37 AM

Well if someone's stupid enough to think they own vast tracts of wilderness, that's fine with me as long as they maintain the roads and trails and allow unfettered access to all parts of it. By which I don't mean irresponsible access. I live in a country that has large areas I'm not supposed to go on in case I disturb pheasants, grouse and deer and whose gamekeepers routinely exterminate rare raptors, and I'm not allowed to fish the rivers because someone richer than me has claimed all the salmon and trout for himself. That man made neither the wilderness nor the rivers flowing through it. They're mine as much as his. And I think I might value the wildlife a damn sight more than he does, on the whole.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 01:37 PM

No they're not -- any more than his car or his trousers are. Or than your car or your house or your trousers are his. Silly-ass!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:14 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the Intel Quad Core
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 05:26 PM

No Metro, your wilful ignorance of the law is showing again. You need to look up the difference between animals ferae naturae and mansuetae naturae. I am disappointed in you.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 07:52 PM

I was interested in who owns the coast and Jack Campin found out that a virtual cover up has begun in the last 2 weeks by Google.

Unless I was hoodwinked this information by Jack Campin is a great opening chapter for top shelf investigative journalism.

Sorry Joe Offer for my informal posting. I just don't have the time or inclination to research, foot note or supply numerous links.

Still I admire the care you put into mudcat contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 08:24 PM

I get really frosted when I travel the U.S. east coast, because so much of the coastline is private property. Same with the Great Lakes. Here in California, the entire coastline is supposed to be accessible to the public. There are rich property owners who try to get around that, but the shoreline is open to all for the most part.

I don't know what the laws are in Oregon, but it seems very easy to get to the shore wherever I've been - and I've taken U.S. 101 on the beautiful drive along the Oregon Coast a number of times.

I have a passion for lighthouses, which were all built by the taxpayers. It's really frustrating not to be able to get to them.

I have to add that there's something wonderful about the National Parks of the U.S. The National Park service has been able to take custody of many of the most remarkable places in the U.S., and to make them available to all. I spent last Thursday viewing the wildflowers in Death Valley National Park. The experience was incomparable. Take a look at my photos - Click (also Anza Borrego Desert State Park).

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Mar 16 - 09:34 PM

Someone made his car and his trousers, which their labour earned them the right to sell them to him in order to make a living. No-one ever made the river or the land. My house and my trousers are mine because I bought them from someone who either made them or who had bought them from someone who made them, or because I made them myself. But no-one made the land or the river. You are right-wing because you can't see the difference, whereas I can. You think that some kind of privilege of birth entitles him to own the river and the land, whereas I I think that they belong to me as much as to anyone else, because no-one made them. That isn't to say that someone shouldn't have the reasonable right to a piece of land over which they have expended genuine blood, sweat and tears in order to improve it, or that we shouldn't allow responsible bodies to look after and develop land for the benefit of us all in general. I don't do anarchy, but I don't do privilege either.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 10 Mar 16 - 03:19 AM

Hmm... Guest, it looks from that link as if Lloyd was trying desperately to find some retrospective justification for the Enclosure Acts, not entirely retrospective since it was still going on in Lloyd's lifetime and into the early 20th century. The Enclosures were the real tragedy, not the Commons which they destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 16 - 04:00 AM

Steve: I appreciate the force of your arguments. Not necessarily entirely convinced ("privilege" as used is one of those loaded and tendentious terms imo); but shall mull over the question.

My my, how much time dear old Dicky Pons-Asinorum expends being 'disappointed' in me. And how very witty of him to address me by the first word of the name of Cousin Louis B's company. All rather flattering, really.

≈☺-M-☺≈

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,09 Mar 16 - 05:14 PM
Date: 10 Mar 16 - 04:28 AM

not entirely retrospective since it was still going on in Lloyd's lifetime and into the early 20th century. It was Garrett Hardin's usage that I thought was relevant (to what Steve was saying, though he has since qualified his view). However...

It is still going on all over the developing world where governments are trying to find ways of funding things from their own economies rather than relying on aid. Things that most people would regard as basic rights, many included in the Millenium Development Goals. Progress to MDG (and onwards) being funded largely by aid. Aid that gives the 'developed world' huge political influence over developing countries

One aspect is whether or not smallholding really is more efficent at producing food from a given area of land than commercial farming. How is Mugabe's plan working out? I suspect it is hard to know without detailed 'on the ground' knowledge because, as with the Enclosure Acts, the narrative we get is biased by the political views of its source.

One narrative on the Enclosure Acts is that big farmers did get rich and people were forced to leave the land and become cheap labour in the factories (who's owners also got rich). Along with that though the UK developed an economy that put food on the workers tables, and in the 19C gave us imrpved health and primary education. For the rest of the eventual benefits see the MDG - things that it benefits our politicians if developing countires get through aid.

It is very complicated and political rhetoric rarely helps.

I am the GUEST who snapped at Jack Campin over his Gambella link earlier. (Are you reading Jack ?) I was surprised at that from him becuase he seems very well read about many issues.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 10 Mar 16 - 11:07 AM

"The land doesn't recognise the lines that humans draw"

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Stu
Date: 10 Mar 16 - 11:08 AM

Ooops! Forgot to credit that, it was written by Jim Causley.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 07:33 PM

Meanwhile in Scotland (again via Andy Wightman), how the Duke of Buccleuch conceals his wealth:

http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4454

It used to be said in the 19th century that the Duke of Buccleuch could travel from Aberdeen to England without ever leaving his own land. Not much has changed except for the ever-thickening web of lies around it.

You can bet that the US hereditary aristocracy does exactly the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Jack Campin
Date: 15 Mar 16 - 07:35 PM

Jack Campin over his Gambella link earlier

The word or name "Gambella" means nothing to me. I could never have mentioned it.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge on the Intel Quad Core
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 01:31 PM

Sometimes I get forgetful or forgiving, Metro, and expect civilised human standards of you. You of course like to brag about your linguistic excellence.

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 03:51 PM

I came across an article that said that Cruz and Rubio were attacking Trump for Trump's support of continued government ownership of federal land in Nevada.

For once, I agree with Trump. I don't want to see giveaways or bargain sales of government land. Leave it for the animals, the flowers, and for very restricted human use.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 05:13 PM

What do you expect me to do, Dicky Pons Asinorum — modestly conceal such knowledge as I may happen to possess? — as invariably do such uber-modest good-ole-boys as yourself, perhaps!

Dream on, My Dear-ickle Duckidaddles!

☺☺☺☺☺

Subject: RE: BS: ...this land is private property
From: GUEST, GUEST,09 Mar 16 - 05:14 PM
Date: 16 Mar 16 - 05:26 PM

@Jack Campin "The word or name "Gambella" means nothing to me. I could never have mentioned it."

So you hadn't read the article you linked above? This one: https://ig.ft.com/sites/land-rush-investment/ethiopia/