UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Fartsniffage]

Apparently 400=6 now.

Oh yes, 400. I saw the Grade II ones only, I think.

Either way, a few hundred houses, some trees and some noise. I don't understand the kerfuffle. I'm as much an environmentalist as most people, but come on.

I imagine you would if it were your house.

[Gormwood]

Brexit: Orwellian inversions: The government intends to introduce import controls on EU goods at the border after the transition period ends on 31 December 2020. So says Michael Gove, in an official statement, confirming our worst fears.

EU president tells Boris Johnson his latest Brexit plan is just no-deal: ‘We are fine with that’

Brexit: Border delays 'could cause fresh food problems'

i cannot fucking believe that we are less than 2 weeks into get brexit done and we are having THE EXACT SAME FUCKING SHIT AS BEFORE

Strong and (un)Stable.

[Kowani]

So... apparently the BBC had Grahan Linehan on to talk about how he's been persecuted by trans activists just because he wants to set up a TERF conversion therapy network.

The absolute state of the British press and British feminism jfc

"I'm being silenced" says man on national broadcaster.

[Novus America]

Here is a summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Spee ... ity_impact

So basically, some trees, a bit of sound, 6 houses and that's it?

I don't understand why people find trains ugly. We should give them all a nice coat of paint, make them chrome and shiny, so people actually like the look of them.

In the US we usually make passenger train bodies out of stainless steel.
You do not even have to paint them.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Oh yes, 400. I saw the Grade II ones only, I think.

Either way, a few hundred houses, some trees and some noise. I don't understand the kerfuffle. I'm as much an environmentalist as most people, but come on.

I imagine you would if it were your house.

Because they'll need to compulsorarily purchase those houses, and compulsory purchase is always, without exceptions, wrong.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Oh yes, 400. I saw the Grade II ones only, I think.

Either way, a few hundred houses, some trees and some noise. I don't understand the kerfuffle. I'm as much an environmentalist as most people, but come on.

I imagine you would if it were your house.

Pay them off at a markup. 150%, maybe 200% of the value should be good, eh?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I imagine you would if it were your house.

Because they'll need to compulsorarily purchase those houses, and compulsory purchase is always, without exceptions, wrong.

You should change your name to compulsory purchase then.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Because they'll need to compulsorarily purchase those houses, and compulsory purchase is always, without exceptions, wrong.

You should change your name to compulsory purchase then.

You can do better. That's on the same level as 'that's what you are but what am I.' 2/10 for effort.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Because they'll need to compulsorarily purchase those houses, and compulsory purchase is always, without exceptions, wrong.

You should change your name to compulsory purchase then.

Nice.

I imagine you would if it were your house.

Because they'll need to compulsorarily purchase those houses, and compulsory purchase is always, without exceptions, wrong.

It is not. Property is a legal fiction, and like any legal fiction, it serves the common good.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

You should change your name to compulsory purchase then.

Nice.

Because they'll need to compulsorarily purchase those houses, and compulsory purchase is always, without exceptions, wrong.

It is not. Property is a legal fiction, and like any legal fiction, it serves the common good.

There is no common good. If someone owns property in an area the state wants to build on, and he then doesn't want to leave, then that infrastructure project shouldn't happen, unless they can find a way of doing it without knocking the property down.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Nice.



It is not. Property is a legal fiction, and like any legal fiction, it serves the common good.

There is no common good. If someone owns property in an area the state wants to build on, and he then doesn't want to leave, then that infrastructure project shouldn't happen, unless they can find a way of doing it without knocking the property down.

There is such a thing as the common good. As in, what is good for everyone, instead of just one person. The law exists for the common good, to create a society for the good of the many, not just the powerful. Property law is just another law that is subject to that system. Property rights are not limitless, after all, and forced buyout it just another one of those limits.

[Ostroeuropa]

Labour party focus groups on why Labour has lost support are reminding us of reality again:

Partly because of this, some also felt the party had come toembody an excessively politically correct or “woke” culture, which would be intolerant of what they considered sensible, mainstream views: “Sarah Champion in Rotherham was booted out for saying the vast majority of child abuse groups were from ethnic minorities. She was speaking the truth, but because it was ‘racially insensitive’ it was, ‘oh, you can’t say that’. Why? It’s 100% true;”

+

“They’re classing themselves as liberals but won’t let anyone else have a different viewpoint;”

+

“You’re a bigot if you don’t agree there are 125 different genders;”

+

“They can be woke, but they can also be vitriolic. I’ve heard them say things to Conservatives where I thought, ‘well, that wasn’t very nice’;”

+

"The other day Jeremy Corbyn even did his pronouns! He said, ‘my name’s Jeremy Corbyn and my pronouns are ‘him’ and ‘his.’ You can Google it!”

+

“They knew us because they were part of us, but not anymore;” “I was born and bred Labour, they were for the working man. But now they’re all bloody millionnaires, loads of them have got three or four houses. They’re hypocrites;”

+

“Since Blair and Brown, Labour have become totally London-centric. If it doesn’t exist outside the Greater London area, they’re not really interested. They forgot about the real world. I can’t relate to what they’re talking about at all;”

+

“They don’t know whateveryday life is like here. Especially when you’ve got all the Lithuanians, Poles, all the ethnic majorities in this town. They’re just used to their own social life;” “They just thought ‘we’ll do what we think is right for the working-class people,’ but a lot of people have moved on from the 70s, thank God.” This in turn helped explain why Labour seemed not to represent them in areas like immigration and welfare, on both of which the party was much too “giving”: “they seem to want to open the borders for everybody;” “They want to go back to the old way when people on benefits earned more than I probably do.”

“They take you for granted in places like this that they think are the heartland. But if you raise something they don’t like, it’s like Kiosk Keith –the shutters come down.”

“They want everyone dependent on the state in one way or another.”


https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-conten ... OLLS-1.pdf


How do the members respond?

“They have been duped. If they are being spoon-fed bythe media, they’re probably not seeing both sides of the argument. If you get both sides of the argument, how could you come to that conclusion?”

The usual progressive shite of "You just don't understand". Fucking hell.


On Who the Labour Party is for;

"“It’s for young people and students, and the unemployed."

"Middle class people are the ones who appear on Question Time;”

" “It used to be that the Conservatives looked after the rich and Labour looked after the working class. Now the Conservatives still look after the rich but Labour look after people on benefits. No-one looks after the middle, the working poor;"

“Ethnic groups. They play that card all the time;”

“First-time voters. They’re all about dropping the voting age to 16. That’s because they knew they’d lost us;”

"a current Labour supporter probably lives in North London and they’re a college lecturer or something like that. A Hampstead socialist. A middle class radical;”

“It was for middle-class people in London who go on marches to get rid of Brexit.”

“My grandad always said to me, you always vote Labour. But I got to the point where I thought, I can’t anymore, it’s the end of the road. So I won’t say that to my lad when he’s older, I won’t say you always vote Labour.”

Brexit;

“It wasn’t so much Brexit, it was democracy. It was that they wouldn’t honour the referendum;”

“I felt let down. 17.4 million people voted leave, and we’re supposed to be a democracy. They threw spanners in the works and did everything they could to stop it. It was arrogance. They were no longer listening to the people;”

“It was a backlash against Labour disregarding Brexit. They were saying ‘it’s the adults talking now, leave the table and we’ll sort it out for you’;”

“When your own MP votes against her constituents, you lose faith.”

“It goes back to Gordon Brown calling that woman a bigot. He tarred her with the bigot brush rather than listening to what she had to say. It’s the same with Brexit.”

Corbyn;

“That woman who moved to ISIS, he said she should be let back into the country. That was a turning point for me;”

“His sympathies with Hezbollah and the IRA and all these different groups. He empathises with everybody;”

“He wanted to disarm the country;”

“He said he would never press the button. We need protection. He should have said he would, even if he didn’t mean it.”

“He’s anti-Royal as well. He refused to sing the national anthem.”

“He is not patriotic. He meets all those terrorist parties. You want someone with good old values.”

Very few of the former Labour voters in our focus groups had any regrets about not turning out for Labour in 2019. Even those who had stayed at home or switched to a party other than the Conservatives often said they were relieved at the outcome.

[SD_Film Artists]

“They can be woke, but they can also be vitriolic. I’ve heard them say things to Conservatives where I thought, ‘well, that wasn’t very nice’;”

As a Lib Dem I was taken back by how much some Labour voters believe in the 'yellow tory' thing. It's true that we're closer to the Tories on the political scale but at least with Brexit it was actually Labour who were voting with the Tories much more than the Lib Dems. The attitude is also dismissive of the fact that the Lib Dems are a political party in their own right with their own history. I think (whether they admit it or not) it's a tactic to hide the fact that they're not the only ones who are campaigning against the Tories. A Labour friend of mine could barely comprehend the fact that in my home constituency Labour has been in 3rd place for over 20 years.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

There is no common good. If someone owns property in an area the state wants to build on, and he then doesn't want to leave, then that infrastructure project shouldn't happen, unless they can find a way of doing it without knocking the property down.

There is such a thing as the common good. As in, what is good for everyone, instead of just one person. The law exists for the common good, to create a society for the good of the many, not just the powerful. Property law is just another law that is subject to that system. Property rights are not limitless, after all, and forced buyout it just another one of those limits.

It's not as if it's even 'the powerful' who lose out with compulsory purchase.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4447652.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... etal-works
https://hoa.org.uk/2019/06/heathrow-thi ... omeowners/

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

There is such a thing as the common good. As in, what is good for everyone, instead of just one person. The law exists for the common good, to create a society for the good of the many, not just the powerful. Property law is just another law that is subject to that system. Property rights are not limitless, after all, and forced buyout it just another one of those limits.

It's not as if it's even 'the powerful' who lose out with compulsory purchase.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4447652.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... etal-works
https://hoa.org.uk/2019/06/heathrow-thi ... omeowners/

If that's your argument, then you have misunderstood mine.

[Hirota]

Labour party focus groups on why Labour has lost support are reminding us of reality again:

Partly because of this, some also felt the party had come toembody an excessively politically correct or “woke” culture, which would be intolerant of what they considered sensible, mainstream views: “Sarah Champion in Rotherham was booted out for saying the vast majority of child abuse groups were from ethnic minorities. She was speaking the truth, but because it was ‘racially insensitive’ it was, ‘oh, you can’t say that’. Why? It’s 100% true;”

+

“They’re classing themselves as liberals but won’t let anyone else have a different viewpoint;”

+

“You’re a bigot if you don’t agree there are 125 different genders;”

+

“They can be woke, but they can also be vitriolic. I’ve heard them say things to Conservatives where I thought, ‘well, that wasn’t very nice’;”

+

"The other day Jeremy Corbyn even did his pronouns! He said, ‘my name’s Jeremy Corbyn and my pronouns are ‘him’ and ‘his.’ You can Google it!”

+

“They knew us because they were part of us, but not anymore;” “I was born and bred Labour, they were for the working man. But now they’re all bloody millionnaires, loads of them have got three or four houses. They’re hypocrites;”

+

“Since Blair and Brown, Labour have become totally London-centric. If it doesn’t exist outside the Greater London area, they’re not really interested. They forgot about the real world. I can’t relate to what they’re talking about at all;”

+

“They don’t know whateveryday life is like here. Especially when you’ve got all the Lithuanians, Poles, all the ethnic majorities in this town. They’re just used to their own social life;” “They just thought ‘we’ll do what we think is right for the working-class people,’ but a lot of people have moved on from the 70s, thank God.” This in turn helped explain why Labour seemed not to represent them in areas like immigration and welfare, on both of which the party was much too “giving”: “they seem to want to open the borders for everybody;” “They want to go back to the old way when people on benefits earned more than I probably do.”

“They take you for granted in places like this that they think are the heartland. But if you raise something they don’t like, it’s like Kiosk Keith –the shutters come down.”

“They want everyone dependent on the state in one way or another.”


https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-conten ... OLLS-1.pdf


How do the members respond?

“They have been duped. If they are being spoon-fed bythe media, they’re probably not seeing both sides of the argument. If you get both sides of the argument, how could you come to that conclusion?”

The usual progressive shite of "You just don't understand". Fucking hell.


On Who the Labour Party is for;

"“It’s for young people and students, and the unemployed."

"Middle class people are the ones who appear on Question Time;”

" “It used to be that the Conservatives looked after the rich and Labour looked after the working class. Now the Conservatives still look after the rich but Labour look after people on benefits. No-one looks after the middle, the working poor;"

“Ethnic groups. They play that card all the time;”

“First-time voters. They’re all about dropping the voting age to 16. That’s because they knew they’d lost us;”

"a current Labour supporter probably lives in North London and they’re a college lecturer or something like that. A Hampstead socialist. A middle class radical;”

“It was for middle-class people in London who go on marches to get rid of Brexit.”

“My grandad always said to me, you always vote Labour. But I got to the point where I thought, I can’t anymore, it’s the end of the road. So I won’t say that to my lad when he’s older, I won’t say you always vote Labour.”

Brexit;

“It wasn’t so much Brexit, it was democracy. It was that they wouldn’t honour the referendum;”

“I felt let down. 17.4 million people voted leave, and we’re supposed to be a democracy. They threw spanners in the works and did everything they could to stop it. It was arrogance. They were no longer listening to the people;”

“It was a backlash against Labour disregarding Brexit. They were saying ‘it’s the adults talking now, leave the table and we’ll sort it out for you’;”

“When your own MP votes against her constituents, you lose faith.”

“It goes back to Gordon Brown calling that woman a bigot. He tarred her with the bigot brush rather than listening to what she had to say. It’s the same with Brexit.”

Corbyn;

“That woman who moved to ISIS, he said she should be let back into the country. That was a turning point for me;”

“His sympathies with Hezbollah and the IRA and all these different groups. He empathises with everybody;”

“He wanted to disarm the country;”

“He said he would never press the button. We need protection. He should have said he would, even if he didn’t mean it.”

“He’s anti-Royal as well. He refused to sing the national anthem.”

“He is not patriotic. He meets all those terrorist parties. You want someone with good old values.”

Very few of the former Labour voters in our focus groups had any regrets about not turning out for Labour in 2019. Even those who had stayed at home or switched to a party other than the Conservatives often said they were relieved at the outcome.

I found the ashcroft poll tallied very closely with my own position. I would have been in the "2017 Lab to 2019 Con" category, and it's kind of reassuring I'm not the only one to have some very good reasons why I voted for the tories this time around.

I found the whole thing interesting, but this part stuck out for me in particular.

I totally agree. If Labour wants to get a chance of getting it's defectors back, they need to make some significant changes.

[Novus America]

Nice.



It is not. Property is a legal fiction, and like any legal fiction, it serves the common good.

There is no common good. If someone owns property in an area the state wants to build on, and he then doesn't want to leave, then that infrastructure project shouldn't happen, unless they can find a way of doing it without knocking the property down.

The sate partially owns literally all property in the state. You do not understand how property law works. You can own rights in real property. But you cannot own it 100%, the same way you can own a movable good.

This is why we have separate branches of property law for real estate, and movable goods.

[Purgatio]

There is no common good. If someone owns property in an area the state wants to build on, and he then doesn't want to leave, then that infrastructure project shouldn't happen, unless they can find a way of doing it without knocking the property down.

The sate partially owns literally all property in the state. You do not understand how property law works. You can own rights in real property. But you cannot own it 100%, the same way you can own a movable good.

This is why we have separate branches of property law for real estate, and movable goods.

First off, the idea that the Crown owns some residuary rights in all freehold estates is extremely misleading and has been rejected by virtually all scholars in land law, like Dixon and Goymour. A fee simple reverts to the Crown only in the event that a freeholder dies without a will and no next-of-kin (i.e. the entire list of potential intestate successors is completely-exhausted), this is a situation which basically never happens, so a freeholder is effectively the owner of the land in everything but name.

As for the idea that "you can own rights in real property, but you cannot own it 100%, the same way you can own a movable good", well, if you wanna get technical about it, the concept of owning the actual tangible object has always been contested as doctrinally-unhelpful by most English property law scholars, instead its better just to think of people as property rights-holders rather than owners of tangible goods. Increasingly, English courts in National Provincial Bank v. Ainsworth and Ingram v. IRC are accepting the idea of analysing property law through the lens of a 'bundle of rights' analysis, in the same as you don't own land, you own a freehold estate in land, likewise you don't own a car, you own a 'bundle of rights' in rem and in respect of the car, capable of being divided and subdivided and parcelled out to third party disponees at your discretion. If you put the freehold estate or your rights in the car up as security for a loan, you've subdivided those rights, separating the legal charge from the equity of redemption and so on. So there's really no value drawing this distinction any longer, in both real and personal property people are rights-holders in respect of property.

None of this undermines the normative heart of GVH's argument btw, if you are a rights-holder rather than an owner, it doesn't change the justifiability of State action that forcibly abrogates and undermines those rights. At best, this is a very semantic argument that isn't even descriptively correct.

[Novus America]

The sate partially owns literally all property in the state. You do not understand how property law works. You can own rights in real property. But you cannot own it 100%, the same way you can own a movable good.

This is why we have separate branches of property law for real estate, and movable goods.

First off, the idea that the Crown owns some residuary rights in all freehold estates is extremely misleading and has been rejected by virtually all scholars in land law, like Dixon and Goymour. A fee simple reverts to the Crown only in the event that a freeholder dies without a will and no next-of-kin (i.e. the entire list of potential intestate successors is completely-exhausted), this is a situation which basically never happens, so a freeholder is effectively the owner of the land in everything but name.

As for the idea that "you can own rights in real property, but you cannot own it 100%, the same way you can own a movable good", well, if you wanna get technical about it, the concept of owning the actual tangible object has always been contested as doctrinally-unhelpful by most English property law scholars, instead its better just to think of people as property rights-holders rather than owners of tangible goods. Increasingly, English courts in National Provincial Bank v. Ainsworth and Ingram v. IRC are accepting the idea of analysing property law through the lens of a 'bundle of rights' analysis, in the same as you don't own land, you own a freehold estate in land, likewise you don't own a car, you own a 'bundle of rights' in rem and in respect of the car, capable of being divided and subdivided and parcelled out to third party disponees at your discretion. If you put the freehold estate or your rights in the car up as security for a loan, you've subdivided those rights, separating the legal charge from the equity of redemption and so on. So there's really no value drawing this distinction any longer, in both real and personal property people are rights-holders in respect of property.

None of this undermines the normative heart of GVH's argument btw, if you are a rights-holder rather than an owner, it doesn't change the justifiability of State action that forcibly abrogates and undermines those rights. At best, this is a very semantic argument that isn't even descriptively correct.

Owning a right that is very rarely used is still a right. But that is not the only right the state owns.
If the state did not own some rights in land it that land would cease to be part of the state.

Your argument that we do can apply the bundle of rights analysis to many movable goods does not help your point however (the law is still different) and regardless the right to avoid compulsory purchase/eminent domain is a right you do not own.

I mean we can point out that basically ALL rights have some limitations and are not absolute, 100% is true, but it completely undermines your argument.

Because the state owns a right to claim your land in certain circumstances, and you do do not own a right that overrides that, the state is not abrogating your right.
They cannot abrogate a right you never owned in the first place.

The state has a dominant right in those cases.

Now sure because you still have other rights in the property that is why you get paid for them and there are other conditions that must be met. Those rights do not override the state’s right to make certain use of its rights though.

The simple fact is you an GVH are trying to claim rights you simply never bought or owned, which is quite hypocritical really.

You are arguing as to what you want to to own, and think you should be able to own.
But what you want to have and what you actually have are very different.

[Purgatio]

First off, the idea that the Crown owns some residuary rights in all freehold estates is extremely misleading and has been rejected by virtually all scholars in land law, like Dixon and Goymour. A fee simple reverts to the Crown only in the event that a freeholder dies without a will and no next-of-kin (i.e. the entire list of potential intestate successors is completely-exhausted), this is a situation which basically never happens, so a freeholder is effectively the owner of the land in everything but name.

As for the idea that "you can own rights in real property, but you cannot own it 100%, the same way you can own a movable good", well, if you wanna get technical about it, the concept of owning the actual tangible object has always been contested as doctrinally-unhelpful by most English property law scholars, instead its better just to think of people as property rights-holders rather than owners of tangible goods. Increasingly, English courts in National Provincial Bank v. Ainsworth and Ingram v. IRC are accepting the idea of analysing property law through the lens of a 'bundle of rights' analysis, in the same as you don't own land, you own a freehold estate in land, likewise you don't own a car, you own a 'bundle of rights' in rem and in respect of the car, capable of being divided and subdivided and parcelled out to third party disponees at your discretion. If you put the freehold estate or your rights in the car up as security for a loan, you've subdivided those rights, separating the legal charge from the equity of redemption and so on. So there's really no value drawing this distinction any longer, in both real and personal property people are rights-holders in respect of property.

None of this undermines the normative heart of GVH's argument btw, if you are a rights-holder rather than an owner, it doesn't change the justifiability of State action that forcibly abrogates and undermines those rights. At best, this is a very semantic argument that isn't even descriptively correct.

Owning a right that is very rarely used is still a right. But that is not the only right the state owns.
If the state did not own some rights in land it that land would cease to be part of the state.

Your argument that we do can apply the bundle of rights analysis to many movable goods does not help your point however (the law is still different) and regardless the right to avoid compulsory purchase/eminent domain is a right you do not own.

I mean we can point out that basically ALL rights have some limitations and are not absolute, 100% is true, but it completely undermines your argument.

Because the state owns a right to claim your land in certain circumstances, and you do do not own a right that overrides that, the state is not abrogating your right.
They cannot abrogate a right you never owned in the first place.

The state has a dominant right in those cases.

Now sure because you still have other rights in the property that is why you get paid for them and there are other conditions that must be met. Those rights do not override the state’s right to make certain use of its rights though.

The simple fact is you an GVH are trying to claim rights you simply never bought or owned, which is quite hypocritical really.

You are arguing as to what you want to to own, and think you should be able to own.
But what you want to have and what you actually have are very different.

There is a gigantic difference between how private rights and public regulations work. Public regulations are not rights, they work et al, they are exigible by the State but no one specific individual has a Hohfeldian claim-right or owes a correlative obligation in respect of that public regulation - for example, laws prohibiting you from possessing drugs, or evading taxes, or owning a gun without a licence, these are generalised public law obligations imposed on all, exigible by the State. They do not resemble the structure of a private right, be it a property right or a contractual right or a tortious/delictual right, where rights and obligations are possessed and owned by specific, identifiable, and singular individuals. One person owns the freehold, the other is the trespasser who injures or invades the private right, triggering a reparative secondary obligation, and so on. Your usual Goldberg & Zipursky 'civil recourse theory' explanation of private law as resting on private relationships.

This distinction is fundamentally important, because your argument essentially conflates the two or pretends this distinction doesn't matter. There are cases where the State owns a private right - if a public authority buys a plot of land, they become a property owner and acquire all the rights that a private citizen would have if they owned that same piece of land. If a public authority hires an employee, they acquire private contractual rights equivalent to that of a private employer in that same position. So if I were to argue that I had a right to trespass on public authority land, I would be claiming a right to property I do not own. Likewise, if I were to contest the Crown's allodial title, which is an example of a retained private right, I too would be claiming a right to property I do not own.

In contrast, public law powers and regulations, which don't arise from private law rights and obligations (i.e. a right that exists in an individual with definable obligations triggered only from a trespass or invasion of that individual right, like property or contractual rights) stand on a very different footing. The power of the State to tax, for example, isn't a private law right, its a coercive power and exercise of public or sovereign authority unlike that which a private person possesses. Same for most public regulations like consumer regulations, environmental regulations, health and safety laws. That's not to say these things are automatically bad - however, the same arguments that justify the existence of private law rights like contract and property (namely the Radin and Hegelian-Kantian arguments about personhood and self-determination) don't automatically justify the existence of overarching sovereign powers that don't create identifiable or transferrable Hohfeldian claim-rights that subsist and are wielded by singular individuals against persons who invade or trespass on that claim-right. Instead, these wider public regulatory powers have to be justified on a public interest basis - which is what the debate about eminent domain is ultimately about, whether there is a sufficient public interest argument for the compulsory seizures and conveyances in question.

The argument you are making is an attempt to shortchange this latter argumentative process by pretending this justificatory process is unnecessary by attempting to classify a public regulatory power as a private right - it's not. Eminent domain cannot be analogised to a public authority buying land on the ordinary marketplace and having equivalent powers as a private landowner, where the private rights in and of themselves furnish the justification for the State's desired course of action, qua owner. Instead, the State is not acting qua owner, it is acting qua sovereign, with a far greater scope and reach of power and authority that imposes a justificatory onus on those seeking to advocate for a use of that power in a particular fashion. I'm not asking that onus can't be discharged, but your argument essentially attempts to pretend that need to give a reason justifying eminent domain isn't even necessary because compulsory purchase can be analogised to the State exercising private law rights (i.e. the State's ordinary property and contractual rights).

[Novus America]

Owning a right that is very rarely used is still a right. But that is not the only right the state owns.
If the state did not own some rights in land it that land would cease to be part of the state.

Your argument that we do can apply the bundle of rights analysis to many movable goods does not help your point however (the law is still different) and regardless the right to avoid compulsory purchase/eminent domain is a right you do not own.

I mean we can point out that basically ALL rights have some limitations and are not absolute, 100% is true, but it completely undermines your argument.

Because the state owns a right to claim your land in certain circumstances, and you do do not own a right that overrides that, the state is not abrogating your right.
They cannot abrogate a right you never owned in the first place.

The state has a dominant right in those cases.

Now sure because you still have other rights in the property that is why you get paid for them and there are other conditions that must be met. Those rights do not override the state’s right to make certain use of its rights though.

The simple fact is you an GVH are trying to claim rights you simply never bought or owned, which is quite hypocritical really.

You are arguing as to what you want to to own, and think you should be able to own.
But what you want to have and what you actually have are very different.

There is a gigantic difference between how private rights and public regulations work. Public regulations are not rights, they work et al, they are exigible by the State but no one specific individual has a Hohfeldian claim-right or owes a correlative obligation in respect of that public regulation - for example, laws prohibiting you from possessing drugs, or evading taxes, or owning a gun without a licence, these are generalised public law obligations imposed on all, exigible by the State. They do not resemble the structure of a private right, be it a property right or a contractual right or a tortious/delictual right, where rights and obligations are possessed and owned by specific, identifiable, and singular individuals. One person owns the freehold, the other is the trespasser who injures or invades the private right, triggering a reparative secondary obligation, and so on. Your usual Goldberg & Zipursky 'civil recourse theory' explanation of private law as resting on private relationships.

This distinction is fundamentally important, because your argument essentially conflates the two or pretends this distinction doesn't matter. There are cases where the State owns a private right - if a public authority buys a plot of land, they become a property owner and acquire all the rights that a private citizen would have if they owned that same piece of land. If a public authority hires an employee, they acquire private contractual rights equivalent to that of a private employer in that same position. So if I were to argue that I had a right to trespass on public authority land, I would be claiming a right to property I do not own. Likewise, if I were to contest the Crown's allodial title, which is an example of a retained private right, I too would be claiming a right to property I do not own.

In contrast, public law powers and regulations, which don't arise from private law rights and obligations (i.e. a right that exists in an individual with definable obligations triggered only from a trespass or invasion of that individual right, like property or contractual rights) stand on a very different footing. The power of the State to tax, for example, isn't a private law right, its a coercive power and exercise of public or sovereign authority unlike that which a private person possesses. Same for most public regulations like consumer regulations, environmental regulations, health and safety laws. That's not to say these things are automatically bad - however, the same arguments that justify the existence of private law rights like contract and property (namely the Radin and Hegelian-Kantian arguments about personhood and self-determination) don't automatically justify the existence of overarching sovereign powers that don't create identifiable or transferrable Hohfeldian claim-rights that subsist and are wielded by singular individuals against persons who invade or trespass on that claim-right. Instead, these wider public regulatory powers have to be justified on a public interest basis - which is what the debate about eminent domain is ultimately about, whether there is a sufficient public interest argument for the compulsory seizures and conveyances in question.

The argument you are making is an attempt to shortchange this latter argumentative process by pretending this justificatory process is unnecessary by attempting to classify a public regulatory power as a private right - it's not. Eminent domain cannot be analogised to a public authority buying land on the ordinary marketplace and having equivalent powers as a private landowner, where the private rights in and of themselves furnish the justification for the State's desired course of action, qua owner. Instead, the State is not acting qua owner, it is acting qua sovereign, with a far greater scope and reach of power and authority that imposes a justificatory onus on those seeking to advocate for a use of that power in a particular fashion. I'm not asking that onus can't be discharged, but your argument essentially attempts to pretend that need to give a reason justifying eminent domain isn't even necessary because compulsory purchase can be analogised to the State exercising private law rights (i.e. the State's ordinary property and contractual rights).

I mean you can do all the long winded overly verbose semantics you want. But it is immaterial.
The simple fact remains that the government of the UK has a right to compulsory purchase/eminent domain (within certain restrictions) and you never had a right that is superior to that in any real property in the UK.

That is the cold hard fact. You never owned a right to refuse compulsory purchase (provided the right conditions were met).

[Purgatio]

There is a gigantic difference between how private rights and public regulations work. Public regulations are not rights, they work et al, they are exigible by the State but no one specific individual has a Hohfeldian claim-right or owes a correlative obligation in respect of that public regulation - for example, laws prohibiting you from possessing drugs, or evading taxes, or owning a gun without a licence, these are generalised public law obligations imposed on all, exigible by the State. They do not resemble the structure of a private right, be it a property right or a contractual right or a tortious/delictual right, where rights and obligations are possessed and owned by specific, identifiable, and singular individuals. One person owns the freehold, the other is the trespasser who injures or invades the private right, triggering a reparative secondary obligation, and so on. Your usual Goldberg & Zipursky 'civil recourse theory' explanation of private law as resting on private relationships.

This distinction is fundamentally important, because your argument essentially conflates the two or pretends this distinction doesn't matter. There are cases where the State owns a private right - if a public authority buys a plot of land, they become a property owner and acquire all the rights that a private citizen would have if they owned that same piece of land. If a public authority hires an employee, they acquire private contractual rights equivalent to that of a private employer in that same position. So if I were to argue that I had a right to trespass on public authority land, I would be claiming a right to property I do not own. Likewise, if I were to contest the Crown's allodial title, which is an example of a retained private right, I too would be claiming a right to property I do not own.

In contrast, public law powers and regulations, which don't arise from private law rights and obligations (i.e. a right that exists in an individual with definable obligations triggered only from a trespass or invasion of that individual right, like property or contractual rights) stand on a very different footing. The power of the State to tax, for example, isn't a private law right, its a coercive power and exercise of public or sovereign authority unlike that which a private person possesses. Same for most public regulations like consumer regulations, environmental regulations, health and safety laws. That's not to say these things are automatically bad - however, the same arguments that justify the existence of private law rights like contract and property (namely the Radin and Hegelian-Kantian arguments about personhood and self-determination) don't automatically justify the existence of overarching sovereign powers that don't create identifiable or transferrable Hohfeldian claim-rights that subsist and are wielded by singular individuals against persons who invade or trespass on that claim-right. Instead, these wider public regulatory powers have to be justified on a public interest basis - which is what the debate about eminent domain is ultimately about, whether there is a sufficient public interest argument for the compulsory seizures and conveyances in question.

The argument you are making is an attempt to shortchange this latter argumentative process by pretending this justificatory process is unnecessary by attempting to classify a public regulatory power as a private right - it's not. Eminent domain cannot be analogised to a public authority buying land on the ordinary marketplace and having equivalent powers as a private landowner, where the private rights in and of themselves furnish the justification for the State's desired course of action, qua owner. Instead, the State is not acting qua owner, it is acting qua sovereign, with a far greater scope and reach of power and authority that imposes a justificatory onus on those seeking to advocate for a use of that power in a particular fashion. I'm not asking that onus can't be discharged, but your argument essentially attempts to pretend that need to give a reason justifying eminent domain isn't even necessary because compulsory purchase can be analogised to the State exercising private law rights (i.e. the State's ordinary property and contractual rights).

I mean you can do all the long winded overly verbose semantics you want. But it is immaterial.
The simple fact remains that the government of the UK has a right to compulsory purchase/eminent domain (within certain restrictions) and you never had a right that is superior to that in any real property in the UK.

That is the cold hard fact. You never owned a right to refuse compulsory purchase (provided the right conditions were met).

"Cold, hard fact"? Sure, descriptively. But this, very obviously, isn't a descriptive debate. Its a normative one. GVH isn't arguing that compulsory purchase doesn't exist as a matter of positive law, he's arguing it shouldn't exist normatively because its not morally-justifiable.

[Novus America]

I mean you can do all the long winded overly verbose semantics you want. But it is immaterial.
The simple fact remains that the government of the UK has a right to compulsory purchase/eminent domain (within certain restrictions) and you never had a right that is superior to that in any real property in the UK.

That is the cold hard fact. You never owned a right to refuse compulsory purchase (provided the right conditions were met).

"Cold, hard fact"? Sure, descriptively. But this, very obviously, isn't a descriptive debate. Its a normative one. GVH isn't arguing that compulsory purchase doesn't exist as a matter of positive law, he's arguing it shouldn't exist normatively because its not morally-justifiable.

But the problem is you are still claiming a right you never had, never purchased, never gained.
Why should you automatically be given extra property rights you never had?
Now you are the one asking the state to give you some property right you never bought.

Seems hypocritical the state should give you property rights you never bought while you oppose the state giving things to other people.

You are actually making the same argument those make in favor of welfare, that the state should give you some property rights because it is the moral thing to do.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"Cold, hard fact"? Sure, descriptively. But this, very obviously, isn't a descriptive debate. Its a normative one. GVH isn't arguing that compulsory purchase doesn't exist as a matter of positive law, he's arguing it shouldn't exist normatively because its not morally-justifiable.

But the problem is you are still claiming a right you never had, never purchased, never gained.
Why should you automatically be given extra property rights you never had?
Now you are the one asking the state to give you some property right you never bought.

Seems hypocritical the state should give you property rights you never bought while you oppose the state giving things to other people.

You are actually making the same argument those make in favor of welfare, that the state should give you some property rights because it is the moral thing to do.

I can't speak for Purgatio's argument, but I've never argued such a thing, because I don't believe that the state should hold any right to land, save for land that is indisposed of due to very limited conditions (being part of an intestate estate for example.) I have not asked for the state to give people these rights, because I fundamentally believe that it should not have them in the first place: there being a difference between a belief that the state should give rights to people, and one in which the state should simply be deprived of said rights.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Lyra McKee: Man charged with journalist's murder

A 52-year-old man has been charged with the murder of journalist Lyra McKee in Londonderry.

He is also charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and professing to be a member of a proscribed organisation.

Ms McKee, who was 29, was observing rioting in Derry's Creggan estate when she was shot on 18 April 2019.

The 52-year-old, who is from Derry, is due to appear at Londonderry Magistrates' Court on Thursday.

Det Supt Jason Murphy said a number of individuals were involved with the gunman on the night Ms McKee was killed.

"And while today is significant for the investigation the quest for the evidence to bring the gunman to justice remains active and ongoing," he added.

About time. Though the actual shooter from what i remember was far younger than that, so i hope that cunt gets caught as well.