Political Identity Crisis; Am I Republican or Democrat?

[ParkCungHee]

Common sense, knowledge of the Norman Conquest (in the UK at least) and so on?

Knowledge of the abolition of Monasteries, knowledge of Surrender and Regrant, knowledge of the Ulster Plantation, knowledge of so many things could establish this.

 

[Berzerker]

Common sense, knowledge of the Norman Conquest (in the UK at least) and so on?

most of the land aint occupied and most of the land that is owned doesn't belong to european monarchs and aristocrats

 

[Arakhor]

most of the land aint occupied and most of the land that is owned doesn't belong to european monarchs and aristocrats

In the United Kingdom? Really? This isn't the United States or Australia, you know.

 

[ParkCungHee]

More importantly, that isn't relevant to the question of whether or not "most landownership descended from aristocracy." There's an important verb in there.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is it that land is only "occupied" when the ones living on it are white?

 

[Berzerker]

In the United Kingdom? Really? This isn't the United States or Australia, you know.

The rest of the world doesn't count?

More importantly, that isn't relevant to the question of whether or not "most landownership descended from aristocracy." There's an important verb in there.

When did landownership become limited to the UK?

Why is it that land is only "occupied" when the ones living on it are white?

And where did I say that? I never argued most land is owned (or occupied) by white people, you guys are doing that. I merely asked for proof most land ownership came from British aristocrats. There's a whole bunch of non-white people out there y'all are ignoring and here you are throwing around accusations of racism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

When did landownership become limited to the UK?

What relation does that hold to the distinction between what something is and what something is derived from?

 

[Berzerker]

you didn't answer my question, but if you'd like to argue most land ownership is derived from british aristocrats you'll need more than a small chunk of land in NW Europe while ignoring the rest of the world. sheesh

 

[Arakhor]

You never specified British aristocrats; our examples were drawn from the British Isles. Try not to get confused, please.

 

[Berzerker]

You never specified British aristocrats; our examples were drawn from the British Isles. Try not to get confused, please.

If I never specified British aristocrats, why are you talking about them? You're confused, KG said the following:

it is certainly true that most landownership descended from aristocracy

and I asked for proof and got references to the United Kingdom as if the rest of the world doesn't even exist. You jumped into someone else's discussion and didn't pay attention to what it was about, dont project your confusion onto me, please.

 

[Camikaze]

most of the land aint occupied and most of the land that is owned doesn't belong to european monarchs and aristocrats

In the United Kingdom? Really? This isn't the United States or Australia, you know.

With the exception of some allodialism in Scotland, the Crown holds radical title to all land in the UK and Australia. This ensures the supremacy of colonial title over native title.

 

[Arakhor]

and I asked for proof and got references to the United Kingdom as if the rest of the world doesn't even exist. You jumped into someone else's discussion and didn't pay attention to what it was about, dont project your confusion onto me, please.

I talk about what I know. It saves me rambling about ancient astronauts or suchlike.

With the exception of some allodialism in Scotland, the Crown holds radical title to all land in the UK and Australia. This ensures the supremacy of colonial title over native title.

That's really quite interesting. In the UK at least, that power is reserved to the Crown in Parliament (as I believe), to provide the legal basis for compulsory purchases.

 

[Camikaze]

That's really quite interesting. In the UK at least, that power is reserved to the Crown in Parliament (as I believe), to provide the legal basis for compulsory purchases.

Yeah, and I think it's particularly relevant in Australia, because there's a greater need to justify land ownership. Given terra nullius has been emphatically rejected (and rightly so), the only way settlers/colonials could have usurped native title and held their own land was through the radical title of the Crown (who gave Crown grants). Radical title is the right to affect property ownership; land is thus held on right of the Crown. And this right to affect property ownership was gained through invasion/settlement/whatever you want to call it. If the Crown did not have any such right to take native title, then none of its grants would've been effective, and all land that had been subject to native title* would still be held on native title. This right is now curtailed by the Constitution, which requires compensation for compulsory resumption (that word itself indicating the inherent right of the Crown to the property).

*If land is vacant, the radical title of the Crown automatically transforms into absolute beneficial ownership. So terra nullius, by saying that Australia was empty/unoccupied, meant that the Crown automatically had absolute beneficial ownership to all land in Australia; the Aboriginal population therefore did not. But just because terra nullius was a racist falsehood doesn't mean that there weren't parts of Australia which really were unoccupied, and in these parts the Crown's radical title, unencumbered by the existence of any native title, did crystallise into absolute beneficial ownership.

 

[Berzerker]

I talk about what I know. It saves me rambling about ancient astronauts or suchlike.

and you know most of the land owned in the world derives from british aristocrats?

you're welcome to quote my ramblings, but trying to change the subject when asked for proof is bush league

 

[Arakhor]

and you know most of the land owned in the world derives from british aristocrats?

No, that would be daft, as you well know, but given 800+ years of feudal land ownership in Europe, much of the land rights would be intimately connected with centuries of aristocratic or ecclesiastic ownership. There is the phenomenon of common land to consider as well.

 

[GhostWriter16]

After thinking about this again, the OP is probably more of a Democrat at the state level but more of a (moderate) Republican on the national level, if that makes sense...

 

[ZeletDude]

After thinking about this again, the OP is probably more of a Democrat at the state level but more of a (moderate) Republican on the national level, if that makes sense...

I don't see it

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't see it

Too bad