[Campaignforrealdemocracy] Is the land ours and can the legal system be side-stepped?

[Sally Wood]

Dear Mark et al, 

A big question I have is - Is the land really ours? What does common law and
common land actually mean and how might we harness this law if in fact it
does exist?

This group might be of interest to anyone not already aware of its
existence:

The Land is Ours
http://www.tlio.org.uk/

Legacy of colonialism forum
http://www.tlio.org.uk/issues/index.html

I have good links with them if needed. Don't know them personally but a
friend does.

Also, as we are loosely on the subject of what is law and what isn't, this
talk highlights the legal rights of the police (and the distinction between
police men/women and police officers) and brings to light some startling
claims re. the legal system existing as nothing more than a corporation and
our rights as 'citizens' within that corporation.

John Harris: It's an illusion - http://www.tpuc.org/node/558

And another (quite spurious) account of our legal rights and how it may be
possible for us to counter our legal system to grant us real freedom from
it. 

David Shayler: Shayler TV -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z-Xin2uhaI&feature=channel

I would really like to get these two accounts of the legal system checked
out by some more credible sources. Any ideas how?

The notion of both videos puts forward whether we can in a sense, stand
outside of the legal system so that we may be able to side-step that which
we understand to be deeply flawed and designed to be set against us.

A bit of background on the Shayler video:

I had a long chat with David Shayler who was on the banks of the Thames
following the Raven's Ait eviction just prior to May Day. Friends of mine
(Café Cairo) were due to be hosting a picnic with workshops and speakers on
living off grid etc. This didn't go ahead due to the eviction the night
before. There was a little gathering anyway on the opposite shore which is
where we met. Another good friend of mine has known him for many years and
says, as I did to David in person, that he would perhaps get more attention
if he didn't feel it necessary to make claims of his lineage to Jesus. David
agreed with me on this point but says that he feels compelled to make this
clear. Anyway, nice bloke, he is obviously driven to this as a result of
some quite unusual personal experiences which remain his own and not anyone
else's so it's difficult for you or I to fully take what he believes on
board because it is so 'out there'. However, he is intelligent and well read
(he seems to have a whole library in his head) and can cross reference any
question so I have to look beyond my judgements as I urge you to do in order
to see exactly what it is he is saying here.

Interesting stuff, enjoy :)

Sally Wood
http://sallyallypally.wordpress.com


“If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and
assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
immensity of the sea"


On 10/8/09 12:06 pm, "Mark Barrett" <marknbarrett at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi Frank

Thanks for the reply. In response to the question of how this
> relates
to feminism, I would agree with your broad points about
> 'nurturing'
being an archetypal (admittedly stereotyped) feminist quality,
> and
therefore a society that nurtures the best in us, allowing us to do
the
> work we are born to do (rather than what the market co-erces us to
do) would
> be a feminist one, or a non-patriarchal one (where
competivity is the - again,
> stereotypical, masculine quality).
Obviously a world built the logic of
> 'compete and win, or be "a loser"
' - whatever we chose to call it in terms of
> classification, is of the
latter kind, and therefore patriarchy in this sense
> is still in
operation.

Personally, again harking back to the very real role
> of many women of
both the competitive and co-operative kind (as mothers) I
> would like
to see the core of feminism embrace the core truth "it takes a
> village
to bring up a child" which seems to me to be the fem principle
> par
excellence and the place where lots of ideologies -
> including,
essentially, real democracy - and therefore potentially campaigners
> -
can  achieve singularity.

On a more practical note, for those not on the
> Project 2012 list,
below my mail is Dave Wetzel's response to your post. A
> link to more
info about collection of economic rent (LVT or land value tax)
> can be
found at www.labourland.org

Mark
PS my view is that in order to
> reconcile these two view points, we
need to campaign for the right to develop
> a parallel democratic
economy, one in which serious people are empowered -
> with state
finance and incentives, aswell as new political structures - to do
> the
very necessary work on these issues in the communities we inhabit.
Hence
> the suggestion about redirecting benefits. Our society now
workships excess,
> triviality, gain and fame.

Another people exist - as they have always existed
> - who would like to
challenge that way of doing things. At the moment they
> are
marginalised because of the enormous, seeingly
> invincible,
institutionalised forces at work but that energy, once tapped in
> a
concerted, visible fashion would be mighty indeed. So maybe a judo
throw is
> what is necessary..

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dave Wetzel
> <davewetzel42 at googlemail.com>
Date: 2009/8/9
Subject: [project2012] Re:
> [allgendergroup] Democracy & Full Employment
To:
> project2012 at googlegroups.com



Frank says "Buy the land and houses outright,
> so no-one has to pay for them,"

This idea presents me with a problem.
Where
> does the money come from to "buy the land...... outright"?
I believe that the
> common land was stolen from our ancestors. Not
least witness the Highland
> clearances and the enclosures in England.
So why should we "buy" stolen
> property?

Also, even if we were able to acquire the land fairly, we can't
> escape
the fact that different sites do enjoy different economic rent.
> This
arises because:

Some farm fields are more fertile. Some are on stony
> hillsides or too
wet or too dry to grow a reasonable quantity of crops.
Some
> retail sites enjoy greater foot fall and hence potentially more
> customers.
Some housing sites enjoy good transport links or good views.
> Others
are adjacent to the gasworks or a factory.

How would Frank suggest
> his system  allocate these different sites?
Who gets the most desirable
> housing land overlooking Regents Park and
who gets the site overlooking the
> local sewerage works or a motorway.
Who gets a shop site in Oxford Street and
> who gets one on the local
housing estate.
Who occupies an office site in the
> city centre and who has to accept
one in a suburb far from bus or rail
> links?


To answer these points I suggest we leave people to own buildings
> but
collect the full economic rent of land annually and use the proceeds
to
> abolish taxes, provide better public services and pay every citizen
a land
> dividend of equal value.

2009/8/8 fran k <frank_bowman at yahoo.co.uk>
>
> "it's
> been reported in the press this week that a quarter of the UK budget is now
> being spent on benefits, could we please have some list discussions about how
> this money might be harnessed to create a really democratic society, or to use
> the phrase previously embraced, greater local sovereignty (LS)?"
>
> Yes, I
> have a suggestion.
>
> Buy the land and houses outright, so no-one has to pay
> for them, now and going forward into the future, so that all present and
> future humans have the already legislated free right to life., but in real
> life too.  And realise that land grows our basic needs for free too, and water
> falls down free upon it.  Get the skills to obtain it, for gods sake, its
> interesting, and what we live to do, its our reason for living, as well as
> procreate.   Our basic needs are our life,  inseparable,  We are life, we are
> nature, we are the earth.  We were born as any other animal to live on that
> earth to feed from that earth without having to pay anyone whosoever one iota,
> to do so.
>
> Not all of the earth has to have a 'land for sale' sign dangling
> from it.
>
> Make the selling of basic food, water, and woodfuel illegal. Or
> rather promote it to be culturally immoral, and socially damaging. But not
> luxury food, water and and luxury items.  Who cares about luxuries?  Let them,
> the exciting adventurous competitives who love there sport and competitions,
> compete for their luxuries, as they do now.
>
> Just try doing a free give and
> take stall, without any rules whatso ever, and actually find out that if you
> give stuff away for free, for all people behind the stall and in front in
> equality, and rather than find that the stall empties, it actually expands to
> have more things than you could ever cope with or hope to store.  -   Its
> community, its friendly stuff, its what you could do, and whats never been
> done, in all those sorry empty churches, in the centres of our communities.  
> As well as having sharing stock warehouses at every skip resource site.   So
> that we are not shoving our individual unwanted, community resources down the
> pan everywhere, but sharing it to others who will make use of it.
>
> Stop
> paying lip service to the gift economy, and realise that it is a serious
> economy.  Which happens now..  and has always happened on a local level,
> perhaps you have seen the power of open source?
>
> Focus left wing ideology
> on basic needs.  Focus right wing ideology (the system we live in now), on
> anything else.  (let them carry on with their sport, but let us start to share
> the basics)
>
> Stop buying and selling the earth for basic needs, thus
> excluding people.  Realise that the future of the human race is what it has
> always been, a race, a competition, of winners to losers, and rather than
> science being used in an interesting "look and learn" academic future, the
> stars, the moon, and the cosmos, are really there to be exploited for
> business.  "Theres gold in them thar stars"    The powers that be are focussed
> on that.  Just like they colonised other countries to squeeze every last ounce
> of wealth out of them, they have their hungry eyes, now on the oceans and the
> stars.
>
>
>
> No matter how rich or fat you are, you only have your basic
> needs to feed. They are what is important, and they are what we are feared of
> losing, in this economic climate.
>
> So buy them, and finish selling them. 
> Just the basics, though. We are not greedy, We are not competitive, we are not
> jealous. Who cares about whether they sell the fat rich posh castles, luxury
> houses, and useless swimming pool, sauna stuff.
>
> Are you only motivated
> now, when there is a credit crunch?  What happens in a few years when the
> system gets back on track?  Forgotten about?.  God, Goddess, Earth you are so
> shallow.  We are so shallow.
>
> Culturally, prejudiciously, stop calling
> people who live simply, and have enough to live on, as being in relative
> poverty, as it is a slur, that they come to believe, that we come to
> believe.   Poverty is absolute poverty, and that is simply going under the
> level of the sustainance of basic needs, and healing and medical care, and
> security.
>
> To provide ourselves with free basic needs is a comparatively
> cheap and simple thing to do, with plenty of business left for people who wish
> to buy and sell all the other 1001 things that wouldnt be included in a free
> basic needs economy.   (however the system, relies on a hungry workforce to be
> available to have the economic  motivation to provide those other things, and
> they wouldnt be motivated anymore, and so the provision of free basic needs
> could see the collapse of the whole economy!)
>
> The above can be done by us
> using legal structures, the mutual IPS,  the CIC company, and the Limited
> liability partnership.
>
> Thanks for your well minded proposals Mark. I hope
> I have made a positive contribution.   I question whether most people would
> see the topic asked being relevent to feminism.
>
> (It actually is though,
> because it is about nurturing. and the empowerment of the oppressed, by the
> powerful oppressors, who promote the strong, and the demote the less strong,
> (in their eyes) but it depends on what your definition of feminism
> is)
>
>
>
>
>
> Frank.
>
>
>
>
>
> Then everyone can be assured of the
> basics.
>
>
> Money economy, exchange,  = scarcity,starvation of
> needs.       exchange is about me,me,me ,  about  winning, it socially
> excludes people and it physically excludes people.  Its death, death to the
> body, the spirit, and the soul.
> Gift economy, sharing, = abundance, all
> fed.            sharing is about us,   it is
> The gift economy, is community,
> voluntary work, family, co-operatives, open source, scientific knowledge
> sharing,matriarchical societies, free cycle, green movement,  permaculture,
> forest gardening, the earth.  www.gift-economy.com
>
> --- On Tue, 4/8/09,
> Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Mark Barrett
> <marknbarrett at googlemail.com>
> Subject: [allgendergroup] Democracy & Full
> Employment
> To: project2012 at googlegroups.com, civilisation at lists.riseup.net,
> campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org, allgendergroup at lists.riseup.net
>
> Date: Tuesday, 4 August, 2009, 10:32 AM
>
> Hi everyone
>
> As it's been
> reported in the press this week that a quarter of the UK budget is now being
> spent on benefits, could we please have some list discussions about how this
> money might be harnessed to create a really democratic society, or to use the
> phrase previously embraced, greater local sovereignty (LS)?
>
> I've sent this
> message to the three lists above as I've found them to be the most fruitful in
> terms of discussions on the topic of building a just society. If anyone has
> any other lists they can recommend for this end, pls let me know. On this
> subject please can people hit reply to all so that all three lists can take
> part in any debate that ensues?
>
> Benefits & Productivity
>
> For me this is
> the next stage of productivity in the industrial economy, the pursuit of a
> really democratic culture with full employment, freely chosen. So I had this
> idea that people could do a few hours work each week - what one colleague has
> dubbed a 'mini-job' - in return for payments. Say, an hour for every £10-15
> they receive. Key thing is that this work should be chosen BY the recipient,
> in collaboration with a local community of their choice, so that the work
> allows the individual to do what they would rea;y like to do rather than have
> the state force something on them as is the case with neo-liberal workfare
> programmes now being experimented with.. Obviously these kinds of decisions
> would need different, decentralised benefits 'purse-string' structures -
> essentially a breakdown of the currently unwieldy and wasteful nationalised
> benefits programme into a really democratic, ie each local community owned,
> public service. Of course there will be lots of questions about how this will
> work in practice, which is why I am posting about it now, but for me the huge
> benefit (sic) in this is that it will allow state expenditure to be directed
> towards the development of locally based creativity, community fabric
> building, green jobs, real democracy, individual and collective
> entrepreneurialship, and a re-embrace of the dignity of work. It will also
> allow people to wean themselves off benefits as they develop new
> skills, improved CVs, greater self assertion and confidence, not to mention
> the huge health benefits in terms of tackling isolation, depression, social
> breakdown at the root. It will get people off their backsides but not Tebbit
> "On Yer Bike" style, rather Rumi "Let the beauty that we love be what we
> do"..
>
> The way I see it, alongside the present economy, communities should
> be able to compete with one another for labour, by simply embracing a cultural
> stance. A mixed economy, two parallel economies inteplaying with one
> another rather than this monoculture of labour everywhere competing for
> capital, or else the indignity of the dole.
>
> Here's the story about 186
> billion benefits.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5962510/Unsustainable-soci
> al-security-spending-equal-to-a-quarter-of-goverments-budget.html
>
> Thoughts
> anyone?
>
> Love
> Mark
>
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes,
>
> Dave
>
> Dave Wetzel –
> CEO
> "Transforming Communities".
> Sustainable Transport Policies ▪ Public
> Finance with Social Inclusion ▪ Affordable Housing ▪ Economic Land Policies
> with Justice.
>
> Tel: 0208 568 9004
> Intl:+44 208 568 9004
>
>
> Mobile/Cellphone: 07715 32 29 26
> Intl: +44 7715 32 29 26
>
> e-mail:
> davewetzel42 at googlemail.com
>
> 40 Adelaide Terrace. Great West Road.
>
> Brentford. LONDON. TW8 9PQ. UK
> Web: www.LabourLand.org
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this
> message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project2012" group.
>
>  To post to this group, send email to project2012 at googlegroups.com
>  To
> unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> project2012+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
>  For more options, visit this group
> at http://groups.google.com/group/project2012?hl=en-GB
>
>
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>



-- 
"We hear men
> speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is
there no man speaketh as
> we speak in the 
> street.”

_______________________________________________
Campaignforrealdemoc
> racy mailing 
> list
Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mail
> man/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy