The Egyptian military has saved Egypt...

[Little John]

Land owned jointly by a dozen people is private ownership.

Land owned by an organisation which comprises a dozen people is communal ownership.

The private owners have the right to do whatever the hell they want. The organisation must, by law, have a set of rules for membership. There are laws on what those rules can and cannot be.

I need not go any further than that, and argue about what those rules are, should be or even what I ultimately think about the idea of open borders (I'm not sure... in a less aggressive conversation I might have explored the reasons why that is the case). All I pointed out was that the two scenarios are different and that criticism which equates the two is weak.

That is a false contrast.

If you really are trying to suggest that several people who choose to share a piece of land may only be described as communal owners if they express that communal ownership via a constructed legal entity, then your argument is still specious since this is precisely the legal arrangement of such communal ownership in many or, even, most cases. in which case, the inconsistency of your position still stands and which you have still to address.

It seems you are scrabbling around for corners in which to hide the inconsistencies of your argument Andysir. You're going to need to do better than that. Alternatively, you could always simply concede the inconsistencies and then seek to address them.

[AndySir]

That is a false contrast.

If you really are trying to suggest that several people who choose to share a piece of land may only be described as communal owners if they express that communal ownership via a constructed legal entity, then your argument is still specious since this is precisely the legal arrangement of such communal ownership in many or, even, most cases.

I'm afraid you're simply ignorant of the law on that one. Organisations (corporations, charities, community groups) are legal persons with very separate legal status and requirements. A dozen people who own a piece of land (or a business, or are party to a contract) do not have a separate legal entity - they are jointly and severally responsible.

[clv101]

A real world example of the above would be, say, where you owned a section of land in common with a dozen other people and where you parcelled that land out, but left certain large areas for communal use. Then, if an outsider simply moved on to (or otherwise consumed in some way) that communal area whilst promising to pay an annual contribution, you would have absolutely no right of refusal.

No more than 4 people can own a bit of land in common. Any more than 4 and the land has to be owned by a company of some kind. In your example the land would have to be owned by a company, the company could then be owned by the dozen people. If you wanted to parcel out the land, the company could sell leases to the owners of the company (or anyone else). The 'communal' land would remain in the private ownership of the company. If an outsider wanted to use it, they would have to agree a rent with the company (ie the dozen owners who may well all be directors). The outsider wouldn't be able to "simply move on" any more than I am able to simple move into your kltchen this afternoon.

[AndySir]

The outsider wouldn't be able to "simply move on" any more than I am able to simple move into your kltchen this afternoon.

Perhaps more importantly from a moral perspective the company would not be able to refuse entry to it's land based on race, gender or sexuality whereas you are perfectly entitled to refuse entry to your kitchen on whatever grounds you see fit.

{Edit: Was confused for a minute as to why the word... describing the place where you cook your food had been replaced by 'we are dodgy'. Spambot retaliation?}

[Little John]

That is a false contrast.

If you really are trying to suggest that several people who choose to share a piece of land may only be described as communal owners if they express that communal ownership via a constructed legal entity, then your argument is still specious since this is precisely the legal arrangement of such communal ownership in many or, even, most cases.

I'm afraid you're simply ignorant of the law on that one. Organisations (corporations, charities, community groups) are legal persons with very separate legal status and requirements. A dozen people who own a piece of land (or a business, or are party to a contract) do not have a separate legal entity - they are jointly and severally responsible.

I am well aware of the law regarding joint ownership as I have direct experience of it. You have not addressed the central moral point (which you yourself invoked) but are attempting to hide behind legalistic obscurities. Which is fine since it tells by-passers to the thread all they need to know abut the validity of your argument.

[Little John]

The outsider wouldn't be able to "simply move on" any more than I am able to simple move into your kltchen this afternoon.

Perhaps more importantly from a moral perspective the company would not be able to refuse entry to it's land based on race, gender or sexuality whereas you are perfectly entitled to refuse entry to your wearedodgy on whatever grounds you see fit.

Retracted:

[Ad-hominem is the last desperate tactic of those whose argument is lost.]

[Little John]

A real world example of the above would be, say, where you owned a section of land in common with a dozen other people and where you parcelled that land out, but left certain large areas for communal use. Then, if an outsider simply moved on to (or otherwise consumed in some way) that communal area whilst promising to pay an annual contribution, you would have absolutely no right of refusal.

No more than 4 people can own a bit of land in common. Any more than 4 and the land has to be owned by a company of some kind. In your example the land would have to be owned by a company, the company could then be owned by the dozen people. If you wanted to parcel out the land, the company could sell leases to the owners of the company (or anyone else). The 'communal' land would remain in the private ownership of the company. If an outsider wanted to use it, they would have to agree a rent with the company (ie the dozen owners who may well all be directors). The outsider wouldn't be able to "simply move on" any more than I am able to simple move into your kltchen this afternoon.

Of course they wouldn't be able to move on. I don't dispute any of that CLV as I am sure you are aware. I am disputing why this principle dos not extend to the communal ownership of the commons by the taxpaying citizens of this country.

[AndySir]

I don't see how these arguments are legally obscure, since you claim to be well aware of it youself. Nor how my comment to clv101 was an ad hominem. I was merely pointing out that we hold different moral and legal standards in these situations. That should, by this point, be obvious to your hypothetical passer-by.

[jonny2mad]

law of ownership comes from where govt, if you have enough people in a democracy you can write the law anyway you like .

Even not in a democracy numbers normally equate to power, if you’re no longer the majority it’s no longer your country, law history books matter little compared to might

[Little John]

I don't see how these arguments are legally obscure, since you claim to be well aware of it youself. Nor how my comment to clv101 was an ad hominem. I was merely pointing out that we hold different moral and legal standards in these situations. That should, by this point, be obvious to your hypothetical passer-by.

My post regarding the ad-hominem was a mistake Andysir, I thought is was addressed to me and also misunderstood its content and so I retract it.

The problem here is not one of different moral positions. Or, at least, that is a separate problem. The problem here is of inconsistencies in moral positions. Mine is consistent, yours is not. This is true irrespective of the agreeableness or otherwise of either position. Morally disagreeable positions, whilst being disagreeable, may still be philosophically and/or logically defensible. Inconsistent positions are defensible on neither front. Yours is indefensible unless you provide a way by which those inconsistencies may be eradicated. You may remember, Andysir, it's important to eradicate those inconsistencies in order to comply with the "categorical imperative" you apparently hold dear.

[clv101]

I am disputing why this principle dos not extend to the communal ownership of the commons by the taxpaying citizens of this country.

Indeed, and this is biggest problem with open borders. However - it is one we have overcome with respect to the assets bought and paid for with Lincolnshire County Council money and Nottinghamshire County Council money. Folk don't get upset about reciprocal sharing of local council infrastructure. Similarly, I'm allowed to drive on French roads, seek the assistance of French police officers and attend a French hospital (with my EHIC) whilst in France. The Frenchman has the same reciprocal access to UK commons as I have to French commons.

I don't see it has a huge leap to go from the situation we have between Lincs and Notts (which I presume virtually everyone is happy with) to the situation between France and the UK (which I presume most people are happy with) to extend the same agreement to the whole world.

We have many many borders in this world, delimiting pretty much everything you can think of - I'm of the opinion we put far to much emphasis on the national border.

In the perfect world there would be a whole hierarchy of borders with decisions being made at the appropriate scale; what to plant in the local park should be decided by a local committee and carbon emissions at a global scale. Our focus on the national scale is frustrating efforts to deal with transnational problems (multi-national corporations, global environment).

I see no fundamental reason why the would can't be managed with a hierarchical structure - but individual people have freedom of movement within the structure. Of course it goes without saying such a transition would be slow, gradual, even multi-generational. Some might argue the situation between Poland the UK was not slow and gradual enough - nor was it common enough. But that's no evidence to say it can't work.

I've recently been watching a documentary about Anglo-Saxon England and the formation of England from the seven prior Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. I imagine the folks in Wessex and Northumbria, may have had similar discussions about each other as we're having about the British and the Kenyans.

[Little John]

I am disputing why this principle dos not extend to the communal ownership of the commons by the taxpaying citizens of this country.

Indeed, and this is biggest problem with open borders. However - it is one we have overcome with respect to the assets bought and paid for with Lincolnshire County Council money and Nottinghamshire County Council money. Folk don't get upset about reciprocal sharing of local council infrastructure. Similarly, I'm allowed to drive on French roads, seek the assistance of French police officers and attend a French hospital (with my EHIC) whilst in France. The Frenchman has the same reciprocal access to UK commons as I have to French commons.

I don't see it has a huge leap to go from the situation we have between Lincs and Notts (which I presume virtually everyone is happy with) to the situation between France and the UK (which I presume most people are happy with) to extend the same agreement to the whole world.

We have many many borders in this world, delimiting pretty much everything you can think of - I'm of the opinion we put far to much emphasis on the national border.

In the perfect world there would be a whole hierarchy of borders with decisions being made at the appropriate scale; what to plant in the local park should be decided by a local committee and carbon emissions at a global scale. Out focus on the national scale is frustrating efforts to deal with transnational problems (multi-national corporations, global environment).

I see no fundamental reason why the would can't be managed with a hierarchical structure - but individual people have freedom of movement within the structure. Of course it goes without saying such a transition would be slow, gradual, even multi-generational. Some might argue the situation between Poland the UK was not slow and gradual enough - nor was it common enough. But that's no evidence to say it can't work.

I've recently been watching a documentary about Anglo-Saxon England and the formation of England from the seven prior Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. I imagine the folks in Wessex and Northumbria, may have had similar discussions about each other as we're having about the British and the Kenyans.

I'm sure they did. And I'm equally sure it was "resolved" by someone with a big sword and the will to exercise it in their favour who imposed new borders against the will of the people of those counties in order to further their own interests.

As it has always been. These days, however, the sword has been replaced with far more subtle weapons of coercion. The coercion is essentially unchanged, though, when push comes to shove. My primary objection, then, is the inconsistent and, in some cases, hypocritical bullshit spouted on here and elsewhere to cover up that central truth of power.

Just call a spade a spade.

[AndySir]

The problem here is of inconsistencies in moral positions. Mine is consistent, yours is not.

I think the problem here is that I have not taken a moral position, yet not only have I been ascribed one I have been told that it is inconsistent. Do you actually need me to post here, or would you be happier debating the imaginary AndySir in your head?

A secondary problem is that what I was saying is that your position is not consistent, short of requiring permits for every birth. UE might claim consistency there though.

[Little John]

The problem here is of inconsistencies in moral positions. Mine is consistent, yours is not.

I think the problem here is that I have not taken a moral position, yet not only have I been ascribed one I have been told that it is inconsistent. Do you actually need me to post here, or would you be happier debating the imaginary AndySir in your head?.

That's quite simply and, I must presume, deliberately untrue. You have made several assertions/arguments regarding property rights and the nature of borders on this thread. When you have been asked to explain the inconsistencies in those assertions, you have obfuscated. I have no intention of allowing you to drag me into the deliberate distraction of a pointless reiteration of who specifically said what and where since anyone can read this thread for themselves.

A secondary problem is that what I was saying is that your position is not consistent, short of requiring permits for every birth. UE might claim consistency there though

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

[AndySir]

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

That much is clear.

Perhaps a more interesting question is do you consider the land to be the common property (that which, as you mentioned, was taken and held by force) or do you consider the fruits of the organisation of government to be the common property (roads, schools, the NHS - that which was created by a common purpose... or at least the purpose of the majority)? It seems difficult to find any rule to justify ownership of land that was taken by force short of the absolute might makes right, the latter might be easier.