I notice that Jonathan Pearce, The Devil’s Kitchen and Tim are getting somewhat hot under the collar following the government’s latest proposal to deprive people of what is rightfully theirs.
In the Queen’s Speech last week, a Bill was proposed to change this. It would give the Government the power to establish a “corridor” at least 10 metres (33 feet) wide around the entire English coastline to which everyone would have access, whether or not the owner wished it. Land would also be made available for open-air recreation – or “spreading room”, as the Bill terms it – for public use. The Government is adamant that no compensation will be paid to landowners whose property is contained within the corridor.
I can only repeat at this point what these other esteemed gentlemen have said; this is theft, pure and simple; the naked greed and envy of the socialists writ large; a reminder that these people are evil.
There followed an interesting discussion on whether compulsory purchase is necessary for the public good. Ian B and Kay Tie crossed swords over at DK’s – Kay Tie usually adopts a libertarian approach and it was surprising to see comments such as “public benefit” being bandied about. If someone is forced to give up their land, then is is not for public benefit as one member of that public has just been dispossessed. Ian B argued – rightly in my opinion – that just because this had been used in the past to secure land for railways and other public amenities, that doesn’t mean that it is right or that it should continue. It is not right and it should not continue; it is deeply immoral and any civilised society that indulges has no right calling itself civilised.
Mark Wadsworth came into the discussion over at Samizdata and on his own blog. If you’ve followed Mark, you would not be over surprised to see that he recommends land value tax as a solution:
In the comments, I suggested Land Value Tax as a free market solution to the question of whether the State should be allowed to permit ramblers access to coastal paths even where they cross somebody’s land. I don’t think that The State “should” as it happens, but as a quid pro quo, under LVT, landowners would pay extra for exclusive access to the view over the beach, the sea and sky (which is what this is all about, really. I don’t see how the owner of a cliff-edge plot can claim to ‘own’ these) and came in for the usual ill-informed flak.
From a purely pragmatic, fiscal point of view, he may have a point. However, this argument is about something more than money, it is about emotional attachment. Those who will not sell no matter what the price are not motivated by money, they are motivated by emotion. When there was talk of garden grabbing, I was incensed at the possibility that my work, my creation that had been lovingly put together over a decade of landscaping and growing was at risk of being torn up and my environment enjoyed of a summer’s evening would be gone. No financial incentive would have persuaded me – whether directly via an inflated purchase price or indirectly through a decrease in tax – because it isn’t about the money, it is about something much more precious, it is about home and the vandalism of something of beauty.
Compulsory purchase is wrong. It always was wrong and it always will be wrong. If the state or developers want to build something that they deem for public benefit, then let them buy the land from those who want to sell at a rate decided by market forces. And if no one will sell, then just perhaps, they should take notice of the message they are being given. A society that does not respect property rights is no society at all.
And in response to Mark’s point:
OK, if you own a plot of land, as a true Libertarian you say “I can do what I like on my land” but as a faux-Libertarian you then say “But I don’t want my neighbour to do what he likes on his land because that reduces the value of my land”. But in restricting what your neighbour does, you are infringing HIS ‘property rights’.
It is the person who desires to change the status quo who seeks to affect his neighbour. If this is done without consent then it constitutes violence and is, therefore not libertarian. It is perfectly logical in libertarian philosophy to resist a neighbour who wants to change one’s environment for the worse. Do as you like, but do not cause harm to others.
All of that said, the government proposal is a triumph of gesture politics. In around eighteen months there will be an election and if there is any justice at all in the world, these nasty, corrupt, avaricious bastards will be swept from power never to return. Even if there is another Labour government, they have to get this through two houses and the opposition involved, before facing legal challenges that will see them overruled by the ECHR. Still, it makes a good sound-bite to appeal to the idiot class warriors out there.
You know what? I used to backpack the coast paths a lot, and even at the height of summer only once, repeat once, ever noted encountering more than twenty five people actually walking the bloody things in a solid eight hour day on the trail. I actually dug out my old walk diaries to be sure. All right, but this was during the late 80’s and early 90’s when supposedly the UK population wasn’t so indolent and lardy. Hardly anyone used the gods damn things apart from the occasional masochist like me. Volunteers clear the Devon and Cornwall coast paths every few weeks during spring and summer because there isn’t enough regular foot traffic to keep the paths clear.
However, as you rightly point out, this is gesture politics writ large, and only benefits a few ‘Ramblers’. The current UK Government only wants to divert the publics’ attention from what a crap job it’s really doing. I’m glad I don’t live there any more.
Mister Joness last blog post..Snow on the road
I recall walking parts of the Pembroke coast during the eighties. Hardly met a soul.
It is strange that modern libertarians always defend the rights of private property when previously the lovers of liberty stood for the rights of free-born Englishmen to wander where they would.
“There once were lanes in Nature’s freedom dropt
There once were paths that every valley wound
Enclosure came and every path was stopt
Each tyrant fixed his sign where paths were found”
John Clare
Enclosing a traditional pathway is surely a serious matter
, involving deep emotions on the part of the public in general. It is hard to see why opening a new pathway in a very Enclosed landscape is much different in its implications.Gesture politics this may be but it raises some old festering issues: such as Enclosure. Going to a nearby pub , you have in a Northampton suburb to skirt a 10foot high wall, in perfect order which runs for two miles round an enclosed estate.It and the many like it in Northants make the Berlin Wall look temporary and half-hearted.
It is difficult to see the consistency of those who would defend the right to wander where they like over the Internet and deny the right to themselves and others to wander the shores of their own country.
This isn’t about the right to walk; it is about taking by force and without any compensation. There is only one word to describe such behaviour and that word is “theft”.
I have no problem whatsoever about walking around someone’s property. They own it, they do as they please with it – providing they do not cause harm to others. Other landowners are happy to allow walkers – but the same applies; do no harm. If landowners decide that gates left open, harm to livestock, litter and so on is a sufficient nuisance, then they might decide that enclosure is appropriate. I fully support them in doing so. Frankly, I wouldn’t want a bunch of strangers walking through my garden – as a friend of mine had to endure. We’d be busy working on his bikes in the garage while streams of ramblers ambled along his driveway peering in at us like we were animals in a zoo. He put up with it, I wouldn’t.
It’s all a matter of balance in the end and one of the weights in the balance (or it damn well should be) is the right to privacy.
I have no problem whatsoever about walking around someone’s property. They own it, they do as they please with it – providing they do not cause harm to others
However they can’t do what they please with it, not since time immemorial. Private land is criss-crossed by public rights of way and landowners have no moral nor legal right to encroach upon the right of the public to use those paths. “I wouldn’t want a bunch of strangers walking through my garden”. This sounds like a reprise of the arguments against ‘right to roam’. Though I don’t recall any small private gardens being thrown open to the monstrous tribe of hairy ramblers. I think that DBC Reed has it about right. In the past lovers of liberty would have championed the rights of Englishmen to roam peaceably over their country. If we are going to start making accusations of theft then we should be rigorously consistent about it and recognise the enclosures of common land in the 17th and 18th centuries as theft with violence. In which case, if something was stolen 250 years ago it cannot be theft if it is returned to its original common land status. There can be no moral statute of limitations on the orginal theft.
I haven’t read the government’s proposals so I don’t know whether I would agree them or not. I suspect that this is political grandstanding that won’t make a great deal of difference. If sufficient safeguards – to compensation or other exceptions based on current use or practicality – are not included then the government will lose in the House of Lords or the ECHR.
The Government is adamant that no compensation will be paid to landowners whose property is contained within the corridor
If that is true the Labour is setting itself up for another defeat under the Human Rights Act. Article 1 says that “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law” Confiscation without compensation would be a clear violation of that article.
The right to roam argument is all fine and dandy when we are talking about acres and acres of moorland for example. The one I cited was, indeed, a small private garden where the public footpath traversed his driveway, past the kitchen door and the garage. What should have happened is that the right of way should have been rerouted. My personal solution would be not to buy such a property in the first place. I place too high a value on my privacy to tolerate such intrusions.
Lovers of liberty understand all concepts of liberty – that includes property rights, the right to protect one’s crops, livestock and land should that be necessary and personal privacy. Where the right to roam infringes on those aspects, then the right to roam is the equivalent of your right to swing your fist.
My position here is entirely consistent with libertarian philosophy – do as you will, but do not harm others. When the right to roam causes harm, I am opposed. Where it does not, I am in favour.
I disagree with you on statutes of limitations. I cannot and will not take responsibility – morally or legally – for acts carried out a couple of centuries before I was born. Land I buy is mine as I have paid the seller. That, frankly, should be the end of the matter.
As I pointed out in my final paragraph, this is I suspect, political grandstanding. This late in a parliament, they have no hope of getting it through anyway. For the most part, you can walk much of our coastline without hindrance – there is plenty for everyone, so why not just leave it alone? Oh, that’s right, there’s votes in it. Cynical or what?
The one I cited was, indeed, a small private garden where the public footpath traversed his driveway, past the kitchen door and the garage. What should have happened is that the right of way should have been rerouted
Though that wouldn’t be right to roam. Anyone who purchased a property with an extant public right of way running through its land has no cause for complaint. There do exist statutory means of rerouting public rights of way, so in practice I don’t this is much of an issue. But it rightfully the landowner’s responsibility to initiate that process if he cares enough about it.
Lovers of liberty understand all concepts of liberty – that includes property rights, the right to protect one’s crops, livestock and land should that be necessary and personal privacy. Where the right to roam infringes on those aspects, then the right to roam is the equivalent of your right to swing your fist
However right to roam legislation explicitly excluded cultivated land. The scare stories about crops being trampled by unruly hikers exercising their right to roam never came about.
I disagree with you on statutes of limitations – I cannot and will not take responsibility, morally or legally – for acts carried out a couple of centuries before I was born
I don’t think you can have it both ways. If you assert absolute rights of property for yourself then you can’t deny those same rights to people who were dispossessed in the past. Either property rights are absolute or they are not. Personally I agree with you that putting right the wrongs common land encroachment now would be impracticable and would probably cause more injustice. But then I don’t believe in absolute property rights.
There is no argument.It is theft.Go down this road and I reach for a gun.
Given that they’ve been dead this past two centuries, I can and do. How far should we go back? Why stop at two centuries? Let’s go back to the Vikings or the Romans… Yes, of course I’m being silly.
We agree that we cannot correct injustices of the past, so we have to start from where we are and that is; some land is privately owned. Being a keen walker I am well aware that many land owners do recognise the right to roam and good for them. But if for whatever reason they choose not to; because ramblers don’t respect the property over which they walk for example; then I would support their decision.
Bottom line here; this isn’t and never was about the right to roam, it’s about an avaricious government engaging in the politics of envy. They are not asserting the right to roam, they are seeking to steal the land from its owners.
Yes, it is theft but again, what can the common man do?
jameshighams last blog post..[weather] giving nature some assistance
Of course, CPO’s are A Bad Thing. That’s easy. I also have a lot of sympathy for the view that all taxation is theft. By the same token, I can also understand why people say that land ownership is theft. So why not make the punishment fit the crime?
BTW, nobody is forced to ‘own’ land – we all have the choice of being tenants – you just pay for the market value of what you get and if you don’t like it you move. That way you have no upside or downside risk. If you want to ‘own’ land, then yes, benefits accrue to you from this (in the long term, you will always beat inflation by a few per cent) but is it so terrible if this is offset with a modest tax?
For example, the gummint’s idea that ‘home owners’ should be allowed to have a two-year interest free holiday at taxpayers’ expense, is, IHMO repulsive. That is merely the extreme form of making income tax payers pay for benefits that accrue to home owners (notwithstanding that the two groups largely coincide). Is it so terrible to make landowners pay towards the benefits that accrue to them in their capacity as landowners?
Mark Wadsworths last blog post..Q: When is ‘social engineering’ not ‘social engineering’?
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, Longrider. Please correct me if I am in error. You appear to see land ownership as sacrosact and that any state or community imposed limitation on how a landowner may use his land as tantamount to theft. I would say that this is a really quite revolutionary notion and has no grounding in English common law, which has always recognised that land ownership confers obligations as well as rights. By extension, I have no problem in principle with the forced purchase of land, provided it is done in lawfully in the genuine public interest and just compensation is paid. Though of course I might have objections to those powers being used in a specific case. It would all depend on the circumstances.
Stephen, I suspect you did misunderstand. My position is that the right to roam and land ownership should be able to be resolved amicably with a little give and take on either side – it does not need the state to intervene and it most certainly does not need the state to steal land; which is what this proposal amounts to. In the event of dispute, my sympathies will generally rest with the landowner for the reasons I’ve given above – although, not always, it depends on who is being unreasonable. I don’t, for example, disapprove of the principle of planning application laws as properly imposed they prevent landowners impinging on their neighbours to their detriment. I do not, nor ever have subscribed to an ideology of absolute and unconditional freedoms – it’s back to the swinging fist again. I’m firmly in the Mill and Locke camp.
Mark:
Land ownership isn’t theft, therefore there should be no punishment. Unless you subscribe to the view that the sins of the fathers should be visited on the sons? I don’t.
Yes, it is and I don’t agree with it. People who overreach themselves have only themselves to blame. But that’s bad government and not the fault of home owners. I will see no benefit from this proposal and wouldn’t seek it anyway – because I disagree with it. Why, therefore should I be punished for bad governance, because that is what it amounts to.
The old rates system was deemed unfair because it penalised homeowners and others got away without paying at all for the benefits being bought. LVT is in danger of straying back along that path.
Longriders last blog post..Brendan O’Neill on the Irish EU Referendum
LR, there are two equally valid suggested solutions to keeping property prices low and stable and/or balancing competing property rights:
1) The first is completely liberalising all planning restrictions, so that everybody does what he wants with his own land. If prices get too high in the suburbs, then owners of green belt land would just build some new houses there.
As far as the ‘cliff edge problem’ is concerned, I oppose CPO’s, for example, but in this scenario, the local council would be perfectly entitled to erect a new walkway above the beach so that local residents (were they willing to pay for it) could enjoy the view. The fact that the existing land-owner’s view is impaired is of no concern to the council (as owner of the beach), this being an ‘every man for himself’ scenario.
Again, if Bristol Rovers want to build a new stadium, then they do so.
You have made it quite clear you oppose this approach.
2) The other is to balance competing rights via Land Value Tax, as I have explained at length. In the case of Bristol Rovers, local home-owners are relying on The State to prevent BR from doing what they want, so local home-owners’ gain is Bristol Rovers’ loss. If you and your fellow residents had approached Bristol Rovers and offered to buy their land off them for full market value and then collectively decided not to build a stadium, that would have been fine. In the absence of your willingness to do so, it seems perfectly fair to me to do this via the tax system.
You have made it clear that you oppose this approach.
3) There is then a view (which you appear to hold) that land owners have a special status. They are allowed to restrict the rights of other do what they want, but need not pay for it. So no liberalising planning laws and NO LVT.
4) Personally, I’d prefer the stick AND carrot, I’d liberalise planning laws AND introduce an annual flat rate tax on all location or property values (as ever, I would use LVT to replace Council Tax, Business Rates, Stamp Duty Land Tax, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax – and NOT as an additional tax).
If option 4) is not up for grabs, I’d prefer 1) or 2) to the existing position – which you appear to be defending.
Mark Wadsworths last blog post..Q: When is ‘social engineering’ not ‘social engineering’?
Fortunately for Bristol Rovers, they didn’t own the land – they were seeking to buy it.
I don’t believe that land owners have “special” status, I merely object to others imposing upon them in a manner that is detrimental – this is basic libertarian philosophy. Going back to the Bristol Rovers scenario, they could have bought land where people did want a stadium – there was out of town development going on at the time and getting in on that would have been a solution. Building it on the edge of a quiet residential area was not.
Planning laws have their place if used appropriately. I’ll give an example from personal experience. My father wanted to convert an old barn in the Welsh hills into a family home back in the seventies. His first application was rejected as the planning officer deemed that it was out of keeping with the area. It turned out that the attic windows in his design had flat roofs and the local architecture favoured dormer roofs. Dad put this right and the plans went through. That it never got built is another story. I believe that the planning officer applied sensible and pragmatic rulings and I see similar approaches being applied in France. This is again entirely in keeping with my philosophy – do as you will, but do no harm. If you liberalise planning laws to the point where people can knock up carbuncles, then harm is being done. So, again, balance in all things.
What I’m objecting to here is the land owner being hit for tax on matters that will ultimately be out of his control. I find the idea that an organisation can attempt to intrude on local residents and the tax office impose a tax based on not having the intrusion. Sorry, that’s just not on.
Well, in your case it would not actually have been a “tax based on not having the intrusion”, it would have been “no tax reduction because the council preserved the status quo”.
Had the council nodded it through and it turned out to be an unpopular addition, you would have got a tax reduction.
And so on.
Mark Wadsworths last blog post..Well do they or don’t they?
But tax should play no part in the outcomes one way or another. That’s what I mean when I talk of social engineering. It’s not up to the council or the state to incentivise through tax.
Longriders last blog post..I don’t Say This Often…
“It’s not up to the council or the state to incentivise through tax.”
Correct. Councils should merely raise the bare minimum of money they need to cover the cost of providing those services that are of value to the taxpayer (in my model, local property owners).
If you look at local councils (admittedly through rather rose tinted glasses) as ‘mutually owned service providers’, is it not better for them to charge for the VALUE of their services, than it is for them to FORCE you to pay for the COST?
Half a free market is better than none; if the revenue they get from charging for the VALUE of their services exceeds the COST of providing them, then this is A Good Thing, they are making a surplus like any well run business
But as councils are appointed by, and run for, the benefit of local residents, businesses and taxpayers, that surplus could and should be returned via tax cuts (rather than e.g. gold plated pensions for council officials) which can be enforced through the ballot box; until we reach a stage where the money that councils receive is equal to the VALUE of what they provide is equal to the COST of providing those services. That to my mind is the least bad form of taxation.
On DK’s thread some people said (this may or may not include you, I can’t be bothered to check) that all in all, they preferred income tax to property-related taxes. That to me smacks on FORCING people to pay towards the COST of what the gummint does, irrespective of whether it has any VALUE (like five a day advisors and climate change officers and all the other nonsense) to the person making the payments.
—————————
Further, there is such a thing as Bad Social Engineering, like the council allowing gyspies to occupy a site anywhere near anybody.
But the flipside must be that there is Good Social Engineering, i.e. evicting said gypsies or not allowing them to stay there in the first place.
If the local council in this example does Good Social Engineering, this benefits local property owners, why is it wrong for them to pay towards the value of this protection?
For the zillionth time, LVT could and should REPLACE existing property/wealth related taxes, each of which is, intentionally or not, ‘social engineering’ and/or distortionary on a massive scale (Council Tax less Council Tax Benefit, Business Rates, Stamp Duty Land Tax, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, s106 agreements, planning gains supplements etc).
Here endeth.
Mark Wadsworths last blog post..Well do they or don’t they?