To think that we pay x amount of money to “own” x amount of land, seems counter intuitive to how we should be living on this earth. It’s odd, not from a political Marxist perspective, socialism, communism or representative democracy, in this respect they are not really that different to the structure of Fuedalism and its hierarchy of overlords, vassals and fiefs, whereby your position was inherited or assigned.
Historically, Roman law became English law customs, and legal institutions modified property rights through statutory enactments of local representative assemblies and rulings of common law courts. Property rights in land became a liquid source of wealth, to be bought and sold and used to obtain credit. Because land was the most basic resource, its widespread ownership became the catalyst for economic and political development. Ownership of land and minerals remained with the lord, church and state, its use delegated to privileged elites.
Unique to these laws, is the defining difference between ownership. There is fee simple, or contract on a piece of paper (most property ownership in common law jurisdictions are fee simple) and allodial ownership (real property the physical land, not the contract).
Accordingly, where access to property is widespread, politics are more stable. Owners have a stake in the existing political regime. Moreover, people acquire property through the market and do not mobilize for forced redistribution through revolution and revolt.
Coincidently the present day political landscape is highly volatile, happening at the same time as highly skewed property ownership has seen increased access to land ownership open to elites. A perverse trend for acquisition of property, wealth, and political power through the capture and then enlistment of the state, shielded by corporate structures. While it has become increasingly difficult to acquire land for the “working class”.
Those not in the club, ie: the World Economic Forum, (WEF) created in 1971 to merge public/private (fascist) partnerships, view things differently and rightfully so. Over the last 50 years the WEF have seen many representative democratic government leaders pledge allegiance to the forum without direct consultation with the people and consequently their agenda has infiltrated governments, as is the case here in New Zealand.
Ironically, WEF “members and partners” are also the inviolable elites (who also own the banks) who have benefited from uncongenial property acquisition and curiously meet each year at the (DAVOS) convention to discuss issues, like sustainability, climate change, poverty and the struggle of the working class. These self appointed leaders for the most part, are the cause of the issues, and are known to usurp authentic grass root movements like sustainability and dare I say it climate change for there own cause.
Most recently to have been quoted as suggesting that “we will own nothing and he happy” which begs the question if we the people don’t own anything, who does? They are the force behind engineering the emergence of the technocratic future; smart city/survelliance and controlled digital currency under the umbrella of the united nations; urbanisation agenda.
In the book The Great Reset, released by WEF founder Klaus Schwab in 2020 during COVID (viewed by those that see it differently, as an acronym for certificate of vaccination identification), readers are told that the future of civilisation: is more government control, exponential government surveillance, increasing taxes and less liberty, fast forward three years and these premises are alarmingly coming to fruition. It is important to note that within the WEF and UN organisation there are fractions, not all hold the same vision as Klaus Schwabb, or the premise of the great reset.
According to critics the book is full of false historical accounts particularly in the role and nature of government. As is the case with the New Zealand government, which has seen remarkable over reach these past 30 years, while you can build a house on your plot of land, the number of regulations have today exploded, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to do anything without the government’s approval, if land can be acquired.
“As Nassim Taleb explains, more government worsens the situation for a myriad of reasons but in particular because governments don’t have incentives to be efficient.” Perhaps more concerning is the vulnerability towards dictatorship and totalitarianism.
“Practices that could genuinely help society such as:
- The breakup of monopolies
- Lowering barriers to entrepreneurship
- Increasing access to education
- Changing the nature of education from theoretical to world-based
- Limiting junk food and other harmful edible
- Pushing for local consumption
- Decreasing taxes for small businesses.
are not implemented by governments despite the fact they have the means to do so.” – Aure’s Notes
Growing up as child in a nation that rewarded resilience, our “number 8 wire” attitude born from the ability to be resourceful and creative, I have seen the divergence of these qualities happening at the same time as WEF and United Nations economic and social ideology, has been woven into government policies.
For those with eyes that want to see, we are Witness to nations lured into a concerning state of dull conformity, a sort of consensus reality whereby everyone is expected to do what they are told, and if question why it is that way, are often censored bullied and ridiculed, by the consensus collective.
We indeed live in precarious times.