From capitalistManifesto
  • I committed a crime.
  • I was born on earth.
  • This planet doesn't belong to me.
  • Sometimes I think I diserve to have some of the earth to myself.
  • How dare I.
  • It belongs to someone else.
  • Their house their rules.
  • But they are benevolent.
  • They rent me some earth in exchange I make shapes
  • They tell me if I keep this up one day I will have my own piece of the earth pie.
  • But its too hard.
  • Some few of us succeed in finally getting a piece of earth after lifetimes.
  • But they don't get to have any of the good shapes they made.

Most countries have been populated for centuries if not thousands of years years. In Europe and Asia civilisation stretches back into the film distant antiquity. Prior to the rapid industrialization that began in the United Kingdom in the late 18th-century and had transformed the whole world (with the exception of a few isolated remote tribal communities) by the end of the 20th-century, countries were largely rural feudal confederations united by heritage of aristocratic land rights. These rights had been won by earlier generations, passed down along family lineages, their boundaries ebbing and flowing according to the vissisitudes of history and the success or failure of a particularly ambitious or degraded generation.

On the extensive land of a noble feudal family, villages and towns peopled by the progeny of serf and present classes had built up under the protection of their local land lord.









Analogy of private property owner with travelers camping at the foot of the garden. Generations pass. Travellers are settled and numerous, expanding their settlement at the foot of the garden. Seeing that they greatly outnumber the owner of the land, the settlers decide to take over the land and use the big house as a school and hospital and place of worship. The landowner family see this as a threat, a breach of law. The travellers see their rights as having been established by dint of the generations of living and toiling on the landowner's land. The two sides can't agree and violent confrontation looms.

Who is in the right here? Which side has greater claim on the land? Can the travellers take the land because they've lived on it for many generations? Or does the land lord have the right to evict the traveller tenants?

On a far larger scale is the city peopled by dense populations with land lord and tenants and growing middle class going through a history of coexistence under feudal law and then shifting to a similar dynamic to the landowner-traveller tenant, albeit on a larger scale.

In the end, facing possible revolt and overrun by the large landless population, the land owners brought the best of the tenant class into the "fold" by the LEASEHOLDERS compromise. In a sense the lineage land rights were diluted but the generational neo-feudal class were playing a long game. LEASEHOLDERS have time limit on their property rights.

Is the LEASEHOLDER compromise good enough? Is it just?

Whether you agree with lineage land rights or not, it's critical to understand the perspective of the landowner class. The descendants of feudal aristocracy, same as any landowning family with more recent acquisitions, feel the legal right is on their side and the demands to give up these rights for the sake of placating a population (many of whom are recent arrivals, no history of contributing to the country) smacks of injustice.