We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Another property grab Following on my from recent SQOTD about property rights, it seems poignant to link to this item by Roger Thornhill.
This issue is also related to that of compulsory purchase/eminent domain that I wrote about some time ago. It is also somewhat related to the idea that the government is entitled to take money out of “dormant” bank accounts if, after a certain period, the account-holder does not use the account. The assumption seems to be, that if in doubt, it belongs to the collective.
Well sod that, quite frankly.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
You know, if things keep carrying on like this, I may be forced to start doubting the wisdom of socialism.
The doctrine of ESCHEAT, whereby the state takes over “unclaimed” properties derives from the “Right” (read: power) of the monarchy or feudal lord; which, in turn was justified by the propaganda that the Lord was responsible for all properties within his jurisdiction (basically, he could sieze them anyway).
Property “Rights” are really the rights of individuals with respect to their relationship to material (usually physical) things. Those particular rights like most others are actually comprised of the commonality of recognized obligations of others not to interfere in those relationships, except under certain generally accepted circumstances (Coke’s Rule, e.g.).
Those obligations extend to others (the public, politicians, interest groups, etc. – the “collective”) acting by and through governments or any other agents.
Gad! This is getting to be a ramble. But, Property was my best subject in Law School – though I had not thought things through back then in 1951.
Somebody ought to tell Roger that his policy of using scads of strikethrough makes his site difficult to read and childish-looking.
Did he actually have anything good to say?
Escheat (in current usage) only applies to truly “unclaimed” properties, where no one knows who the owner is or he can’t be located. It is rarely applied to anything other than dormant bank accounts, which generally are very small. (It can also apply when someone dies without a will or legal heirs, but the laws of intestate distribution require a thorough exploration of ancestors and their progeny, so escheat in those cases is highly unusual.) At some point it becomes prohibitively expensive for a bank to maintain small dormant accounts, and they need to turn them over to somebody (they don’t claim them for themselves). Frankly, I don’t have much of a problem with turning them over to the state; no one else has any better claim.
But claiming the right to “manage” unoccupied properties is something quite different, and quite extraordinary. There is no question about ownership, and if the state rents out the property the net income goes to the owner. And certainly the owner is responsible for paying the real estate taxes whether or not the property is occupied (if they’re not paid the property would be forfeited at tax sale), so this has nothing to do with state revenues. What this comes down to is simply the state frowning on the existence of unoccupied properties. Too bad. I can’t see any legal basis for claiming the right to take them over merely on that basis. Has no one challenged this? Especially since apparently the power has been exercised only 20 times in three years; doesn’t that smack of selective enforcement?
Laird, if anyone – in the absence of a will or some other claim – has a right to take over the deposits held in a “dormant” account, it is probably the bank itself, rather than the government, I would have thought.
Totally agree with your analysis on the latter point. After all, a person might leave a property vacant for an entirely rational economic reason and pay taxes on it;frankly, I don’t see the economic justification for seizing such properties. If our land-use planning and zoning restrictions were eased, such measures would be unnecessary anyway.
J.P. is correct – this idea is quite fashionable.
And, like confiscating bank accounts, it is not just the Labour party.
“Two Brains” Witless was quite keen on stealing bank accounts (rather than finding their owners).
As for stealing houses – it is the comming thing.
One wonders what the thieving scum will come up with next.
Maybe they will start down the path of determining whether our properties are “under-occupied”, and come up with a law that forces us to take in the homeless, or even force us to move out of our own houses into tiny council flats, so thay can move in huge families on benefits.
Actually, under most escheat laws of intangibles, a valid claimant can recover either the asset or its “value” from the state. There are professionals who track this stuff.
In its original form, for land use, a principal function of its use was to prevent land (and productive facilities) from being laid idle. That would cut into the revenue of the monarch or lord. Sounds a bit like the current matter?
Guess it just depends on where the power of the “Lord” (not the Deity) rests.
This has already happened and the story can be read about in this novel.
Ted, I think Mr Thornhill is using the strike-through function to demonstrate his sarcasm. Sarcasm may be a low form of wit, but in the current climate, it is understandable.
Escheat law works rather well. Probably because there has been little to gain by trying to change it. The amounts are usually small.
Traditionally, vigorous efforts are made to find the owner. But there is a limit. The expense of searching comes directly out of profit.
No doubt the more socialist the government the more any property, dormant or not, belongs to the collective and not an individual.
Therefore at the extreme all property is merely loaned by the state. And the state can repossess it at will.
Bank Of America had to pay the state of California a large settlement about 20 years ago. BOA had not been notifying the state when accounts were dormant. They just kept quiet and thus did not have to deliver the money to the state.
I suspect a lot more property is stolen from estates by attorneys than is lost by improper escheats.