How should a libertarian respond to the claim that all land is owned by the state(s) in a feudal way: i.e., all the "private" land ownership is non-allodial, but is merely a "grant of usage" by the state? Therefore, since all land really belongs to a corporation called "State", the state has a right to make the rules as to how its "tenants" must behave themselves and also exact a tax for living on the land.
(One obvious caveat is that the state would not be allowed to imprison someone who disobeys the rules. It can only expell him.)
This would be no different from any other corporation holding private property and deciding how those living on the property must behave themselves.
This is similar to where the whole "social contract" thing boils down to. The question is, how did this "State" come to own the land in the first place?
This is where discussions of the definition of ownership, and how one comes to own property come in. In general you won't have to go very deep with people who start this argument, as they almost always have never even given these things a second thought. The basic assumption is the state just owns it because it does.
I suppose one could say that even following this argument, once a contract of "sale" (or rent, or charter) has been made between the corporation of State and a tenant, the rules of the contract cannot be constantly changed, much like once I make a contract with my landlord, he can't change the rules of the contract; nor can he expell me from the apartment, ending the lease prematurely, if I violate a new rule of his.
So, the State still can do whatever it wants on "public" property, but it cannot even have police powers on the private property, unless that was part of the contract.
On the other hand, if a contract has no specific time limits, shouldn't either of the parties be able to break it? If I put up someone on my land and make him my tenant, without a time limit, can't I take my land back any time I want? For instance, I say: "No marijuana smoking on the property". The tenant smokes. If there was something in the contract about smoking, I can expell the tenant. If there was nothing about smoking and there is a time term in the contract, I can do nothing until the time doesn't pass. If there was no time term, I can expell the tenant immediately.
The question is, how did this "State" come to own the land in the first place?
Right. That's a good question. I guess once the Colonies rebelled, all the ownership reverted to the state of nature, and whatever land one occupied, he became an immediate homesteader of it. Then, even if 99% of the citizens of a particular state ratified a state constitution that had feudal property, the 1% never gave up their land to the state.
But here is another, somewhat related question:
We can say that the way that English nobility came to own the land was illegal, because William the Conqueror and his buddies crossed the channel and conquered a lot of land that was owned by Saxons.
But the way Saxons acquired the land was similar! In fact, the history of Europe is a history of constant land stealing by people invading and re-invading countries. How can we determine who owns the land anymore?
Perhaps we can use Thomas Jefferson's argument that the earth belongs to the living and whatever owners of the land currently are in possession of it, we say they own it.
Btut then we can use the same argument for the states: they own the land, whatever the historic circumstances of their acquisition of the land. Otherwise, who really owns it? The people who bought the land from the states in a form of grants of usage? The descendants of the individual Germanic tribes who took over Western Europe? Just like you can't trace the ownership of the land by the states to any particular point except conquest, you can't trace ownership of the land by any individuals at all. (Even the "homesteaded" land of N. America belonged originally to Native Americans. But the specific tribes who owned the land at the time when the Europea settlers arrived also conquered it from other tribes who owned it beforehand.)
FlyingAxe:Therefore, since all land really belongs to a corporation called "State",...
Where is the document of incorporation for this corporation and who are its shareolders/owners that have signed it?
I think they're basically just asserting that ownership is a legal distinction, at least for practical purposes. In other words that ownership is just a function of power. Without power there can be no ownership or at least no legally recognizable ownership.
This is at the heart of the debate between anti-statists and statists. Either ownership is a function of first claim or its a function of legal power.
bloomj31: I think they're basically just asserting that ownership is a legal distinction, at least for practical purposes. In other words that ownership is just a function of power. Without power there can be no ownership or at least no legally recognizable ownership. This is at the heart of the debate between anti-statists and statists. Either ownership is a function of first claim or its a function of legal power.
But for the anti-statist legal power is a function of ownership. No power is legal unless it is a function of ownership. The OP is proposing a case for the state as a legal property structure (corporation, i.e. property owners pooling land and capital together). I asked to see the document of incorporation so I can see who these owners/shareholders are and under what terms they decided to pool their legally acquired property. Of course, no such document or pool of owners exist, hence "the state as a corporation" statist argument falls flat on its face.
z1235: power is a function of ownership. No power is legal unless it is a function of ownership.
That is the anti-statist's standard for the recognition of legitimacy.
The statist's standard for the recognition of legitimacy is simply force.
Might, by the statist's standard, makes legal right. It's not required that you sign anything, it's merely required that you cannot produce opposing force.
Indeed, though most statists still refuse to accept "might makes right" as their position. Besides, the OP was trying to make a case for the state according to the anti-statist standard for recognition of legitimacy. I merely showed how/why that cannot be done and that "might makes right" remains the only case a statist could possibly make.
z1235:Indeed, though most statists still refuse to accept "might makes right" as their position.
Well the reason I continue to have trouble with it is because for me the law is separate from morality and yet they're often conflated in these discussions. So while might makes right pretty much sums up my legal position, it doesn't sum up my moral position. For me, might makes right describes how law as a process works not necessarily how I think moral values ought to be derived.
Perhaps this same confusion was present during the argument that led to the OP.
You have constitutions signed by the states.
But the simple fact is that there is an entity that occupies the land. There is evidence of contracts between this entity and its tenants. Before you displace it off the land, you have to prove that someone has a better claim to the land.
For instance, the Queen owns a bunch of land in UK. Supposedly, all the land in England actually belongs to the Crown. Then there is some land which is personally owned by the Queen (i.e., the land which the Queen did not give grant of usage to any tenants).
How did she come to own this land? Her great-great-...-great father and a bunch of his buddies came across the Channel and killed most existing land owners (the Saxons). So, you might say: that was illegal. OK. But there are two problems:
1) The previous owners also got the land illegally, by killing the owners before them. And so did those guys.
2) Who does own the land then? The people currently occupying it? They are just tenants according to existing contracts between them and the Queen.
How should we assign property rights to English land today?
(In Scotland, by the way, all land is allodial, so the Scots own all the land. Except, I suppose, Balmoral, which the Queen owns.)
I mean, imagine we arrive on an alien planet (or a deserted island). You see a group of people who behave like owners of some land, and another group of people who behave like tenants.
Are you going to say: "Show me your document of incorporation and who your shareholders are, or otherwise, I am throwing you off your land and giving it to the tenants"? The fact is: this guy owns the land de facto. You have to assume that he owns the land de jure too, unless you have evidence to the opposite.
FlyingAxe: Where is the document of incorporation for this corporation and who are its shareolders/owners that have signed it? You have constitutions signed by the states.
The states were the owners of the land which they pledged as equity into the corporation? I think not.
But the simple fact is that there is an entity that occupies the land.
I think this is the problem. Owner-less entities can't own anything. People (or people pooling property into entities) do.
There is evidence of contracts between this entity and its tenants. Before you displace it off the land, you have to prove that someone has a better claim to the land.
Again, what is "it" which you are trying to displace? What evidence of contracts?
If there's no one alive to make a stronger claim in a (non-royal) court/arbitration then she may indeed own all the land in England. Not so in the US.
How did she come to own this land? Her great-great-...-great father and a bunch of his buddies came across the Channel and killed most existing land owners (the Saxons). So, you might say: that was illegal. OK. But there are two problems: 1) The previous owners also got the land illegally, by killing the owners before them. And so did those guys. 2) Who does own the land then? The people currently occupying it? They are just tenants according to existing contracts between them and the Queen. How should we assign property rights to English land today?
The historical chain of ownership is irrelevant. What matters is who today has the strongest claim to whatever property exists today. Seems to me property rights are already assigned in England. If stronger claimants to property exist they are welcome to present their case in court, no?
I don't see how this is relevant to the OP proposition that the State could be viewed as a mere land-owning corporation. Again, who are the owners/shareholders of this corporation today?
Why can't we say that we have a corporation called State of NY Government, whose members are elected from the populace of the land of NY?
I repeat: you arrive on a deserted island and find a group of people who behave like they own the land and another group of people who behave like tenants. What sort of evidence do you need from the first group that they indeed own the land and are not exploiting the real owners of it (the tenants)?
In other words, who, in the US, has a better claim on a piece of land than the governments of the states?
I suppose Dartmouth College would be one example. But the vast majority of people who own the land bought it from the state governments.
You have sale contracts between individual land owners and the state governments. The "laws" published by the state governments at the time of sales stated that the governments owned all the land and were merely granting the buyers rights of usage. (Perhaps that's also stated in the contracts themselves.) So, we can assume that when someone bought the land, he was aware that the contract he was making with the governments was not a transfer of allodial title, but merely a rent of feudal property.
Here is an imaginary scenario:
You have someone who builds an apartment building. He lives himself in one of the apartments, but rents the rest out to tenants.
One day, someone comes and shoots the owner in the head. He occupies his apartment and proceeds to collect rent from the tenants.
One day, one of the tenants refuses to pay (or leave). The second "owner" says: "You're violating my property rights to this building." The tenant says: "What property rights? You stole this building from its previous owner. I am now stealing the apartment from you."
Of course, using the same logic, anybody can now come and steal the apartment from the "tenant". So, the situation has degenerated into the "right of conquest". Or, basically, might makes right.
So, in this case, how would we assign natural property rights to the building or the apartment? Assume that the first owner left no descendants.
FlyingAxe: Why can't we say that we have a corporation called State of NY Government, whose members are elected from the populace of the land of NY?
Who are "we"? What are "members" of a corporation? Who/where are the owners/shareholders/equity-holders of this "corporation"? Why can't you and I and a bunch of our buddies say that we have a corporation called The "Government" of Planet Earth and start granting titles of ownership of Earth's land to whomever we please?
For the third time, who is making the strongest property claim to each square foot of that deserted island? If the "tenants" believe someone else has a stronger claim, and if they are not even trying to suggest that their claim is stronger, what business is it of yours anyway? What is your claim in this affair?
Why not you, I and our buddies grouped into an entity called Owners of Planet Earth?
Governments can't have a better claim than any one person or incorporated group of persons. Governments can't even have or make a claim because claims can only be made by people. The people who make these claims in the name of "government" are neither owners nor stakeholders of "government" nor has decision power been delegated to them by its non-existant owners/shareholders. Show me the owners, the shareholders, the stakeholders of this entity called "government". Who are these people that supposedly have a stronger claim of owneship over my piece of land?
@FlyingAxe
I think z1235 is doing a good job here, but I thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I'm actually a little surprised no one has brought up the libertarian position on "just property" versus "unjust property". As far as it goes, maybe you could say that the US "owns" all the land in the US. After all, in practice, in a sense the US government does. However, this completely neglects the libertarian concepts of "just" and "unjust" property.
Quite simply, the State does not justly own any land.
z1235: What are "members" of a corporation? Who/where are the owners/shareholders/equity-holders of this "corporation"?
The members of this corporation are the people who sit on its board. I am not sure who the owners are. Who are the owners of all non-profit organizations? Perhaps the members themselves.
Why can't we treat an organization as a legal "person".
Well, imagine that 99% of the tenants agree that the "feudal lords" are the real owners of the island, but 1% claim that they (the tenants) are. My claim in this affair is to find justice.
Well, imagine I live somewhere west of Appalachians. How did this territory come to be settled? (Let's ignore Native Americans for now.) Jefferson's government bought it from France which homesteaded it before. (Again, for simplicity sake, ignoring the Native Americans.) Or it got it from other governments in treaties. Or it homesteaded it.
Then, when I bought the land, I bought it from (someone who bought it from) the government. If someone dies childless, the land goes back to the government, and most people accept it as just, and then buy it back from the government. That is why the US government has a better claim on the land than Owners of Planet Earth. The latter organization has no history of homesteading the land.
(The exception is MN. There, the government makes no claim to own the land, so there is no excuse for its exercise of police powers.)
Now, east of Appalachians, the situation is more complicated. Some organization (like Dartmouth University) or people can maybe trace the ownership of their land back before the US government was formed. I would agree that my hypothetical model does not apply to them: the government should have no policing powers on their territory (at least, according to this model).
But all the other land -- either it was bought directly from the government or it was homesteaded by the government when owners of the land died childless. (Yes, the government may have used guns to make sure it becomes the homesteader.) Point is: among all the existing "legal persons", the US government has the best claim on this land.
Governments can't have a better claim than any one person or incorporated group of persons. Governments can't even have or make a claim because claims can only be made by people.
Why can't the government be conceived of as another organization? A legal person that owns the land.
Leaving US alone for now, would you say that libertarians have no cause to complain about the government of England: the Queen, through her ministers and parliament (existing by her leave) deciding what should happen on her territory?
gotlucky: I think z1235 is doing a good job here, but I thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I'm actually a little surprised no one has brought up the libertarian position on "just property" versus "unjust property". As far as it goes, maybe you could say that the US "owns" all the land in the US. After all, in practice, in a sense the US government does. However, this completely neglects the libertarian concepts of "just" and "unjust" property. Quite simply, the State does not justly own any land.
What is just property vs. unjust one? I have not heard of this concept.
Rothbard has mentioned it a lot, as well as many other people.
Here are some Rothbard articles that talk about Just Property:
Property and Exchange in For a New Liberty
I'll link in an edit so as not to get postponed for aproval.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Rothbard is merely explaining how one gets to own property justly. I.e., if I steal your pencil, I own it in the sense that I control it at the moment, but I don't own it justly: in a system of property-rights–based law, I would be found a non-owner of your pencil and, therefore, an aggressor.
I would agree that historically, governments came to own land unjustly. But here is the question I already asked:
If I steal a pencil from Bob — while Bob is alive, the pencil is his, and I am holding it ("owning" it) unjustly.
But then, what happens when Bob dies? Am I still holding it unjustly? One would argue that even though I acquired the pencil unjustly originally, I have a better claim for it than anyone else alive.
The same way, although William the Conqueror acquired English land unjustly, today, his descendant Elizabeth II has a better claim to the land than anyone else alive. Or, even though the US government has acquired (and been acquiring) land unjustly (for instance, once a person died without heirs, his land could be homesteaded by anyone; the US government used guns and threats of violence to keep everyone else from homesteading the land, so that it could do it and then sell it), as of today, it has better claim to ownership than any other legal person.
FlyingAxe: Correct me if I am wrong, but Rothbard is merely explaining how one gets to own property justly.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Rothbard is merely explaining how one gets to own property justly.
Rothbard is explaining how someone can justly own property. This would be the opposite of someone unjustly owning property.
I will link to and quote from Property and Criminality from The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard:
Certainly not—for we don’t know simply from our observation whether A is indeed a thief, or whether A is merely repossessing his own watch from B who had previously stolen it from him. In short, while the watch had undoubtedly been B’s property until the moment of A’s attack, we don’t know whether or not A had been the legitimate owner at some earlier time, and had been robbed by B. Therefore, we do not yet know which one of the two men is the legitimate or just property owner. We can only find the answer through investigating the concrete data of the particular case, i.e., through “historical” inquiry. Thus, we cannot simply say that the great axiomatic moral rule of the libertarian society is the protection of property rights, period. For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression. Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another. In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of “property rights” or of “private property” per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the “property right” of a criminal aggressor—in fact, we logically must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property or perhaps “natural property.” And this means that, in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a victim trying to repossess his property.
Certainly not—for we don’t know simply from our observation whether A is indeed a thief, or whether A is merely repossessing his own watch from B who had previously stolen it from him. In short, while the watch had undoubtedly been B’s property until the moment of A’s attack, we don’t know whether or not A had been the legitimate owner at some earlier time, and had been robbed by B. Therefore, we do not yet know which one of the two men is the legitimate or just property owner. We can only find the answer through investigating the concrete data of the particular case, i.e., through “historical” inquiry.
Thus, we cannot simply say that the great axiomatic moral rule of the libertarian society is the protection of property rights, period. For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression. Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another.
In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of “property rights” or of “private property” per se. For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the “property right” of a criminal aggressor—in fact, we logically must do so. We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property or perhaps “natural property.” And this means that, in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence is aggressive or defensive: e.g., whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim, or of a victim trying to repossess his property.
FlyingAxe: If I steal a pencil from Bob — while Bob is alive, the pencil is his, and I am holding it ("owning" it) unjustly. But then, what happens when Bob dies? Am I still holding it unjustly? One would argue that even though I acquired the pencil unjustly originally, I have a better claim for it than anyone else alive.
Yes you are still holding it unjustly, and no, you do not have a better claim than anyone else alive. I suspect you read The Ethics of Liberty in its entirety.
FlyingAxe:Correct me if I am wrong, but Rothbard is merely explaining how one gets to own property justly. I.e., if I steal your pencil, I own it in the sense that I control it at the moment, but I don't own it justly: in a system of property-rights–based law, I would be found a non-owner of your pencil and, therefore, an aggressor. I would agree that historically, governments came to own land unjustly. But here is the question I already asked: If I steal a pencil from Bob — while Bob is alive, the pencil is his, and I am holding it ("owning" it) unjustly. But then, what happens when Bob dies? Am I still holding it unjustly? One would argue that even though I acquired the pencil unjustly originally, I have a better claim for it than anyone else alive. The same way, although William the Conqueror acquired English land unjustly, today, his descendant Elizabeth II has a better claim to the land than anyone else alive. Or, even though the US government has acquired (and been acquiring) land unjustly (for instance, once a person died without heirs, his land could be homesteaded by anyone; the US government used guns and threats of violence to keep everyone else from homesteading the land, so that it could do it and then sell it), as of today, it has better claim to ownership than any other legal person.
gotlucky:Yes you are still holding it unjustly, and no, you do not have a better claim than anyone else alive. I suspect you read The Ethics of Liberty in its entirety.
The quote from Rothbard you provided shows why I am holding it unjustly if the owner if alive. If the owner is dead, the moment he died, his property became ownerless, res nullius. It becomes the property of whoever takes it first. It just so happens that the moment the previous owner died, the property was in my hands. Hence, it's mine.
Who else would have a better claim on it than whoever is holding it in his hands at the moment? (Remember, the previous owner left no heirs.)
Johnny Doe:What about the individuals occupying/using land at this moment in England/USA , don`t they have better claims than the governments?
If their claim of ownership goes before the conquest by William the Conqueror in England or before the Treaty of Paris in the US, then yes, they do. For instance, Dartmouth College. But in most cases, most occupiers of the land are tenants who received a feudal title to the land from the government. So, it would seem that no, they don't. If the US government goes kabloom, then the property they occupy will become theirs automatically. Or so it seems to me.
The one caveat in all this is that the states, even if they own the land, cannot imprison anyone for violating the laws. They can only evict the criminals from the land.
Another caveat that I see is that practically speaking, the US government does not exist as an independent organization (unlike the Queen). It exists as a represenatitve body of all the people, and everything it owns, it owns in the name of the people. So, to say that the government owns all the non-allodial land would be to say that all the people together own the land, communally. Then we run into the problem that the government doesn't really represent the will of people, if we follow Lysander Spooner's logic.
FlyingAxe:How should a libertarian respond to the claim that all land is owned by the state(s) in a feudal way: i.e., all the "private" land ownership is non-allodial, but is merely a "grant of usage" by the state? Therefore, since all land really belongs to a corporation called "State", the state has a right to make the rules as to how its "tenants" must behave themselves and also exact a tax for living on the land.
That's certainly the state's position on the matter, although it typically takes pains to keep that position hidden. Private ownership, as we know it today, is a legal fiction. Feudalism never really left - the fiefdoms simply got bigger.
I would respond by simply saying that I reject the legitimacy of that claim.
FlyingAxe:(One obvious caveat is that the state would not be allowed to imprison someone who disobeys the rules. It can only expell him.)
Indeed, which shows how the state routinely violates self-ownership.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
You reject the concept of feudal property, or you reject the historic claim of the state? Can you elaborate, please?
Sure. I don't reject the concept of feudal property and I do reject the historic claim of the state. Regarding the former, a sort of feudal tenure exists with internet service providers (ISPs). There are three tiers of ISPs, with Tier-1 ISPs serving as the real owners of internet bandwidth. The other two tiers purchase bandwidth from other ISPs. "Feudal tenure" just describes any form of non-allodial title (i.e. rental agreement).
FlyingAxe: Johnny Doe:What about the individuals occupying/using land at this moment in England/USA , don`t they have better claims than the governments?If their claim of ownership goes before the conquest by William the Conqueror in England or before the Treaty of Paris in the US, then yes, they do.
FlyingAxe:For instance, Dartmouth College. But in most cases, most occupiers of the land are tenants who received a feudal title to the land from the government.
FlyingAxe:So, it would seem that no, they don't. If the US government goes kabloom, then the property they occupy will become theirs automatically. Or so it seems to me. The one caveat in all this is that the states, even if they own the land, cannot imprison anyone for violating the laws. They can only evict the criminals from the land.
FlyingAxe:Another caveat that I see is that practically speaking, the US government does not exist as an independent organization (unlike the Queen).
FlyingAxe:It exists as a represenatitve body of all the people, and everything it owns, it owns in the name of the people. So, to say that the government owns all the non-allodial land would be to say that all the people together own the land, communally. Then we run into the problem that the government doesn't really represent the will of people, if we follow Lysander Spooner's logic.
Johnny Doe: What gives the government a better claim?
Because after the original owners of the land died, the land became res nullius. Then the government came, with its guns, and homesteaded the land. Then it rented the land to the current owners. So, the current owners have no claim on the land at all, except as the government's tenants.
Why can`t they imprison, but can evict?
Because there is no justification for kidnapping people and holding them against their will in a cage. It violates the people's rights to their body. But if the owner of a property wants to, he can evict anyone from the property.
The queen is just a mascot representing "a represenatitve body of all the people".
De facto that's the case. But de jure, she owns all the land in England as a descendant of William the Conqueror who killed the contemporary land owners and then homesteaded their land. (There may be a caveat there, since not all the descendants were killed, and really, not all the Saxon landowners were killed. Some swore to be his subjects; i.e., they transfered the titles of their land to him. But since they did so under duress, there is no recognition that this transaction was valid. But, as in the case of the US, whenever the heirs of the actual owners died, the land was homesteaded by the Crown, which prevented anyone else from homesteading it.)
What would actually be the will of the people?
I don't understand the question.
FlyingAxe: The quote from Rothbard you provided shows why I am holding it unjustly if the owner if alive. If the owner is dead, the moment he died, his property became ownerless, res nullius. It becomes the property of whoever takes it first. It just so happens that the moment the previous owner died, the property was in my hands. Hence, it's mine.
No. The quote specifically states, "For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen; the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression." In no way did Rothbard say unless the criminal manages to murder his victim...then it's just.
I really suggest you read The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard. Here are two chapters that are relevant to this thread:
10. THE PROBLEM OF LAND THEFT
11. LAND MONOPOLY, PAST AND PRESENT
FlyingAxe: Who else would have a better claim on it than whoever is holding it in his hands at the moment? (Remember, the previous owner left no heirs.)
Anyone but the person who acquired it unjustly.
FlyingAxe: Johnny Doe: What gives the government a better claim? Because after the original owners of the land died, the land became res nullius. Then the government came, with its guns, and homesteaded the land.
FlyingAxe:Then it rented the land to the current owners. So, the current owners have no claim on the land at all, except as the government's tenants.
FlyingAxe: Johnny Doe:Why can`t they imprison, but can evict?Because there is no justification for kidnapping people and holding them against their will in a cage. It violates the people's rights to their body. But if the owner of a property wants to, he can evict anyone from the property.
Johnny Doe:Why can`t they imprison, but can evict?
FlyingAxe: Johnny Doe:The queen is just a mascot representing "a represenatitve body of all the people". De facto that's the case. But de jure, she owns all the land in England as a descendant of William the Conqueror who killed the contemporary land owners and then homesteaded their land.
Johnny Doe:The queen is just a mascot representing "a represenatitve body of all the people".
FlyingAxe:(There may be a caveat there, since not all the descendants were killed, and really, not all the Saxon landowners were killed. Some swore to be his subjects; i.e., they transfered the titles of their land to him. But since they did so under duress, there is no recognition that this transaction was valid. But, as in the case of the US, whenever the heirs of the actual owners died, the land was homesteaded by the Crown, which prevented anyone else from homesteading it.)
FlyingAxe: Johnny Doe:What would actually be the will of the people?I don't understand the question.
Johnny Doe:What would actually be the will of the people?