I wish I lived in America

he had no loicens

>10 Sad Pictures That Would Make You Go "Fuck Having Laws And Property And Shit"

>planning permission
I don't understand this concept. If you own the land, why the fuck do you need permission to build on it?

Maybe they want to make sure that you're not going to do damage to the land or block the view or build a secret rape basement or something.

But mostly they just want to control your life.

To stop people building things that are detrimental to neighbours, or structurally unsound or in the UK's case to preserve countryside and stop English cities joining together and creating huge metropolises.

>If you own the land, why the fuck do you need permission to build on it?
If its rural, greenbelt, unbuilt on virgin land it sets a precedent and people would start buying cheap £10k an acre parcels of land and build whatever houses they like on them
Naturally due to the fact 67 million people live on this island land has to be sorted into 3 categories for proper use

If you buy unbuilt on land expect not to ever be allowed planning permission to build a permanent residence on it by your local council (rightfully so) considering it would open up a flood of people

Attached: _98666182_how_land_is_used_640_v4-nc (1).png (640x640, 176K)

>be american
>get mental from fighting for Israel
>live inawoods
>get your non-free shack demolished
>protest
>get shot

Zoning, so that it doesn't end up like Belgium. But also to keep property prices artificially high

So fucking what if you damage the land? It's yours. If you want to prevent someone from blocking the view, maybe don't sell him the land?
What building could possibly be detrimental to neighbours? I don't think a cabin is equivalent to a munitions factory. If you build a structurally unsound building and put yourself in danger, that's your own choice and your own problem. What's the problem with megalopolises anyway?
If people buying the land for cheap is a problem, raise the prices or stop selling.
>has to be sorted
Why? Move somewhere else, stop importing immigrants or stop breeding if that's an issue.

>It's yours

That's debatable and dependent upon the country's laws, also the damage can leak to nearby land.

>If you want to prevent someone from blocking the view, maybe don't sell him the land?

Or you can go for the middle ground and sell it with the condition that he builds to certain standards.

It's called living in civilization, you're not the only guy in the world.

>If people buying the land for cheap is a problem, raise the prices or stop selling.
>>has to be sorted
He explains it better its not that the land is too cheap, the cheap £10k an acre parcels of greenbelt land are only used for recreational purposes or keeping it preserved via methods like sustainable forestry, whoever owns unbuilt on land that isn't used for agriculture will never be allowed planning permission to build a dwelling to live there, they don't even allow dwellings with wheels if you don't live there temporarily for I think 3 days out of the year then its classed as a permanent residence
>Why? stop importing immigrants or stop breeding if that's an issue.
Government won't allow that
>Move somewhere else,
Proper option
>or stop breeding if that's an issue.
Would weaken the states power and mothers who aren't middle class or above (large amount of this country) are given far too much financial incentive to not want to birth a child every 4 years

Attached: 1542315514334.png (1227x806, 1.35M)

>That's debatable and dependent upon the country's laws,
So which is it, does your country allow private property or does it not?
>also the damage can leak to nearby land.
If it does, then you prosecute the individuals that violate others' property.
>Or you can go for the middle ground and sell it with the condition that he builds to certain standards.
Sure, if the buyer wants to sell with the condition that nothing is built on the land, that's between the buyer and the seller. I expect that will lower the price significantly. Imagine for example that you sell someone a car with the condition that it's only used on sundays.
>It's called living in civilization, you're not the only guy in the world.
Civilization doesn't own me or my property. You have no right to my stuff, and vicd versa.

So to paraphrase, the problem is the state and its draconian measures. Glad we sorted that out.

maybe if he wasn't inbred rural white trash retard who eats any propaganda from his government he would not have so called PTSD and wouldn't have to live in shithole cabin made of sticks which was later demolished

Attached: 1542904670990.jpg (223x250, 12K)

>America
>Wattsville, South Wales

A lot of places don't want you building a structurally questionable, eyesore or fire hazard. They avoid that by making you submit your plans.

life is literally brutal pain with a view good moments

u big dumb
he's saying he wants to live in America because of how shit like that happens in the UK

That's the UK

Shit like that can happen here too.

>structurally questionable,
If you put yourself in danger, that's your business. If you put others in danger with their knowledge and consent, that's your business. If you put others in danger without their knowledge and/or consent, you're committing endangerment.
>eyesore
So something entirely subjective. Sounds like a great way to regulate private property.
>fire hazard
Most people don't want to die in a fire. Also, if a fire starts that spreads to other property and it's your fault, that could be a case of criminal negligence.

>South Wales
mentioned

That looks like a pretty sound scheme

>So which is it, does your country allow private property or does it not?
The UK has some strange property ownership laws.
>If it does, then you prosecute the individuals that violate others' property.
Or you just prevent it from the beginning.
>Sure, if the buyer wants to sell with the condition that nothing is built on the land, that's between the buyer and the seller. I expect that will lower the price significantly. Imagine for example that you sell someone a car with the condition that it's only used on sundays.
Yes, that's exactly what happens.
>Civilization doesn't own me or my property. You have no right to my stuff, and vicd versa.
You'd like it to be that way, but it's not. The world isn't an anarchy - if it was, someone could just come and take your land and say "lol fuck you I want that land so it's mine now" and if you're not more powerful than he is there's nothing you'll be able to do about it.

>war hero
A state sponsored murder isn't a hero, it's a worthless piece of shit who deserves a bullet.

>Also, if a fire starts that spreads to other property and it's your fault, that could be a case of criminal negligence
I'd prefer not to lose everything because I live next to a jackass.

based

this

>Civilization doesn't own me or my property. You have no right to my stuff, and vicd versa.
t. Belgian

Attached: tumblr_mikjlaEdtM1qm24ado1_500.0[1].jpg (500x500, 81K)

t. Iraqi

Land is cheap be it desert or woodland in America, you can go innawoods and never see another human for weeks, build whatever dwelling you want on your land if its secluded enough, there are still zoning/planning laws but they're a lot more reasonable than here, your land is your land, you can even still hunt to supplant a lot of your food, its just clearly massive country with no end of untouched nature
Just isn't possible to have that much freedom here

Minimum cost of rural land here is a little under £10k an acre and you can't build on it, if you want land you can build on you most likely get a small 1 acre plot next to other houses (around £100k an acre for land with planning permission) or you convert an old barn after you buy a farm for hundreds of thousands or you do crofting if you really want out of urban areas
Isolated land in Canada or the US costs a fraction of the amount of course due to bears and lack of infrastructure in these places, 100 acre parcels going for $1k an acre, you can do whatever you want within reason there like start a homestead, shoot bears with an imported martini henry, roll your own black powder brass catridges and create your own wealth, drive an offroad truck etc etc all for hardly any money compared to here and your average wages are over double

Attached: 1501174923221.jpg (2048x1536, 301K)

>The UK has some strange property ownership laws.
We all know that UK is a draconian shithole. I'm arguing principles here.
>Or you just prevent it from the beginning.
"That car could be used to drive over someone, can't have it". "That gun could be used to shoot someone, can't have it". "That computer could be used to commit cyber crime, can't have it".
>Yes, that's exactly what happens.
It's not when the agreement isn't between two consenting parties, and it's not.
>You'd like it to be that way, but it's not. The world isn't an anarchy - if it was, someone could just come and take your land and say "lol fuck you I want that land so it's mine now" and if you're not more powerful than he is there's nothing you'll be able to do about it.
That's exactly what the state does. The people in charge can decide that they need your land, or other property, and confiscate it with little or nonexistent compensation, and shoot you if you resist. Is the world by your definition an anarchy then?

>Isolated land in Canada or the US costs a fraction of the amount of course due to bears and lack of infrastructure in these places, 100 acre parcels going for $1k an acre, you can do whatever you want within reason there like start a homestead, shoot bears with an imported martini henry, roll your own black powder brass catridges and create your own wealth, drive an offroad truck etc etc all for hardly any money compared to here and your average wages are over double
Why do imageboarders of all people fantasize so much about a lifestyle they will never ever experience?

forests >>>> zionist war-orcs

He should have applied for the eco friendly living scheme. People live in hobbit hunts in South Wales that are carbon neutral

Attached: HobbitHouse.png (653x463, 724K)

>Why do imageboarders of all people fantasize so much about a lifestyle they will never ever experience?
Because I'm a loser

Attached: 720c43_18af43728152437b93553fbe1751cfc9_mv2.png (1205x828, 1.17M)

>so that it doesn't end up like Belgium

what did he mean by this

>I'm arguing principles here.
Everyone has different principles. I'm not stating my own principles but simply the way it works in most countries. You may want to be the exclusive owner of your land, but you live in a country and therefore you have to abide by its rules.
>It's not when the agreement isn't between two consenting parties, and it's not.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but people buy land knowing that there are restrictions to it.
>That's exactly what the state does. The people in charge can decide that they need your land, or other property, and confiscate it with little or nonexistent compensation, and shoot you if you resist.
It's much more complex than that because doing so involves a lot of laws and different institutions, and because of the recognition of all these laws by the public - rather than an anarchic state where you decide what you do based on your "principles".
Of course, you can go into politics and try to make land ownership completely exclusive in your country, but most countries recognize the problem with that.

>Everyone has different principles. I'm not stating my own principles but simply the way it works in most countries. You may want to be the exclusive owner of your land, but you live in a country and therefore you have to abide by its rules.
Yeah, people tend to do what you want when you threaten to kill them if they disobey. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
>I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but people buy land knowing that there are restrictions to it.
It's not a contract between two consenting parties if a third entity places restrictions on their property.
>It's much more complex than that because doing so involves a lot of laws and different institutions, and because of the recognition of all these laws by the public - rather than an anarchic state where you decide what you do based on your "principles".
So if enough people decide that they can take your stuff, taking your stuff becomes acceptable? How many people would in your estimation be acceptable? If Tom and Jack decide to take your bicycle and beat you up if you resist, and also decide that you have no right to defend yourself, they have a double majority.
>Of course, you can go into politics and try to make land ownership completely exclusive in your country, but most countries recognize the problem with that.
So I need to convince everyone else that they can't take my stuff to keep my stuff?

>It's not a contract between two consenting parties if a third entity places restrictions on their property.
Legally, it is.
>So if enough people decide that they can take your stuff, taking your stuff becomes acceptable?
Depends on your moral beliefs. But let's go back a bit - who says a part of a land is "yours"? what makes it yours? you bought it from a guy, but what makes that land his? personally I don't think anyone should legally "own" land, because it's not something you create yourself, it's part of the world and no one has more right to it than someone else. That's my moral belief. Sadly most countries don't follow this belief.

Attached: 1540831842188.png (500x375, 367K)

You live on stolen so your principles mean jack shit.

If you mean "stolen land", I don't believe a land can be stolen, because it cannot be owned in the first place. Also, I live in a plot of land that my parents legally bought.

Not believing land can be owned is like not believing in gravity bro.

I mean owned in the legal meaning, not owned in the literal meaning.

Land can be legally owned everywhere that isn't Antarctica. And even there I'm not sure.

Many acres of nothing should not be treated like private property the same way normal ass private property you live on is treated. There is a massive difference between someone building a primitive cabin in the forest and building it on someone's lawn.

Again, you're confusing my personal beliefs with the facts of life. Also, various countries don't allow private ownership of land. In general Ownership is a cultural construct and can mean various things. In Scandinavia apparently you can own land, but you can't tell others not to walk on your land. In the US you own land and you can tell others not to walk on it.

Not quite, we get mental from fighting for America for Israel and get stabbed, not shot.

Not in South Africa if you're a wh*toid.

You go fight for America for Israel, get sent back for being too white and racist (a given), get acid'ed, say "muslim do this", be called islamophobic, and get truck of peace'd while you and your fellow (white/conservative) Brits get the blame for not being diverse and inclusive enough.

>Legally, it is.
The law also states that taxes aren't theft, and that should tell you exactly how valuable the legal definition is in a discussion about morals and principles.
>Depends on your moral beliefs. But let's go back a bit - who says a part of a land is "yours"? what makes it yours? you bought it from a guy, but what makes that land his? personally I don't think anyone should legally "own" land, because it's not something you create yourself, it's part of the world and no one has more right to it than someone else. That's my moral belief. Sadly most countries don't follow this belief.
It's impossible to go back in time so far that the original owners are established. Who lives on the land, who cultivates the land, and who maintains the buildings on said land is a good starting place.

This is what you believe, but it doesn't mean that other people accept that the land belongs to you just because you believe it. Thus they are not "taking it from you", because it's not yours in the first place.

Okay, I believe that your life isn't yours in the first place, so I can morally enslave you, rape you or kill you.

Yeah, you can, and you'll be persecuted for it because most people don't believe so. Also, that's reductio ad absurdum.

Attached: 1533608060910.jpg (1242x1239, 1.06M)

Based and tedpilled

because it's a clickbait article like 99% of the UK articles posted here

>Yeah, you can, and you'll be persecuted for it because most people don't believe so.
So which is it, what most people believe is right or what you think is right?
>Also, that's reductio ad absurdum.
No it's not.

>Alana Burns (32)... her sizeable brood including Steward (20), Bryan (19)

Attached: 1434190421494.jpg (720x480, 27K)

Whats so hard to believe? Girls are fertile at that age
State probably gave her so much money she has never had to work or ever will in her entire life for all those children

>Oy you got a loicense for that emotional refuge from PTSD?
The autism levels of Brits never ceases to amaze me

Attached: 1542605491166.gif (320x240, 2.65M)

Someone made a decision to impregnate a 12 year old, and assuming it wasn't an adult there was someone else who let a 12 year old get pregnant. On top of that, someone let that same 12 year old get pregnant again immediately after the first pregnancy. A lot of things are hard to believe here.

>So which is it, what most people believe is right or what you think is right?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm saying we live in a society and there are rules that you or I may not like, that's just how it is.

It's a reductio ad absurdum because restricting someone's actions on his property, or taking his land, is not nearly as bad as murdering or raping someone, in common sense, and actually has a constructive purpose (equal distribution of resources).

>32
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Attached: 1512425408595.gif (193x135, 485K)

SAY THE LINE

Attached: 1542877699828.jpg (500x842, 176K)

>I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm saying we live in a society and there are rules that you or I may not like, that's just how it is.
You made the point earlier that you don't believe in owning land, and once I told you that I don't believe in your right to live, you go ahead and cite popular belief. That's not an argument.

>It's a reductio ad absurdum because restricting someone's actions on his property, or taking his land, is not nearly as bad as murdering or raping someone, in common sense,
But that's just the opinion of someone who doesn't believe in personal property. Why should I give any value to the life of someone who doesn't value the property rights that I hold sacred?
>and actually has a constructive purpose (equal distribution of resources).
But stripping you of your life also has a constructive purpose, which is to prevent the spread of dangerous ideology that leads to loss of productivity and loss of life. You could call it a necessary evil.

damn

You sound like a typical incel who is 100% bitterness and 0% empathy

Why do rightoids think that laws are more important than people? Lws are meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

>that thing is 32
>her oldest is 20
>she gave birth at the age of 12.
>then at the age of 13
>then at the age of 16
>then at the age of 17
and the best
>five different absent fathers

What the fuck is wrong with a*Glos

She was a mother of two and 3rd one coming before I learned what a pussy feels like jesus christ.

Attached: 1539699588706.jpg (499x499, 82K)

so if the majority decides a rapist shouldn't be arrested just because he is black, that would be right?

>You made the point earlier that you don't believe in owning land, and once I told you that I don't believe in your right to live, you go ahead and cite popular belief. That's not an argument.
It's an argument because in both cases society eventually decides what's going to happen.

You're continuing with the hybperboles, and it just makes you look like a child.

It was a satirical comment.

>Lws are meant to serve the people
Laws are meant for people to obey them

ridiculous not an argument

ah yes, we get it you're a fascist, cool

>fight for jews
>jews thank you by destroying your home
hmm

Good. He did not attain the adequate planning permission before deciding to build this illegal structure. What sort of a precedent does that set? Before we know it we'll have groups of Somalis building shanty towns all over our countryside, and NOBODY wants that.

My only regret is that I wasn't there to flatten this criminal's house myself.

So you don't do things like fuck up the water table or create forest fires.

Based

>That car could be used to drive over someone, can't have it.
They don't have driving licences in Finland?

>obeying the law = fascist

Attached: fn.gif (499x499, 84K)

Haven't you ever heard of the tragedy of the commons? You're basically asking why the UK doesn't want to turn into the Kowloon Walled City.

Attached: 54d3d8a6eab8ea4a48e342ed-750-562.jpg (750x562, 111K)

Nobody is denying that enough people willing to shoot you get to decide how the world works.
Driving licenses only apply to public roads, having one is not a prerequisite to buying a car.

>be american
>get jewed

>What sort of a precedent does that set?
Exactly, for every god fearing working class englishman looking to escape the city on the cheap there would be dozens upon dozens of abhorrent foreigners who would set up in woods like raving bands of thuggees

Attached: Dryden.jpg (1341x846, 714K)

Attached: 960x300_detailsbanner_dimi.gif (960x300, 165K)