3 ms·

It’s not really the style any more to go and bash up aboriginal communities, but it was what was done originally over the whole continent, ie what legitimises G

It’s not really the style any more to go and bash up aboriginal communities, but it was what was done originally over the whole continent, ie what legitimises Gina owning that giant swathe of land, which was certainly aboriginal territory? The Crown. Call it The State if you like, but as I mentioned, it’s an entity that looks like The State, but in reality is much more nebulous and complex like that. See even the Wikipedia article: “Legal scholars Maurice Sunkin and Sebastian Payne opined, "the nature of the crown has been taken for granted, in part because it is fundamental and, in part, because many academics have no idea what the term the crown amounts to".[4] Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson theorised that the crown is "an amorphous, abstract concept" and, thus, "impossible to define",[5] while William Wade stated the crown "means simply the Queen". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown These scholars find it impossible to define because it’s the sort of entity that has set itself up to be impossible to define, even to the best scholars, and everyone invested in the legal system with the ability to try and define it still cannot define it, because to do so would be to talk “externally” to the very system of language and being in which they’re embedded and allowed to comment upon. But in reality, The Crown is much much more akin to a private corporation with private beneficial owners and controllers than it is to a government or state, it’s just now constructed where it looks like the state and can’t actually properly be defined to delineate it from the powers it has and wields through the state. I’m really not trying to spread confusion or conspiracy, or talk shit, but you almost hit the nail on the head saying “I’m the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don’t even need to list anything” because that’s basically correct as to the level of power and strength you’re dealing with.

_yb2s 3y ago
I appreciate that you are discussing this in good faith, and you know a lot about the complexity of the Crown that I don't, but I just don't see it. It seems to me that those examples you are giving are historical examples of power that is now held by a bunch of separate people and organizations with no modern day connections to one another or to the current Crown. Edit: e.g. for example, what does Gina Rinehart have to do with the Square Mile in London today?
- gizajob 3y ago
  It’s extremely complicated to type out, and it’s late here in the UK. But I’m not saying all this just to blow hot air, it just runs deep. Quickly though, Gina owns the land because the financial system she uses to get title from the legal system are one and the same. The legal system was implemented in Australia based on that run from London - barristers today still get their authority from the Inns of Court based in the city. So the legal system passes acts on paper saying “this is how you own things” and the state / the crown claimed dominion over the whole continent of Australia, ignoring and negating that there were already people there - the aboriginals were simply outside the system, and also didn’t have guns. So The Crown acts as the legitimising power of the legal system, the financial system, the military, basically the root of everything, that says “if it says on paper that you own it, you own it, and we’ll enforce it and ensure you own it (provided you pay us and we get a cut)” but the very idea that paper title means ownership was a system imposed, and one in this case formed in The City, so the whole system of The Crown is like a web that covers almost everything and one bit of it can’t actually be separated from any other any more. The Crown not only has land claims, it’s the force that legitimises land claims, and although now Australia is a federation that passes its own laws and has its own government, that new state is just so entangled with the old system of doing business that tracking back “all roads lead to Rome” in this case being London. The City of London is part of the corporation that is The Crown, because it itself is a corporation that goes back to time immemorial - before records - and the main mechanism for it doing business and maintaining order is both military power and legislation on paper. So when we talk about The Crown we’re pointing at a system that is a step above even ownership, it’s the system that legitimises and frames the very concept of ownership and then grants the force of law for that ownership to be enforced. Like I say, it’s too complicated to really type out with my thumbs on my smartphone. It’s deep though, as deep and as baroque as it gets.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    That makes sense, but you and the rest of the people here are talking past each other. You are talking about a social phenomenon with historical roots that affects how power is still distributed today, e.g. like institutional racism or colonialism. Everyone else here thinks you were talking about a small group of specific individuals, e.g. a royal family that definitely doesn't include people like Gina.

_yb2s 3y ago

I appreciate that you are discussing this in good faith, and you know a lot about the complexity of the Crown that I don't, but I just don't see it. It seems to me that those examples you are giving are historical examples of power that is now held by a bunch of separate people and organizations with no modern day connections to one another or to the current Crown. Edit: e.g. for example, what does Gina Rinehart have to do with the Square Mile in London today?

gizajob 3y ago
It’s extremely complicated to type out, and it’s late here in the UK. But I’m not saying all this just to blow hot air, it just runs deep. Quickly though, Gina owns the land because the financial system she uses to get title from the legal system are one and the same. The legal system was implemented in Australia based on that run from London - barristers today still get their authority from the Inns of Court based in the city. So the legal system passes acts on paper saying “this is how you own things” and the state / the crown claimed dominion over the whole continent of Australia, ignoring and negating that there were already people there - the aboriginals were simply outside the system, and also didn’t have guns. So The Crown acts as the legitimising power of the legal system, the financial system, the military, basically the root of everything, that says “if it says on paper that you own it, you own it, and we’ll enforce it and ensure you own it (provided you pay us and we get a cut)” but the very idea that paper title means ownership was a system imposed, and one in this case formed in The City, so the whole system of The Crown is like a web that covers almost everything and one bit of it can’t actually be separated from any other any more. The Crown not only has land claims, it’s the force that legitimises land claims, and although now Australia is a federation that passes its own laws and has its own government, that new state is just so entangled with the old system of doing business that tracking back “all roads lead to Rome” in this case being London. The City of London is part of the corporation that is The Crown, because it itself is a corporation that goes back to time immemorial - before records - and the main mechanism for it doing business and maintaining order is both military power and legislation on paper. So when we talk about The Crown we’re pointing at a system that is a step above even ownership, it’s the system that legitimises and frames the very concept of ownership and then grants the force of law for that ownership to be enforced. Like I say, it’s too complicated to really type out with my thumbs on my smartphone. It’s deep though, as deep and as baroque as it gets.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  That makes sense, but you and the rest of the people here are talking past each other. You are talking about a social phenomenon with historical roots that affects how power is still distributed today, e.g. like institutional racism or colonialism. Everyone else here thinks you were talking about a small group of specific individuals, e.g. a royal family that definitely doesn't include people like Gina.