3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat 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.