You Own What We Say You Own

In contemporary Britain, property, especially land and homes, is ceasing to be a safe refuge of liberty and becoming an asset held at the sufferance of the state. The modern British state, through regulation, taxation, surveillance, planning control and administrative discretion, is erecting a new regime in which property is less a citizen’s own than a thing of state suffrage. What was once an inalienable right, protected by centuries of common law and constitutional convention, is now treated as conditional and precarious. The state increasingly behaves as though all property belongs to it and that individuals are permitted only conditional tenancy. The implications for freedom, economic vitality, and civil order are grave. The trajectory is clear: ownership is being hollowed out by bureaucracy, legislation and creeping ideological oversight. To those who still hope this is mere technocracy, the evidence is overwhelming: the pattern reflects an increasingly socialist/globalist and administrative ethos that undermines personal autonomy.

Historically, the English and later British constitution upheld a pact: the Crown could levy taxes and exercise prime domain, but only within strict legal limits, with due process and compensation. Property, particularly land, was inviolable except in exceptional circumstances justified by public need. Magna Carta and subsequent legal doctrines enshrined the idea that individuals had rights over their property that the state could not arbitrarily violate. Over centuries, through common law and statute, these protections were strengthened. Landowners had the security to build, transfer, and develop their holdings with a reasonable expectation of stability. Even the compulsory purchase powers that existed required formal procedures, justification, and fair compensation. Today, however, those centuries-old boundaries are being systematically eroded, replaced by a state-centric conception of property in which ownership is contingent on compliance with an expanding web of rules and obligations, and too often membership of an approved group.

In Britain today, no homeowner or landowner can use their property freely. Every change, loft conversions, extensions, demolitions, redevelopment, requires planning permission, approval, and adherence to both local and national policies. Permitted development rights, once a measure of freedom, have become privileges granted by statute that can be withdrawn or modified at any time. Property owners are no longer masters of their own holdings; they are at the mercy of the planning bureaucracy, which can impose conditions, restrictions, and arbitrary obstacles. Compulsory purchase orders, once justified strictly for public infrastructure such as roads, rail, and utilities, are now employed under broad rubrics of “regeneration,” “housing development,” and “mixed use” projects, anecdotally in favour of illegal immigrants. Local and central authorities define public benefit expansively, often in ways that benefit corporate developers an/or political objectives. Landowners face the constant possibility of having their property forcibly acquired, often for projects that do not directly serve the public in a tangible way. Ownership has become insecure, subject to the shifting priorities and discretion of government bodies.

Even when land remains under the nominal control of its owner, the regulatory burden is immense. Energy performance rules, fire safety mandates, brain-dead building safety legislation introduced in response to government -created disasters such as Grenfell Tower, flood resilience requirements, heritage protections, environmental restrictions, and health and safety obligations cumulatively constrict what owners may do. Every regulation is backed by fines, enforcement orders, and the threat of liability, ensuring that the state maintains constant supervision over property that was once inviolate. Homeowners and landlords alike find themselves navigating an intricate labyrinth of legal obligations, inspections, and approvals, in which failure to comply carries significant financial or legal risk. Property is no longer a private domain; it has become an arena of negotiation and compliance with the state.

Landlord regulation illustrates this transformation vividly. Eviction restrictions are weighted in favour of tenants, with “no fault” evictions curtailed and licensing requirements for multiple occupancy properties strictly enforced. Energy efficiency mandates and deposit protection rules impose additional burdens. The cumulative effect is that landlords are subjected to a network of legal constraints that dramatically increase costs, risks, and administrative overhead. Many withdraw from letting altogether or sell to corporate landlords who have the scale and resources to absorb regulatory pressures, effectively transferring control from private individuals to bureaucratic or quasi-governmental structures. Landlords, once independent actors in the housing market, are now subservient to a regulatory state whose priorities usually do not align with their interests or the preservation of property rights.

Property ownership is further encumbered by the financial architecture surrounding it. Mortgages, purchases, and transfers all pass through regulated institutions, making owners subject to surveillance, scrutiny, and reporting obligations. Anti-money laundering rules, beneficial ownership registries, and suspicious activity reporting mean that any transaction is monitored, recorded, and potentially subject to inquiry. The state, under the pretence of ensuring transparency and combating crime, has become a constant observer and auditor of private wealth. Individuals cannot freely move money to purchase, improve, or sell property without triggering the state’s oversight. In practice, property owners operate under suspicion until proven compliant, a reversal of the classical presumption of independence and security.

Taxation completes the transformation of property into a vehicle for state extraction. Stamp Duty Land Tax penalises homebuyers, particularly those entering the market or upgrading. Council Tax imposes a heavy, often regressive burden on residential property. Income tax on rental returns, capital gains tax on disposals, and inheritance tax on estates further diminish the fruits of property ownership. Local authorities demand Section 106 contributions and Community Infrastructure Levies, extracting additional revenue from development. The government’s repeated hikes in property-related taxation over the past decade demonstrate its intention to lean on immobile assets as reliable revenue sources and eventually eradicate private property ownership for the masses. Property, once a personal sanctuary and investment, becomes a conduit through which the state syphons wealth, regulating behaviour, and disciplining citizens through financial pressure.

This intrusion has escalated further with recent HMRC powers that allow the tax authority, in some cases without a court order, to take money directly from citizens’ bank accounts to satisfy debts. While technically legal under statute, I argue that this bypasses traditional safeguards, erodes due process, and undermines the presumption that individuals maintain control over their own financial assets and that a citizen is innocent until proven guilty in court before a jury of his peers. In a country that historically prized constitutional protections and the sanctity of private property, the ability of the state to reach directly into a bank account represents a profound shift, reinforcing the sense that property and wealth are held at the discretion of the authorities rather than by the citizen.

The ideological underpinning of this expansion of state control is unmistakable. The policies reflect a socialist or quasi-socialist mindset in which the state assumes responsibility not just for governance but for active regulation, redistribution, and oversight of private property – in other words Corporatism, a form of socialism  advocated by the globalists in the UN and WEF. Socialism has, of course, historically failed wherever it has been applied: the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, and other examples demonstrate that centralised control stifles innovation, distorts incentives, and ultimately collapses under its own weight. In Britain, the approach is subtler but no less damaging. Rather than outright nationalisation, the state, like its National Socialist model in 1930s Germany, imposes incremental regulatory control, heavy taxation, and bureaucratic supervision. The result is functionally identical: property owners are constrained, investment is discouraged, and the autonomy of individuals is diminished.

Conservative commentators also point to the global context in which these trends operate, viewing the rhetoric and policies of international bodies such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum as encouraging state intervention, promoting shared or “managed” access to resources, and subtly undermining traditional notions of private ownership. Agenda 2030, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, emphasises ‘equality’ in access to land and resources and encourages urban planning that limits individual discretion over property use. The WEF’s narratives of shared consumption and subscription-based access to goods, though framed as experiments, resonate with policy approaches that shift society from ownership to conditional access. These organisations intend to dictate national law, and are successfully influencing policymakers and bureaucrats who, like the infernal Mayor of London, shape legislation in ways that increasingly erode personal property rights.

The consequences of these developments are manifold and worth repeating. Investment in property declines when owners perceive constant regulatory risk and financial exposure. Housing supply is constrained as developers hesitate under uncertain planning regimes and additional levies. Capital flight accelerates when domestic investors seek safer, less encumbered markets. The accumulation of discretion in bureaucratic hands creates opportunities for corporate rent-seeking, favouritism, and uneven enforcement. Citizens lose the practical autonomy historically associated with property; ownership becomes a tenuous, very expensive, privilege rather than a guarantee of independence. Over time, the social fabric is altered: a society in which most are tenants of the state, rather than independent property owners, is a society in which liberty and civic power are fundamentally weakened.

To address these threats property rights must be vigorously defended. Constitutional protections should be reaffirmed, with enforceable limits on regulatory intrusion, expropriation, and taxation. Regulatory powers should be constrained, with sunset clauses and proportionality tests ensuring that new rules do not infringe on fundamental rights. Property taxation should be reformed to reduce the burden on owners, especially small and middle-class proprietors. Financial surveillance powers, including HMRC’s ability to draw directly from bank accounts, should be subjected to due legal process. Above all, the principle of personal autonomy in relation to property must be restored: the state should be a servant of citizens, not their landlord or auditor.

If property becomes fully conditional, subject to the whims of bureaucracy and guided by globalist frameworks, the liberty that property historically provided will vanish. Homes, land, and wealth are not merely economic assets; they are the foundation of civil independence and social stability. The incremental erosion of these rights is not abstract or technical, it is a shift in the very balance of power between citizens and the state. Without decisive action, we risk becoming a nation of tenants, with freedom, initiative, and ownership ceded to regulation, taxation, and administrative discretion. To resist this trajectory is not optional; it is essential to preserving the liberties, prosperity, and independence that centuries of law and tradition once guaranteed.

---