Viking-Saxon gold 'Stolen'

[Notafront4adragon]

34 minutes ago, KDave said:

The act of keeping quiet about this reflects the perverse incentives that the law has generated first, the character of the people finding it second in my view. 

There are no incentives to handing in the find. Your options are to lose most of its value vs keeping it and selling it on the quiet at risk, or melt the lot down. The fact that people feel the need to keep quiet about a find is a symptom the law is against nature. The fact someone would consider melting down 1000+ year history is a symptom the law is very wrong. The law needs to incentivise people coming forward with the finds; cracking down like this does no favours for our future heritage, museums, the legal system, ect. How much history has been lost already because of this law I wonder.

We already know people are a bit useless and corrupt, its part of human nature, cracking down on it just makes people think harder about how to get away with it.

I don't see the need to change the law. If they had declared the find they'd be millionaires now but they didn't want to share it with the landowners and get less. That's the crime. 

They attempted to steal millions what sentence would you like to see for stealing millions?

I get there's no violence and you could argue that the landowners didn't know what they had but it doesn't excuse the serious attempt at stealing it from them does it? 

[KDave]

I reckon 2 years is about right for these, out in 12 months. Lesson learned. 

Like I say we will have to agree to disagree on this one, something doesn't sit right about giving someone 10 years for keeping something they found in a field. The justice system is a joke. 

[medgasguy]

I just read the article, and no I don't think it was a harsh sentence. I'm not totally up to speed on British law (I live in the U.S.) but if I'm not mistaken doesn't a portion of the appraised value go to the finders of the treasure and a portion to the land owner? I remember a story a while back from National Geographic of a similar find somewhere in an English pasture where it was split 50/50?

[silenceissilver]

On 22/11/2019 at 22:35, Notafront4adragon said:

Not sure where the idea of 50% has come from the state doesn't keep 50%. It can keep it all. You have no right over treasure as the finder but you almost always get paid the full valuation. Perhaps because those that found treasure previously split the reward with the land owners? 

The process is it's offered to museums etc and you get the value as a reward or if no museums want to bid then you keep it. If it's less than 300yrs old you get to keep it right away. Unless you're in Scotland. 

With this case they didn't even have permission from the landowner and they effectively stole something important from the nation, our heritage, by attempting to sell it illegally hence the strong sentence. 

Not sure if the sentence is excessive or rather the other crimes you mention are too light. I do know the law is very concerned with protecting property.

Perhaps we should all just renounce property and we can all share all resources equally? Didn't think so. So we'll have to stick to the law for now. 

 

It's funny you make the case of socialism (e.g. you say the nation owns it) while at the end of your post you use arguments of a libertarian to justify it. Really strange!

To get it right:

When the nation owns something it's called socialism. It's a crime if the nation or rather the people that think they represent it make a claim on an individuals property. The 100% owner is the finder unless it was found on someone else's property, then it should be 50/50, if the owner didn't know about it, if you can assume it would have been unlikely for the owner to ever find it,  and if it was put under the earth by people who didn't directly or indirectly (over several generations) pass the land on to the current owner.

So, the biggest criminal here is the state, it claims 50% for itself. These two are only criminals if there is a private land owner. From the article you can't tell, it could just as well refer to the "private land owner" called the Queen.  I wonder why there is no talk about who the land owner is. Even without naming them, you would expect the media to quote them or to make any reference to them.

 

[Notafront4adragon]

24 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

It's funny you make the case of socialism (e.g. you say the nation owns it) while at the end of your post you use arguments of a libertarian to justify it. Really strange!

To get it right:

When the nation owns something it's called socialism. It's a crime if the nation or rather the people that think they represent it make a claim on an individuals property. The 100% owner is the finder unless it was found on someone else's property, then it should be 50/50, if the owner didn't know about it, if you can assume it would have been unlikely for the owner to ever find it,  and if it was put under the earth by people who didn't directly or indirectly (over several generations) pass the land on to the current owner.

So, the biggest criminal here is the state, it claims 50% for itself. These two are only criminals if there is a private land owner. From the article you can't tell, it could just as well refer to the "private land owner" called the Queen.  I wonder why there is no talk about who the land owner is. Even without naming them, you would expect the media to quote them or to make any reference to them.

 

Your post confirms what I am saying. The crime isn't that they just attempted to keep treasure, its that they stole something of huge value from the landowner. 

The land owner was Lord Cawley look it up. They stole from the land owner. No permission to be there and no permission to keep anything they found. 

The state keeps the treasure gives you the value in money. The State does NOT keep half the value. This idea the state keeps 50% of the finds value is just wrong. It's been conflated with other significant finds being split between the discoverer and the land owner. 

What socialism and libertarian ideas you read into my post are your own.

 

[DarkChameleon]

4 hours ago, medgasguy said:

I just read the article, and no I don't think it was a harsh sentence. I'm not totally up to speed on British law (I live in the U.S.) but if I'm not mistaken doesn't a portion of the appraised value go to the finders of the treasure and a portion to the land owner? I remember a story a while back from National Geographic of a similar find somewhere in an English pasture where it was split 50/50?

If the finders did not have a contract, verbal or written which these appear to not gave then it's simple theft, the treasure law doesnt take  any,money from the people but it secures if desired the finds and pays full market value for the finds, even if it takes others like archeologists to remove the remainder. there may be capital gains taxes to place on the value but that is taxes for you.

[silenceissilver]

3 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Your post confirms what I am saying. The crime isn't that they just attempted to keep treasure, its that they stole something of huge value from the landowner. 

The land owner was Lord Cawley look it up. They stole from the land owner. No permission to be there and no permission to keep anything they found. 

The state keeps the treasure gives you the value in money. The State does NOT keep half the value. This idea the state keeps 50% of the finds value is just wrong. It's been conflated with other significant finds being split between the discoverer and the land owner. 

What socialism and libertarian ideas you read into my post are your own.

 

If the state keeps it, what is it if not theft by the state? Why would it matter if you get paid the value if your property is taken from you (if it is yours and not that from a third individual - but then the same applies, the state then steals it from this third person).

Property means it's yours and not, your's unless the state claims it. If that is what property is, then there is no property in this state.

What socialist ideas do I mean:

" they effectively stole something important from the nation"

As said, national property means socialism

What libertarian (or also classical liberal) ideas do I mean:

"Perhaps we should all just renounce property and we can all share all resources equally? Didn't think so."

 

"What socialism and libertarian ideas you read into my post are your own."

No, they are not, there are definitions and unless we want nihilistic relativism, were everything can mean anything, we should stick to them.

 

 

 

 

[KDave]

Top comment; "So remember, when you find gold melt it down". 

[Melon]

1 hour ago, silenceissilver said:

If the state keeps it, what is it if not theft by the state? Why would it matter if you get paid the value if your property is taken from you (if it is yours and not that from a third individual - but then the same applies, the state then steals it from this third person).

Property means it's yours and not, your's unless the state claims it. If that is what property is, then there is no property in this state.

What socialist ideas do I mean:

" they effectively stole something important from the nation"

As said, national property means socialism

What libertarian (or also classical liberal) ideas do I mean:

"Perhaps we should all just renounce property and we can all share all resources equally? Didn't think so."

 

"What socialism and libertarian ideas you read into my post are your own."

No, they are not, there are definitions and unless we want nihilistic relativism, were everything can mean anything, we should stick to them.

Would you rather it was finders keepers on items of historical importance? Can I go dig up your back garden and see what I find? 

[silenceissilver]

23 minutes ago, KDave said:

Top comment; "So remember, when you find gold melt it down". 

That will be the effect of paternalistic, socialistic laws.

@Notafront4adragon Btw, of course the assumption that you would get market value from the government that doesn't even tackle grooming gangs and protects paedophiles in the elite, is ludicrous. If you want to preserve historic coins, you need to give the self interest of the finders an appropriate place - by keeping the government out of all of this.

[silenceissilver]

2 minutes ago, Melon said:

Would you rather it was finders keepers on items of historical importance? Can I go dig up your back garden and see what I find? 

See my comment above. The best way to preserve them is to make sure the finders can get market value for these coins.

[Melon]

6 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

See my comment above. The best way to preserve them is to make sure the finders can get market value for these coins.

I'm no expert so may be mistaken, but isn't that pretty much what happens? As I understand it, they would have got the value of the coins split 50/50 with the land owner. I don't believe the government was keeping any money for themselves. 

Seems to me these guys didn't want to share the find with the land owner and that's why they sold in secret. The fact they did it in secret shows they knew well it was illegal. The length of the punishment does seem harsh though, I agree there. 

[silenceissilver]

11 minutes ago, Melon said:

I'm no expert so may be mistaken, but isn't that pretty much what happens? As I understand it, they would have got the value of the coins split 50/50 with the land owner. I don't believe the government was keeping any money for themselves. 

Seems to me these guys didn't want to share the find with the land owner and that's why they sold in secret. The fact they did it in secret shows they knew well it was illegal. The length of the punishment does seem harsh though, I agree there. 

As said, if the government interferes in what you get for it, it will be less than if the government didn't do anything. Much less, most of the times. Just abandon the law that the government claims the old treasures and you increase the chances of preserving them and prevent them from being molten down.

[Melon]

9 minutes ago, silenceissilver said:

As said, if the government interferes in what you get for it, it will be less than if the government didn't do anything. Much less, most of the times. Just abandon the law that the government claims the old treasures and you increase the chances of preserving them and prevent them from being molten down.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess. Lets not forget they hid it from the land owner as well - these guys were thieves at the end of the day. 

[DarkChameleon]

2 hours ago, silenceissilver said:

If the state keeps it, what is it if not theft by the state? Why would it matter if you get paid the value if your property is taken from you (if it is yours and not that from a third individual - but then the same applies, the state then steals it from this third person).

Property means it's yours and not, your's unless the state claims it. If that is what property is, then there is no property in this state.

What socialist ideas do I mean:

" they effectively stole something important from the nation"

As said, national property means socialism

What libertarian (or also classical liberal) ideas do I mean:

"Perhaps we should all just renounce property and we can all share all resources equally? Didn't think so."

 

"What socialism and libertarian ideas you read into my post are your own."

No, they are not, there are definitions and unless we want nihilistic relativism, were everything can mean anything, we should stick to them.

 

 

 

 

There is a law that land owners only own the first few inches of their land, the government owns everything under that.

[Notafront4adragon]

1 hour ago, silenceissilver said:

That will be the effect of paternalistic, socialistic laws.

@Notafront4adragon Btw, of course the assumption that you would get market value from the government that doesn't even tackle grooming gangs and protects paedophiles in the elite, is ludicrous. If you want to preserve historic coins, you need to give the self interest of the finders an appropriate place - by keeping the government out of all of this.

But they do get market value many many times over the spot price of gold. Some of those pieces were only 9kt! Worse some was silver.  

I know what I'd rather have, a fair portion of a lot of money versus melting down gold like a madman in my garage hoping nobody doesn't notice and then selling at melt...

I could use that money to buy more gold and not be in prison. 

You can believe keeping the government out of everything will be ok but as this case proves greedy bastards will always try to take what isn't theirs. You'd change your ideas if they'd stolen millions from you I'm sure you'd wanna see them punished.

[Notafront4adragon]

1 hour ago, Melon said:

Would you rather it was finders keepers on items of historical importance? Can I go dig up your back garden and see what I find? 

You don't even need to ask apparently?!

[Notafront4adragon]

25 minutes ago, DarkChameleon said:

There is a law that land owners only own the first few inches of their land, the government owns everything under that.

I'm not sure that's right, depends what right you have. For example in Sussex there's a small company that drill for oil, weird but true. They own the land and mineral rights including below the first few inches. I do remember something about fracking rights essentially allowing companies, not the the government but private companies, to claim resources found under your property. They did have to compensate you but not by much.

[DarkChameleon]

6 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

I'm not sure that's right, depends what right you have. For example in Sussex there's a small company that drill for oil, weird but true. They own the land and mineral rights including below the first few inches. I do remember something about fracking rights essentially allowing companies, not the the government but private companies, to claim resources found under your property. They did have to compensate you but not by much.

They have to get a license to mine under their own land same as a license top mine under yours, without thast license they cant touch anything and its not just a safety license like it is in Alaska to dig down.

[Notafront4adragon]

The Scotsman: Painstaking clean-up of Scottish Viking hoard unlocks new secrets.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/painstaking-clean-up-of-scottish-viking-hoard-unlocks-new-secrets-1-5051343

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway_Hoard

The correct way to do it. Metal dectorists got paid and the nation gets to see wonderful history. I'm glad nearly all dectorists are honest and understand the law.

[silenceissilver]

22 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

But they do get market value many many times over the spot price of gold. Some of those pieces were only 9kt! Worse some was silver.  

I know what I'd rather have, a fair portion of a lot of money versus melting down gold like a madman in my garage hoping nobody doesn't notice and then selling at melt...

I could use that money to buy more gold and not be in prison. 

You can believe keeping the government out of everything will be ok but as this case proves greedy bastards will always try to take what isn't theirs. You'd change your ideas if they'd stolen millions from you I'm sure you'd wanna see them punished.

Market value means the value of what it's worth, that has little to do with the gold spot price.  The government restricts the demand market and therefore the value that will be paid for the finder.

I'd not change my view, not nearly something of that value but I had things stolen from me and all the police did was adminstrating it. There was a case in Italy where the police couldn't find a stolen care in weeks I think it was and then a private insurance found it in days. And not it's not "well Italy", it's "well, government". I'd rather not pay any taxes for the police or for anything and pay for a private security company instead. Not only would it be cheaper but the success rates would be higher. There is no such thing that is handled better in the hand of the government rather than on the free market.

22 hours ago, DarkChameleon said:

There is a law that land owners only own the first few inches of their land, the government owns everything under that.

Then private landownership doesn't exist here. As a matter of fact with governments in place we must speak of fiat property just as we are used to speak of fiat money.

[Notafront4adragon]

12 hours ago, silenceissilver said:

Market value means the value of what it's worth, that has little to do with the gold spot price.  The government restricts the demand market and therefore the value that will be paid for the finder.

I'd not change my view, not nearly something of that value but I had things stolen from me and all the police did was adminstrating it. There was a case in Italy where the police couldn't find a stolen care in weeks I think it was and then a private insurance found it in days. And not it's not "well Italy", it's "well, government". I'd rather not pay any taxes for the police or for anything and pay for a private security company instead. Not only would it be cheaper but the success rates would be higher. There is no such thing that is handled better in the hand of the government rather than on the free market.

Then private landownership doesn't exist here. As a matter of fact with governments in place we must speak of fiat property just as we are used to speak of fiat money.

What are you on about? How much is it valued at then. What would you pay for a one ounce Saxon gold bracelet? 

The find is assessed by a panel of experts not the government. It's value is not restricted despite your paranoia and misinformation.

Saying you don't want to pay taxes for things like policing and would rather hire your own militia is quite typical of the elites. You get into position to exploit your wealth and then don't want to contribute back to the society that allowed you to get that wealth in the first place. Like these greedy and selfish crooks who stole from hardworking people. They want the benefits of society but don't want to contribute fairly to it. 

Your health, education and security and more have all been secured thanks to that society, taxes and government. 

[silenceissilver]

On 26/11/2019 at 08:42, Notafront4adragon said:

What are you on about? How much is it valued at then. What would you pay for a one ounce Saxon gold bracelet? 

The find is assessed by a panel of experts not the government. It's value is not restricted despite your paranoia and misinformation.

Saying you don't want to pay taxes for things like policing and would rather hire your own militia is quite typical of the elites. You get into position to exploit your wealth and then don't want to contribute back to the society that allowed you to get that wealth in the first place. Like these greedy and selfish crooks who stole from hardworking people. They want the benefits of society but don't want to contribute fairly to it. 

Your health, education and security and more have all been secured thanks to that society, taxes and government. 

You call me paranoid and refer to me as crook. Well, let me me refer to you too, what you write is satanic because it turns reality upside down which is the core satanic principle. You also use typical communist propaganda terms like exploitation and greed but of course communism is satanic itself. I can't know of course why you do that, principally there are two possibilities but let's get back to what you wrote. 

The government restricts who can buy and thus prevents private bidders from offering more than what government backed experts conclude the value is.

Secondly, you assume private security services are something for rich people only. Of course that is the case with governments in place who restrict free markets and thus make sure the poorest people of a country are much poorer than they would be without government. I have told you already, private security would be cheaper and more effective than the police but only for the poor and the middle class. Rich people with a high need for protection would have to pay more for using more men hours of the private security services.   

My health, security and education have all been held back by the government, the standard of each of them would have been/still would be higher without the government and they would be cheaper as well even for a better standard, only for a much higher standard, it would be more expensive.

I know how to use my money better than the government does and that would also be true for all the welfare (I should say worsefare) recipients had they not been lured into a position where responsibility was taken from them, by the worsefare system. The only thing the government, to be sure every single government, is good at, apart from war and lying, is to make sure to spread poverty, particularly amongst the poorest 20% of society. (Sometimes of course wealth creating factors - industrialization - have outdone the poverty creation of governments.)

[Notafront4adragon]

1 hour ago, silenceissilver said:

You call me paranoid and refer to me as crook. Well, let me me refer to you too, what you write is satanic because it turns reality upside down which is the core satanic principle. You also use typical communist propaganda terms like exploitation and greed but of course communism is satanic itself. I can't know of course why you do that, principally there are two possibilities but let's get back to what you wrote. 

The government restricts who can buy and thus prevents private bidders from offering more than what government backed experts conclude the value is.

Secondly, you assume private security services are something for rich people only. Of course that is the case with governments in place who restrict free markets and thus make sure the poorest people of a country are much poorer than they would be without government. I have told you already, private security would be cheaper and more effective than the police but only for the poor and the middle class. Rich people with a high need for protection would have to pay more for using more men hours of the private security services.   

My health, security and education have all been held back by the government, the standard of each of them would have been/still would be higher without the government and they would be cheaper as well even for a better standard, only for a much higher standard, it would be more expensive.

I know how to use my money better than the government does and that would also be true for all the welfare (I should say worsefare) recipients had they not been lured into a position where responsibility was taken from them, by the worsefare system. The only thing the government, to be sure every single government, is good at, apart from war and lying, is to make sure to spread poverty, particularly amongst the poorest 20% of society. (Sometimes of course wealth creating factors - industrialization - have outdone the poverty creation of governments.)

I've not been called satanic before. So thanks I'll take that, no idea how its satanic or how religion got involved, perhaps cause even you don't believe the pap you're spreading. Nor have I produced a communist argument, communism would allow for ownership therefore you wouldn't get paid for discovery as I've said. Nor have I called you a crook; paranoid and capable of spreading misinformation yes but not a crook. Unless you don't pay taxes and steal from us. You don't do that do you? You suggest you would like to but I hope you're decent enough to still pay them.

I can see you are having some trouble processing and following my arguments. So I'll try and keep it simple. They stole lots of money so they now go to prison for long time.

As to the above about paying for services. So you're saying poorer people should pay less for services that they can all use, and richer people pay more for those services. Now if only there was a way to organise who pays what and maybe some sort of system to determine what the level should be. Also we'll need some folk to just do those jobs so they will not be able to do  normal work. Perhaps we should, to ensure it is fair and runs well, put some folk in charge of that system maybe make them accountable to the rest of us. 

[silenceissilver]

48 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

I've not been called satanic before. So thanks I'll take that, no idea how its satanic or how religion got involved, perhaps cause even you don't believe the pap

It's called logic.

 

48 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

NorhaveI produced a communist argument

I have said you use communist propaganda terms. But of course it is true government interference and the potential thereof makes property fiat property, thus your arguments certainly have some some communist qualities.

 

48 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Norhave I called you a crook; paranoid and capable of spreading misinformation yes but not a crook.

I didn't say you called me a crook but that you referred to me as a crook.

 

On 26/11/2019 at 08:42, Notafront4adragon said:

You ...Like these greedy and selfish crooks

 

48 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Unless you don't pay taxes and steal from us. You don't do that do you? You suggest you would like to but I hope you're decent enough to still pay them.

Thanks for pointing out my argument. Taxation is theft, actually robbery or what do you call it when you are forced to give your money to someone else under the threat of getting kidnapped, if you don't? Yet you call resisting the criminals in government stealing. That's the satanic upside down principle I mentioned, before. Paying taxes has nothing to do with decency or moral obligations but with threat, violence and force.

 

48 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

I can see you are having some trouble processing and following my arguments. So I'll try and keep it simple.

I can see you are reacting with arrogance to ideas that you don't understand or don't want to understand.

 

48 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

They stole lots of money so they now go to prison for long time

You might want to read again, what I criticized - the role of the government.

 

48 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

So you're saying poorer people should pay less for services that they can all use, and richer people pay more for those services. Now if only there was a way to organise who pays what and maybe some sort of system to determine what the level should be.

"So you are saying", lol. Reminds me of a certain interview with Jordan Peterson. I didn't say poor people should pay less, I said they would pay less for security, in a free market society which is the way to organise it.