Hacker News Reader

Comment by thombat | Hacker News Reader

How about:

* Acquire treasure in dubious circumstances ("jury heard that Pilling, from Rossendale, Lancashire, was in possession of the coins knowing they should have been declared. Pilling has never disclosed the full identity of the person he acquired them from. Pilling recruited Best, of Bishop Auckland, County Durham, to try to sell the coins.")

* Spend years selling the treasure in a manner that makes it clear you understand that it's a crime ("Best, who sent an email which read: “They are a hoard as you know they are this can cause me problems all you had to do was say you didn’t want them and that was the end of it.”)

* Go to jail after remaining uncooperative and failing to provide leads that could recover more of the treasure

View on HN

The issue is with step 1. What does ownership even mean if the government can force you to do things like this?

It seems like a slippery slope that favours the most powerful entity, the government, over many smaller entities - millions of landowners.

I understand the argument that history is to be preserved, but this seems especially draconian. I recently saw another guy from England post on Twitter that badgers tunnelled out his house foundation and he's not allowed to do anything about it, on pains of six months in prison.

In every society, you need a balance of power. You can't let the Sir Humphreys [1] take over.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Appleby

> he's not allowed to do anything about it, on pains of six months in prison.

He did indeed say (tweet) that [1] ...

> In every society, you need a balance of power.

Which in this case exists - there's a clear exception [2] that allows him to take action to prevent damage to his house.

See:

[1] https://twitter.com/mhudack/status/1650854942511448064

[2] https://twitter.com/TheAlanColeShow/status/16510204110253670...

Why is this treasure reporting law "especially draconian"?

Here's the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Act_1996

I'm not British but even I've heard about the law by watching Time Team on YouTube.

Just because you think X is bad doesn't make Y bad.

In the US the government can prevent you from killing a protected species, picking up the feathers of a protected species, digging up a graveyard without permission, desecrating burial goods on your land, and more.

US state laws regarding treasure troves may require reporting as well, says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove#State_laws , and different states have different conclusions about who gets to keep the treasure.

I don't see how this British law stands out in any way as being unbalanced or especially draconian.

> What does ownership even mean if the government can force you to do things like this?

Ownership is always limited in various ways. Property rights are a social arrangement, in which the community agrees to recognize and enforce certain exclusive rights for individuals, but under set conditions.

One of the conditions of land ownership in the UK is that if you find something of great historical importance, you don't get to keep it. That's a perfectly reasonable arrangement, in my opinion. The idea is that ancient objects such as these coins are the heritage of the entire community.

Possession of land doesn't give absolute untrammeled rights in most countries, e.g.:

* Exceptions exist for subterranean mineral wealth, e.g. mining licenses can be issued against the wishes of a land owner

* Similarly the landowner has no exclusive right to the air above the property beyond some low altitude

* Compulsory acquisition can be invoked by the state

In many cases the landowner is compensated, though they may not like the amount. In the case of treasure in the UK the 1996 Act provides for a reward of "up to the market value". In those case the treasure hunters weren't on their own land and (https://www.herefordshirehoard.co.uk/the-story):

"The judge who sentenced the men said they had cheated not only the landowner, but also the public of ‘exceptionally rare and significant coins’.

Had the metal detectorists stayed on the right side of the law they could have expected to receive, as the judge pointed out to them, a half share or a third share of the hoard’s value."

Hell, landowners don't have an unrestricted right to build things on their property.

Go try to build an unusually tall structure on your residential lot, or two houses on one lot, or a multifamily dwelling in single family zoning, or even just a shed right up next to your property line.

Go try to build something the wrong way; build a vernacular house, with no formal blue prints.

Owning property conveys a number of rights, but it is very easy to run up against the limits of those rights.

Just wait until you find out what happens when you try to build something on ‘your land’

> What does ownership even mean if the government can force you to do things like this?

Have you ever owned land and/or built a house ?

They can force you to do a lot of shit actually, and most of it makes sense because people before you were dumb as fuck and thought they could build their own 4 stories house out of dried cow shit and plywood

Same reasons new cars have seatbelts, airbags, abs. Same reason tall building have to have emergency exits, proper ventilation, fire retardant material, &c.

If you think this "found a coin can't keep it" is a slippery slope you must live in a very weird place because I can come up with hundreds of more restrictive laws that you have to abide by since you're born.

We built communities out of common interests and for safety, not for absolute freedom to do whatever the fuck we want while disregarding everything and everyone else

> You can't let the Sir Humphreys [1] take over.

Would you have an issue if I built a 50m tall tower next to your garden, shading your entire land from the sun ?

Or if I dig a well to tap into our common underground water reserve but drain it in a month to sell bottled water ?

> because people before you were dumb as fuck

There are many Tudor farm houses built out of dried cow/horse shit and hair where this hoard was found, and school children visit these 500 year old buildings daily to experience the engineering of these dumb people.

It's an intolerable impertinence that these buildings can't be knocked down and replaced with glass and steel boxes that conform to the latest construction regulations.

Of course some were well made, after all survivor bias will take care of that.

Have you heard of things like "The Great fire of London" though ?

I've heard of the Grenfell Tower Fire, that was a great fire in London.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com