Could someone explain to the editor that this piece is hardly relevant in Australia because we already have our local taxes levied on land value. They are called "rates". And the rest of the article is little more than luddite voodoo with barely sufficient economics thrown in to impress the punterazzi.

And in Australia, as in the USA, Canada NZ and UK it is not the rising cost of land that is grinding the poor. It is the impact of regulation and that crock of proverbial known as local government planning that is both limiting the supply of housing land and increasing the cost of construction. One simply cannot build a small, affordable house these days. The council would not approve the Development Application, the neighbours would all lodge objections and the banks would not lend you the money to build it.

But I wish Alana well on her journey up the remaining 97% of the learning curve.

Whoa, wasn't expecting the attack of the basket-weavers over my monday morning tea.

A few simples points to make:

The main problem with human rights are that they simply do not exist. The vague "right to the land" is an example of this... it's a political convenience which conveys next to no meaning whatsoever, and what it does convey is sufficiently vague to allow it to mean anything from a right to live near a national park, or the right to kick people off their land because they are richer than you... it sounds too much of Mugabe and his thugs demanding the right to "their land".

"Our treatment of the earth as a market commodity, just like a car or television, is the basic flaw in our economic ground rules."

Well, no. The problem is that all those people who talk about "animal rights" (another politically convenient lie for those wishing to alienate conservative rural voters) are destroying all the vestiges of rural agricultural community which raise the value of land to something higher than an amount of money, into a living community from which most people would not like to leave. That is, it limits supply, and thus reduces transactions. The perfect example is the hunt in rural England, now illegal, in which property boundaries dissolve away as the group do their work of being stewards of an area... the hunt goes where it may, over fences, into the properties of neighbours, poor and rich alike, to unify the people of the area in community and a profound bond with nature. Remove the hunt, remove one more reason to consider one's land as something more than a commodity, but rather an intrinsic part of one's self. This involves private property, hereditary property rights, lack of government intervention, and traditions and customs which only exist when there is minimal change in an area. Your utopia will destroy all these natural bonds and customs, by bringing upheaval to rural areas.

It is hard to believe that a “lack of security” in basic necessities stems from anything but absent budgeting skills and wrong spending priorities. It takes two workers in the family to sustain the standard of living people aspire to these days, but it is certainly not the same standard that people were content with when there was one breadwinner in the family. People are presented with luxury consumer goods and they simply must have them. It is not the basic needs of life that cause the problem.

The rest of the author’s arcane babble doesn’t seem to have anything to do with anything – certainly not in Australia. It’s interesting to note that she is attached to the UN, which probably explains her problem.

ARHU, thanks Leigh, now I realize what quadrant she is coming from: The one that demands notice and a point that needs to be made to justify their existence. Maybe a little bit of guilt in there also, as her wealth is ill begotten. I mean, Made no constructive effort or actually produce anything tangible, but gobelty goo., but gets paid heaps of loot for promoting misery.

I often wonder, if they actually believe in the Darwinian evolutionary theories, or Alien visitations and or abductions, that would help explain a lot of this rant. hmmmmmmm.

The author said....

.... "The other way to secure democratic rights to the earth is this: land could be made available to individuals and groups who wish to live in ecologically sustainable villages and farms. Community land trusts"

Yikes.. I don't know why but the words 'Animal Farm' come to mind here.
Just imagine the 'power trip' of those on the Land Trust. Or.. the potential for abuse.

I prefer individual holding, and if we want to move in the direction of more environmentally sustainable living, our councils can legislate it. Each new home has MORE than enough roof space to provide all their Electricity needs as long as they don't use electric cooking or heating, and use high efficiency lights.

Having worked in the Solar industry, I know this to be a fact.

Would the major utilities like that ? Would they move behind the scenes to prevent it ?

Is the Pope Catholic ?

Critics of Alanna Hartzong claim to know economics. They should read their textbooks more carefully. They should also read Alanna's speech more carefully and try not confuse rates on land with rates on buildings.

To suggest, as some have, that site revenue public financing increases the price of land is amazingly ignorant. Land tax is one of very few taxes that actually reduces the price of land. See Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Ch 8, Ch 11 and Book 5, Ch 2; David Ricardo Principles of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill, Book 5, Ch. 2 if you don't understand why this is so.

Indeed, any first year economics textbook will probably the same matter discussed (e.g., Paul Samuelson's Economics, 16th edition, p250).

Further, the matter of "rights" in economics is not vague subject at all! People have the right to what they produce, as both a cost and a benefit - to all else, the gifts of nature, they have the right of equal access. That much is obvious from John Locke onwards.

The simple empirical fact of the matter is that site revenue public finance (including "pollution taxes") both encourage conservation of resources, internalises externalities, shifts investment from speculation to production and lower the cost of home ownership with minimal market distortions (indeed, some claim none at all). This is recognised across the spectrum - it's just that few politicians have the will to advocate it

Clyde Cameron (Labor) and Sir Alan Fairhall (Liberal) were two exceptions. It would be welcome if some more politicians had the courage that these individuals had.