An excellent and well reasoned article.

One of these days Australians will wake up to the fact that what 'rights' we are assumed to have are being eroded day by day?

What event might stir that?

What concerns does Foreign Minister Carr have for Australians wrongly imprisoned or detained overseas through abuse of legal process? We are hardly on firm ground in this regard given our treatment of refugees with legitimate grounds for asylum. It is doubtful that a change or government would see much improvement in these respects.

For any Bill of Rights to protect our liberties, it must first recognise the responsibility of all to pay to the public purse the economic rent of land and natural resources over which they've been granted the exclusive possession. The status quo is the logical extension of our not having been required to do so: we've made commodities of our land and natural resources, speculating in them and attempting to monopolise and make a profit from them.

This has resulted in the dispossession of the aboriginal people and poor in North America and Australia. South Australia was openly founded on the (Wakefield) plan of keeping the lower class subservient to their masters by selling land at "sufficient price" that workers would not be able to afford a block of their own.

When the US founding fathers attempted to get to grips with payment of rent for the exclusive possession of land, the recommendation was deleted by self-interested big landowners and replaced by the motherhood catch-all "the pursuit of happiness".

A Bill of Rights without this initial requirement can never rectify the dispossession wrought upon the indigenous and poor of any nation and becomes a mockery of rights.

Such a requirement in the preamble to a re-written Australian constitution would amount to the long-awaited treaty.

Your last three paragraphs are good.

In America you need to go to court if you want to appoint yourself as the manager of somebody else's life, but in Australia those decisions are made by Tribunals that are not bound to any of the principles of "natural justice" or the rules of evidence. The Tribunal Acts assume the Tribunals will comply with natural justice principles but provide no assurance of that. The Tribunals can and have acted to cover-up misdeeds by fellow Tribunal members at the expense of the elderly and carers who have been targeted for asset stripping by their relatives or in a case I know of complete strangers.

Likewise hospital staff can be tricked into using chemical restraints like risperidone to incapacitate you before interviewing or diagnosing if you need to be restrained. If you own a house or other assets then relatives and complete strangers would have fiscal motive, and they would probably succeed if they have the gumption to make the allegations that convince hospital staff to restrain you at first sight. Once the hospital administration discover's its staff mistake days later, it will protect its fiscal interest by denying that any law has been broken. The victims have no hope of help from the police or others once the hospital accuse the victims of mental illness.

It is easy to make somebody effectively a non-citizen in Australia, it is done to thousands of innocent people every year while the police and others are too busy with 'real crime'.

Yes it is illegal to do these things, you could pay a hundred dollar fine for example if anybody had ever used that un-used provision of an Act; and restraining people without asking them if they have capacity in NSW is a violation of your right listed in a schedule attached to a Information Privacy Act - but the police will not help you assert your civil rights that are not listed in criminal statutes.

Every Australian citizen is vulnerable, they just don't know it.

What ever happened to my birthright to life that I must now serve an increasingly unsustainable function in an unsustainable system? If I do have a right to life, surely I have a right to the elements provided by nature for life – including free access to land for shelter? Was Leo Tolstoy right when he said that solving the land question means the solving of all social questions?

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

A Bill of Rights must be accompanied by education, enforcement, training of law enforcement bodies and review. The Bill of Rights was added to the US Constitution shortly after its adoption in 1789. For over 80 years slavery, a massive violation of human rights, continued to exist. Even now with a dark-skinned president racism still exists in the law enforcement bodies and the general public. Human rights must be for all.

In Australia an HREOC publication called "Racist Violence" offered evidence that a prominent perpetrator of violence against the Aborigines were members of the various commonwealth law enforcement bodies. They were violating common law since common law forbids incitement and harassment. Possibly some of the police didn't even know they were committing criminal acts. However, even though Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights they were violating the law.

Laws including a Bill of Rights must be periodically reviewed. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The above was adopted in an era when rifles were single shot flintlocks. In my opinion in an era of assault weapons capable of firing with machine gun rapidity it should no longer apply.

A Bill of Rights must be accompanied by education, enforcement, training of enforcement bodies and review.

We don't need a bill of 'rights'. We do need a bill of Responsibility. Same outcome, different mindset.

Murali has been co-opted to advertise to prevent asylum seekers leaving Sri Lanka, there is no law on the planet that allows for such a thing to be done as everyone has the right to seek asylum.

With further evidence of war crimes committed by Sri Lanka surfacing daily who are we to behave in this way? It's contributing to genocide just as we are in Pakistan where we have cops and spies working illegally with the Pakistan intelligence services to prevent Hazara leaving.

The Australian polity and lazy, racist media have convinced themselves that we own the borders of other countries and the oceans are totally under our control except when it comes to safety of lives at sea.

Now that useless coward Gillard is using the same abuse and threats against the prisoners on Nauru as Ruddock did and she does this because she hates refugees, feels they are contemptible and not worthy migrants like her racist self and loved Nauru when she went with Ruddock.

White Australia is taking over again and it is terrifying.

But Carr is the worse FM in my memory, he cluelessly struts around the world on our dime and dollars taking Helena when she does not need to be there and will not help any Australian in trouble.

But regardless of all their efforts Ässange is an eligible elector on the electoral roles and will sit for and win a seat in the senate.

with such dreadful treatment of people and such mean handouts it makes you wonder why thousands risk their lives getting here. You would think they would head to an Islamic nation, or communist nation, or a hindu nation. Oh that's right our early settlers built schools, hospitals, roads and welcomed people from many nations. What an evil bunch.

Dear runner,

The early settlers of Australia also exterminated Aborigines and drove them off their land. They had the doctrine of Terra Nullius which meant that they considered the land unoccupied by humans.

Welcomed people from many nations? They also murdered the Chinese who had come here. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/30919629 tells about the riots against the Chinese in Brisbane in 16 May 1888.

The White Australia policy was an exercise in bigotry.

Of course not all of the settlers were evil, but some were most evil murderers.

Our early settlers might have built schools but what does that have to do with jailing men, womena and children who have asked us for help?

Tempting - but no thanks!

Accepting a bill of rights from the state, would imply that the state had a right to rob our freedoms away in the first place, then only by its gracious grace it was kindly willing to bestow back on us some of our (chewed up) God-given freedoms, so we can thank it for ever and ever.

No deal!

david f

no one denies that evil has been done by aboriginals, whites, Asians, Europeans, Maories etc etc. To be so selected and to ignore the majority is plain deceitful. The aborigines were not exactly living in Australia peacefully as many try to fantasize about. The reality is that most the world now want to come and live in this country largely built by those evil despised 'whites'.

It might shock you but 7 billion people not want to come here runner.

what is stopping our enlightened legislators from (a) amending the Constitution to remove some odious loathful provisions and (b) inserting a bill of rights?

They wouldn't need to go on a fact-finding world tour for that - every schoolboy knows what they are.

Oh, there aren't any new ones as far as I'm aware: the furphy on privacy is just that: a furphy. There is no such thing as a 'right' to privacy, just a right of freedom from restraint or coercion - or blackmail. There are other words but these will suffice.

Our liberties are indeed fragile, and have been fought for, often painfully. Especially the rights of minorities. While I have great sympathy for refugees, especially from countries rendered uninhabitable by Australian war-mongering with big brother USA, I do not want to fill the land with people who will never treat women as equals, who will never accept that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality, who think children are there to serve their parents unquestioningly, even at the expense of their own well-being. I do not want asylum seekers who bring with them all their religious and racist intolerance and hatreds.
A Bill of rights and responsibilities would be a handy tool. All immigrants should be required to read it and answer questions, then sign a binding document swearing to uphold these rights, the forfeit for not doing so being repatriation to their own country. Yes, I know those already here can be racist and ill disposed towards minorities, but at least we shouldn't be importing more bigots to destroy what's left of our freedom and tolerance.

Dear runner,

Nobody denied it? You denied it. You wrote, "...welcomed people from many nations." That is simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia. It came into fruition with Federation in 1901, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.

Competition in the goldfields, labour disputes and Australian nationalism created an environment of racial antagonism during the second half of the 19th century. Such factors led to the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, one of the first Acts of the national parliament following federation. The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of World War II.[1] These policies effectively allowed for the privileging of British migrants over all others through the first decades of the 20th century.

The policy was dismantled in stages by several successive governments after the conclusion of World War II, with the encouragement of first non-British and later non-white immigration, allowing for a large multi-ethnic post-war program of immigration. The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially-based selection criteria illegal. In the decades since, Australia has maintained largescale multi-ethnic immigration

Dear David F,

Runner has a point. His initial comment was: << our early settlers…welcomed people from many nations>>

And there were many who came to Australia in the early days who were not of British stock.

One example is here: “the Italians appealed to the British consul for aid. Sir Henry Parkes, the colonial secretary of New South Wales,[3] responded to their request[4] and arranged travel for the settlers on the James Patterson[1][3] to Sydney”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Rays_Expedition

Dear SPQR,

It is true. I have been at the Italian colony in New South Wales. The Italians had been sold a bill of goods by a shady character in the nineteenth century to settle in the south sea islands which were painted as idyllic. After many died from disease they were rescued and brought to Australia.

The truth is that the early settlers were a mixed bag. However, runner paints them all as noble characters. Many weren't.

.

Our fragile Commonwealth ...

.

The Honourable the Premier, Campbell Newman MP has just taken Queensland in hostage over an insignificant bill of legislation concerning the conditions under which somebody may succeed to the Crown of Britain.

In dramatic Shakespearean style, he has mounted his thoroughbred, brandishing his coat of arms as chief defender of the British Royalty and declared that he (and his hostage) are determined to go it alone and pave the way for new legislation on who could succeed to the British Throne.

Such legislation is normally referred to the Commonwealth Government which acts in the name of all the States in order to assure cohesion and uniformity. It is uncertain whether the proposed Queensland legislation is constitutionally valid.

What is sure is that the Commonwealth Government can only act if all the States agree. Premier Newman's decision prevents the Commonwealth Government enacting the legislation on behalf of the other States.

It is a breakdown of the federation, each State acting individually. and independently of all the others.

Premier Newman declared that he (and his hostage) has a unique personal relationship with British Royalty which the other States do not enjoy and is therefore justified in passing its own legislation in its own terms.

The Bill makes amendments in three areas relating to the royal succession as follows:

• allowing for succession regardless of gender;

• removing the bar on succession for an heir and successor of the Sovereign who marries a Roman Catholic; and

• limiting the requirement for the Sovereign’s consent to royal marriages to the first six individuals in the line of succession.

Here is the link to the proposed Queensland legislation:

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/docs/find.aspx?id=5413T2110

.

Dear Banjo,

Although Campbell Newman is an ass and his legislation provides the ass with ears and tail I believe what he has done is valid. I personally don't feel any connection with the royal parasites. However, one way to effect democratic change is for the states to make legislation which departs from previous precedent. If other states join them this may encourage the commonwealth to join in. In such case the change becomes the policy of the Australian government.

The only question for me is whether the Australian Constitution allows the state of Queensland the right to pass such legislation.

What fascinates me is the continuing presumption in some parts of our society that a bill of rights will actually have an impact on anything at all.

I'd be intrigued to hear of any evidence of protection afforded to China's citizenry, for example, following that country's commitment in 1949 that:

"The citizens of the People's Republic of China, 'have the rights to elect and to be elected according to law,' 'have freedoms of thought, speech, the press, assembly, association, communication, person, residence, migration, religious beliefs and demonstration' and that 'women shall enjoy the same rights and obligations as men in political, economic, cultural, educational and social activities and women and men enjoy the freedom of marriage.'"

http://www.humanrights.cn/zt/magazine/200402004812104351.htm

An Australian bill of rights would, on the other hand, have a positive impact the earning power of those downtrodden minions in the legal profession, who will have what is demotically known a "a field day", in both the bill's formulation, and its prosecution.

O to be a lawyer, now that a Bill of Rights is near.

But the emperor has no clothes!!

If I have a right to life, surely I have a right to the elements provided by nature for life – including free access to land for shelter?

The United Nations Human Rights Declaration itself skirts this fundamental issue by declaring "shelter" rather than Land air water or sunlight a right. Thus a right to life is made dependent on the willingness or ability of an economic system (run by the rich for the rich) and on a MAJORITY of voters (taxpayers). http://on.fb.me/UbyrlD

What ever happened to my birthright to life that I must now serve an increasingly unsustainable function in an unsustainable system? There is no talk of the land issue in the discussion of rights, and there is an assumption that we are free when we can consume to our physical limit. Was Leo Tolstoy right when he said that solving the land question means the solving of all social questions?

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

Dear Landrights4all,

<<If I have a right to life, surely...>>

Well, apparently you do not have a right for life.
What you have, commonly confused for a right to life, is state-protection, making it illegal for others to actively take your [biological] life and promising to punish those who do (too late for you anyway).

Since nobody owns life (including the United Nations), only swindlers can offer you "a right to life".

I heard the other day on ABC National that the first Commonwealth Parliament wanted to introduce a Bill of Rights along the lines of that adopted by the USA, but the Prime Minister, Barton?, argued against it because then the government wouldn't be able to make laws that discriminated against Blacks and other unwanted minorities. He stated this in parliament and the exact words are recorded. It wasn't an under the table deal - he was proud of it. And that's why we haven't one, and why we'll never get one. Imagine if the Government wasn't able to pass laws such as the NT intervention, or if the Health, police and justice systems were required to tread Aborigines the same as the rest of Australians... The mind boggles.

Sure Yuyutsu, but if declarations about "rights" are there to protect us against others depriving us, where is my protection against those who have commodified my right of access to the essential elements for life as provided by nature? Why do I have to buy back my birthright to land from them so I can build shelter? Isn't a right of access to land air water and sunlight more fundamental than, foundational even to a right to free speech etc etc?

Excellent questions, Landrights4all,

The answer is that there are no rights in nature, never been any. Where for example are the rights of deer not to be eaten by tigers?

So given that there are no rights, there are also no rights which are more fundamental than others. We still live under the law of the jungle as we did for a billion years or so, so we ought to remove the cellophane and uncover the grotesque lie as if civilisation is different.

You may then ask, "but what about morality?"

- Morality does not come from nature, morality can only occur when we turn our back to nature.

Civilisation can never be moral or just while its focus is on material success (which is natural). If people were to live by spiritual principles rather than by natural ones, then finding a place for a shelter would never pose a problem. The first 5 most basic spiritual principles, or Yamas (http://www.vmission.org.in/vedanta/articles/5yamas.htm) are:

1. Non-violence (ahimsa).
2. Truthfulness (satyam).
3. Non-stealing (asteya).
4. Sexual restraint (brahmacharya).
5. Non-possessiveness (aparigraha).

You can see that if people kept, or even SINCERELY TRIED to keep just one of these, any one of these, that would suffice to eliminate the strife around obtaining the elements necessary for life.

But here is the catch: people need to freely choose to turn their back on nature and live by spiritual principles instead. They must give you what you need for living out of genuine caring, charity and love, not because you have a supposed "right". Any coercive attempt to force spiritual principles on others would be futile because it would go against the first principle of non-violence. Both secular and religious authorities made that mistake - and they always failed.

Y
I would certainly agree that while we must all die, the only path to fulfillment for the individual and to survival for mankind is through love. I would also agree that the existence of law can’t achieve that for us – the spirit we need for life exists beyond the law. However the laws of society are, at their best, like the teachings of a parent or the wisdom of the ages. Laws can help us be mindful. Like the good book/s, the law encourages us to stop & think.

I don’t dismiss the value of law – I critique it as I critique myself with my spiritual understanding.

When I look at rights declarations and the propositions put by this article I am appalled to realize that the law doesn’t protect life, so it certainly doesn’t protect any other “right”. The article and the declarations are hollow, or worse deceptive.

So I guess I am in furious agreement with your first post – this is a swindle. Just as these swindlers have privatised the land for their own profit and at the expense of my freedom, they are continuing to pretend they are honourable with proposals which don’t address the roots of their swindle. It would challenge the source of their power – the land. I call their bluff and show that by their trumpeting of other “rights”, but denying landrights, they are ignorant or swindlers – most likely BOTH! I call for law change, knowing that it won’t happen unless there is the honesty you call for.

.

Dear David F.,

.

"...one way to effect democratic change is for the states to make legislation which departs from previous precedent. If other states join them this may encourage the commonwealth to join in."

.

"Joining in" is precisely the standard procedure of agreement among all the member States of the Commonwealth on national legislation.

The problem arises when there is no agreement and they do not all "join in". It only takes one to disagree and the whole system collapses.

Australia could not work as a nation if this or that State decided to act independently on each occasion.

Premier Newman is simply playing politics and holding Queensland hostage over an insignificant piece of legislation. In doing so he is not acting in the interests of the people of Queensland, he is acting in what he considers to be the interest of his own political party in its eternal struggle against its political enemy, the Australian Labor Party.

Under no circumstances could this constitute a valid reason for endangering the cohesion and unity of Australia as a nation.

Freedom (liberty) and independence come at a price. The price is security. No security, no freedom or independence.

Queensland, like any of the other States, considered separately, is incapable of defending itself in the event of armed conflict. It does not weigh heavily in world markets either. Alone, it is economically and financially at a handicap compared to the bargaining clout of the nation as a whole.

Better to mutually cede part of its sovereignty to the other friendly States of Australia on a voluntary basis than to be obliged to cede it unilaterally to some foreign predator such as an overseas trading partner or investor.

It is illusory to imagine that Queensland can survive as an independent State. It can only become dependent on some other nation or political power and gain in vulnerability.

Premier Newman is playing a dangerous game. His political manoeuvres can only make the State fragile and the country weak.

He should get his priorities right. The State comes first, the party second.

.

.

Dear landrights4all, Pericles, ybgirp and Yuyutsu,

.

Though some idealists may have a few reserves on the question, I think it is generally safe to say that Australia is a democracy.

Democracy, of course, derives from the Greek "demos" (people) and "kratos" (rules or power) which means that it is the people who have the power to fix the rules to which they accept to submit themselves.

No rules, no democracy.

The fundamental rules of any democracy are embodied in a Constitution, whether written in a formal document (as in the US and Australia) or not (as in the UK).

Who could doubt that the rights and obligations of the people who fix the rules of a democratic nation are included in and fundamental to the Constitution of that nation?

As we all know, the first political regime in the world to establish a bill of rights was not a democracy. It was the absolute monarchy in England in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta, followed in 1689 by the establishment of thje Bill of Rights and England becoming a constitutional monarchy.

The first ten amendments of the US Constitution were adopted by the American House of Representatives exactly one hundred years later, in 1789, and have since become known as the United States Bill of Rights.

It seems to me that if we asked our adult Australian citizens to tick off a list of (democratic) rules they would be willing to submit themselves to, they would probably include many of those to be found in the British and American "Bills of Rights", perhaps along with a few others.

.

Dear Banjo,

You wrote: "He should get his priorities right. The State comes first, the party second."

I would like it to be that way, but that is not the way it is. If it were legislators should be able to ignore the wishes of the party room if they thought it was in conflict with the good of the state or of Australia. As long as the wishes of the party room prevail over conscience, the wishes of the constituency and the good of Australia the party will have priority.

david f: you wrote:<< I would like it to be that way, but that is not the way it is. If it were legislators should be able to ignore the wishes of the party room if they thought it was in conflict with the good of the state or of Australia. As long as the wishes of the party room prevail over conscience, the wishes of the constituency and the good of Australia the party will have priority.>>
You are correct, and this is why party politics is the death of democracy. Only a parliament of well-informed, genuine independents elected with a proportional system, who debate and discuss and arrive at consensus, can give us true democracy. There should never be an 'Opposition' whose function is to disagree with everything the government does no matter what. There is no need for a government. The parliament should elect ministers who act as chairperson when their topics are debated; the premier/chairperson should be a rotating office, and all business conducted with total transparency. The present system is so seriously flawed it is scarcely different to a dictatorship.

Dear Landrights4all,

<<However the laws of society are, at their best, like the teachings of a parent or the wisdom of the ages. Laws can help us be mindful. Like the good book/s, the law encourages us to stop & think.>>

At their best... At their best... but we don't have anything anywhere in the world close to that. Perhaps the closest in recent times was Bhutan, but even they are now slipping away and blending with the Western culture. Yes, if laws were made by sages directly inspired by God, that could be different, but that's not going to happen in our age - if I dared to suggest that, then the whole forum would be at me with knives.

Dear Banjo,

<<I think it is generally safe to say that Australia is a democracy.>>

In the technical sense of the word, yes, but not in its spirit.

Regardless, a "democracy" is but a fig-leaf for kratos, that sick idea as if it is moral for people to exert power and control over others who have done or threatened them no harm. In democracy, any 51% of the population (including the least intelligent, least caring, least affected and least moral 51%) may oppress the other 49% and rule out their way of life and all that's most dear to them.

<<which means that it is the people who have the power to fix the rules to which they accept to submit themselves.>>

Accept to submit? Under duress? try that in a rape court-case...

What we have is a number of powerful groups of people dividing the whole earth between them, not leaving a single spot free of their control, then demanding all people who live within their plots of land to submit to their will. It matters not whether the local controlling group is 1%, 10% or 51% of the population, because the end result for the rest is the same.

Who gave the state of Australia the right to hog a whole continent to itself, leaving no space for others? Was everyone present/affected in agreement?

.

Dear ybgirp,

.

"Only a parliament of well-informed, genuine independents elected with a proportional system, who debate and discuss and arrive at consensus, can give us true democracy ... There is no need for a government. The parliament should elect ministers who act as chairperson when their topics are debated; the premier/chairperson should be a rotating office, ..."
.

If that is so, I fear we shall never have "true democracy".

The model of democracy you suggests is a sort of rejuvenated, should I say modern version of the ecclesia developed by Solon in the ancient city state of Athens, in the 6th century BC.

There were no political parties then. Nor was there any such thing as a government as we know it today. Daily administration and judicial affairs were handled by the "boule" which had something like 400 to 500 members rotating annually, no member serving more than twice in his lifetime.

Total population of Athens and its region, Attica, was about 250 000, of which 30 000 to 40 000 male citizens had the right to vote.

Ancient Athenian democracy managed to survive, off and on, for a couple of centuries until it was finally suppressed by the Macedonians, in 322 BC.

That was over 2300 years ago. The scales are vastly different today. Ancient Athens was just a tiny dot on the map compared to the world's nations today. Life is far more complex, far more rapid, interconnected and interdependent.

Consider Bangladesh as a possibility of application for your model, with its 165 million population. Application should be facilitated by the fact that it is by far the most densely populated country in the world due to its small geographical size (1,142 people per sq.km.)

Personally, I am sorry to say that I just cannot imagine the type of organisation you have in mind working on even this exceptionally compact scale.

Otherwise I find your suggestion intellectually seductive in theory and would be delighted to be proven wrong.

.

That's most interesting, Banjo, thanks. You are no doubt correct regarding Bangladesh, where rampant corruption and religious hatreds would make a mockery of any attempt at fair government. However, with only about ten million voters, Australia has the possibility of arriving at something a great deal better than the present system in which compulsory preferences guarantee a two party hegemony.
The size of Australia is irrelevant. The "tyranny of distance" no longer exists with the internet, so it is time to abolish the states. Imagine how much more money would become available if we had fifteen or more fewer governments.
OK, it's pie in the sky. No political party will willingly legislate its own demise, and there will be no pressure to do so with an ill informed electorate such as we have.

landrights4all, interesting concept but I'm wondering how it plays out in practice.

I assume that you might want a bit more than just the room to set up a simple lean to but may want the ability to grow some crops, maybe keep some animals (or have some ability to manage foraging and hunting so that the area you lived in remained viable to keep yourself fed).

Australian Population - Almost 23 million
Australian Land mass - Almost 7.7 Million Sq Kms
Approx 1/3 Sq km per person if divided evenly and the population stayed static.

So if you have the right to access land for a shelter how much are you entitled to have some control over?
How long can you keep your shelter on that choice bit of land?
Can you decide you like the bit of land someone else has their shelter on and take it over while they are out gathering some food?
How do you cope if the family that's moved in next to you destroy your ability to feed yourself (and family)?
If you are allowed to keep that choice spot for as long as you want but decide that you would not mind swapping with someone else who has a different choice spot can you do that or when you leave that spot is it up for grabs?

R0bert

“Though some idealists may have a few reserves on the question, I think it is generally safe to say that Australia is a democracy.”
Tecknikly, Banjo, no.
Australia is not a Democracy, any more than the USA is a democracy and for pretty much the same reason, strangely.
The USA is a republic, not a democracy. The difference? In a true representative democracy, the representative would be nothing more than a mouthpiece, much like a court barrister. He/she would have no official opinions of their own, but merely the job of arguing the views and desires of their constituents at the national assembly.
Having no views or policies of their own, clearly political parties would be redundant.
In a representative republican model -such as we share with the USA- constituents are permitted to elect a representative who then has a mandate to make decisions on their behalf, --according to his/her own professed views and values--. This distinction can't be emphasised too much.
This obviously is where the party comes in. In the representative republican model, we have a right to know what sort of person our representative is, what he/she stands for, and how he/she will vote on matters of most concern to us.
In my father's day (say 50's to 70's) the choices were -apparently- a little more clear cut; if you were self -employed or on a salary you'd probably vote Liberal, if you worked for wages you voted Labour.
These days, it's a little messier. When Malcolm Fraser was PM he was considered very “right wing”. Ever since Hawke and Keating the Labor party have been stepping around him until these days he appears more left wing than many so called “Labor” politicians -at least on certain 'moral' issues.
Go figgur.
I would suggest the essential reason we have a hung parliament is simply 'cause Labor's right and Liberal's left overlap. As a result, we are left with the “cult of personality”; a quality both contenders seem to be lacking in.

.

Dear Grim and ybgirp,

.

When all is said and done, I can't help feeling that "true democracy", like "true love" is largely an unattainable ideal.

In any event, despite the wonders of the internet, I am not convinced that either can be achieved at a distance.

Ever tried affectionately holding someone in your arms at a distance? Understanding the intricacies of their hopes and fears? Do you feel that human touch?

We may think we are communicating via the internet but are we really? Communication is not just words or images. It's looking people in the eyes, face to face. It's getting to know them. Growing up with them. Sharing the same experiences with them. There is something physical and psychological about communication. It's not just intellectual. It's a gradual process, nothing to do with love at first sight or instant coffee.

Distance is not" tyrannical". It is inhuman. Nature did not equip us with long distance communication skills as it did other mammals such as whales and elephants. To communicate properly (without artificial means) we must be within hearing, speaking and touching distance of each other.

The Ancient Athenians understood that, people like Solon, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes and Pericles.

It seems to me that "true democracy", like "true love" is more likely on a purely local level than on a State level or on a national level.

I agree that abolishing political parties might be an improvement on the present system. We could give that a try. Hopefully the inconveniences would not outweigh the advantages.

By the way, Grim, the shock waves from the Japanese bombs on Pearl Harbour propulsed me out of my mother's womb and she somehow managed to house, feed and (more or less) clothe my brother and I on her meagre shop assistant's wages until we were old enough to fare for ourselves.

But I never felt obliged to vote like her and never did. She always voted hard right.

.

G'day Banjo,
A post on the tyranny and inhumanity of distance, particularly concerning effective communication, posted on an Australian forum by a bloke who professes to live in Paris.
Oh-kay...
What is “natural”? Homo Sapiens' greatest claims to fame might be as tool users and language utilisers. As far as I'm aware, no other species does either as effectively as humans. Does that make it unnatural?
Only for other animals, I would suggest.
I entirely agree with your sentiment:
“It seems to me that "true democracy", like "true love" is more likely on a purely local level than on a State level or on a national level.”
I can easily imagine a system whereby the local progress association elects a representative to argue their case at the shire council level, who in turn elect a rep to represent them at the state level...
Is the world really better served by shoe-horning the maximum no. of people into the minimum no of pigeon holes?
Would the world be worse off if Lincoln had lost his war? Imagine, instead of the USA a Union of American Nations.
Sadly, the great (overwhelming) advantage of the Republican model is, most people just don't care that much. Whinging about politics is one thing, but doing something about it? A lot of people I know consider having to vote every few years to be an onerous burden. They'd much rather have someone else make the hard decisions for them -and then complain when they get it wrong.
True democracy would be more of a responsibility than a right, and definitely not a “spectator sport”.
It grieves me greatly that we have largely given up the greatest tool ever invented to protect the rights of individuals against evil governments and exploiters, simply because the majority of voters consider the possibility of being called upon (perhaps just once in a life-time!) for jury duty, too much of a civic burden.

Hi RObert,
In Australia, many of the unemployed have public housing so an arrangement for access to land is already in place there, although not yet by any right. There is one opportunity I can see for the unemployed to demonstrate the benefits of recognising their right of access to land in their access to public housing. see http://bit.ly/S4EjvG

People on higher incomes than the unemployed already have more than their rightful share of access to land & so have no birthright by which to claim more.

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

It seems to me the problem with this article and the following discussion is that if you define a right to mean whatever the State says it is, as everyone so far implicitly seems to so, then a bill of rights would be redundant.

Also I can't seem why people think democracy is the ideal form of government.

By democracy I'm referring to the principle of majority rule.

Even if we had theoretically perfect democracy in which every person had an equal vote on every issue, and there were no intervening parties or even parliament to miscarry their intentions, why would that be ideal? It certainly wouldn't be any guarantee of a protection of liberty, any more than the system of government in Australia now. In many ways democracy is just an ongoing infringement of liberties.

The very idea that what is right is whatever the majority or the government say it is, is morally contemptible. The people putting it forward don't even accept it themselves

Jardine, I'm inclined to agree.
Since we're clearly in an era of merging dialectics, the primary argument for the adversarial system appears to be failing. As I intimated earlier, a true democracy would only suit a fully engaged community, -which Australia, at least, certainly isn't.
I think a stronger adversarial system could be achieved with a genuinely independent executive; a popularly elected President (“chief”, “honcho”, “top dog”, “boss”...) with a specific mandate.
If a democratic parliament has a specific mandate to abide by the wishes of the majority, then the Pres. Should have a mandate to protect the rights of minorities, right down to minorities of one.
As such, he/she would be bureaucratic chief of Ombudsmen, corruption and anti-competitive commissions and legal aid.
Essentially a father/mother figure individuals could turn to if they felt they were being bullied by opponents too big to fight, up to and including the gov. itself.
A classic example for the need of an independent executive was the recent amalgamation of councils by the Beatty gov. of Qld; despite clear opposition by the vast majority of Qlanders. An independent CE should be able to veto any law so clearly outside the Parliament's mandate.
Primary attributes for such a figure would be a proven sense of fairness and incorruptibility. Judges with impeccable records would certainly be eligible, but so too would many sportsmen and other, less exposed persons.
I for one would enjoy the opportunity to vote for someone to achieve a position of power, for reasons other than political acuity, ruthlessness and naked ambition.
Sadly, mandates are essentially contracts, and -like Bills of Rights- must be written very carefully to close off loopholes and misunderstandings; at least while we have courts of Law, rather than courts of Justice.

Hi Jardine,
As you will see from my first post in response to this article I certainly do not think that rights are what the state decides. I think the UN declaration of Human Rights is a scam, designed primarily to protect "property" and to give the illusion of freedom.

The declaration is a governance tool to keep the masses “satisfied” with their illusions and profiting their masters. Thus the root of this servitude, exploitation and power is in property, specifically in the commodification of land. With the land commodified, we MUST do what masters say if we are to achieve secure access to land for shelter (& food). Until then we must serve the interests of others who profit from our servitude.

As for “democracy”, I also agree it is a sham, also designed for the same purposes. Once you have enough people in your pocket, dependent on you for shelter and food, addicted to consumerism of what you produce you have a voting majority who will never properly consider the minority, let alone the individual’s right of free access to air water sunlight and LAND. After all, most people now already have a fair bit invested in “property” of their own & would say “I had to work hard for it, why should you get land access by birthright”?

You rightly recognise that the idea of a president with a mandate for justice rather than law is unrealistic in light of this addiction to “democracy”, so such top-down reform is wrong headed.

However, I believe reform could evolve gradually from the bottom. Recognising the selfishness and injustice on which “democracy” depends, the question should be is there any way that giving “the poor” more concessions could also serve the interests of the majority – then if that proved “profitable” the evolution could begin. I believe there is a way which is consistent with the fundamental justice of recognising land as a birthright. See bit.ly/S4EjvG

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

.

Dear Grim,

.

"I think a stronger adversarial system could be achieved with independent executive; a popularly elected President (“chief”, “honcho”, “top a genuinely dog”, “boss”...) with a specific mandate."

One of the fundamental aspects of constitutional design is the choice between parliamentary government, presidential government, or a hybrid format that combines some aspects of these two.

Many have been tried but I doubt you would find any to be entirely satisfactory.

Much depends on the manner in which each of the actors conceives and exercises his or her role, particularly in relation to the political party to which he or she belongs.

Also, the exercise of political power by different personalities in the same democratic regime can give vastly different results.

Any democracy can be manipulated and subjugated, as was demonstrated by the rise to power of Adolph Hitler in Germany, who won the approval of the Reichstag, on 23 March 1933, by 441 votes to 84, despite his party's lack of parliamentary majority, to "temporarily" delegate, (and subsequently renew), its powers to him, under what became known as the "Enabling Act", granting him dictatorial rule, free from all legislative and constitutional constraints.

Indonesia is a major example of the type of political regime you have in mind. The US does not qualify because its president is elected by a college of electors.

I do not know if you consider the semi-presidential regime of France corresponds to your model. Its president is elected by universal suffrage as is its bi-cameral parliament. The president names the prime minister and government ministers (representing the parliamentary majority) and participates more or less actively in the day-to-day administration of the state, depending on whether his political party is part of the parliamentary majority or not. If it is not there is "cohabitation" between the president and the government.

Whatever the political regime, "true democracy", like quicksilver, seems incapable of resisting being squeezed out by whatever dominating force happens to be prevalent at the time: monarchy (benevolent, enlightened or otherwise), presidential authoritarianism or parliamentary ( i.e., party) oligarchy.

.

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

" I believe there is a way which is consistent with the fundamental justice of recognising land as a birthright."

It is estimated that there are approximately 40,000 annual births to parents in the United States as birth tourists. However, total births to temporary immigrants in the United States (e.g. tourists, students, guest workers) could be as high as 200,000 per year.

"Birth tourism" is a term for travelling to a country that practices birthright citizenship in order to give birth there, so that the child will be a citizen of the destination country.

In 2009, 36% of babies born in Hong Kong were born to parents originating from Mainland China. This has resulted in the backlash of increased tension on the territory's social welfare and education systems.

The situation came to a boiling point in early 2012 with Hong Kongers taking to the streets to protest the influx of birth tourism from mainland China.

Canada is experiencing a similar phenomenon.

In 2011, births in Australia by parents of Chinese extraction were the third most frequent after those of parents of UK extraction (Italian 4.6%, German 4.5% and Chinese 4.3%).

The free property hand-out bonanza you propose could not fail to increase Australia's attractiveness as a "birth tourism" destination.

Even well established Australian citizens, married or otherwise, might feel compelled to compete with the rabbits in order to stake a claim to as much of the territory as they are physically capable of procreating.

Sounds like an explosive combination of "baby boom" and "land rush" bound to cause a dramatic crash in the real estate market for land and a hell of a lot of hungry mouths to feed.

That's for sure.

.

Banjo
You can't get citizenship in Australia just by being born here.

landrights4all
I think you should write a separate forum post on what you propose and let's discuss its merits and demerits.

Grim
Problem with mandates is, it's rather a slippery term. It's not a contract because it's not enforceable by the hapless voter; plus the law against misleading or deceptive conduct isn't available. Voting is compulsory and anyone you vote for then takes that as a mandate to do anything they want and we have no remedy against them but more of the same from someone else. Dreadful system.

Increased power of the executive is hardly calculated to increase liberties. Throughout the centuries, it's been the classic problem that liberty has had to contend against.

All
The central problem in defending freedom is and has always been how to limit government power. The problem with giving power to government and saying, limit yourself, is that it doesn't work. You only have to read the US and Australian Constitutions to see that.

Most of our liberties come not from democracy per se, but from the courts stopping executive power based on ancient laws requiring some kind of process. But parliamentary supremacy and democracy are a recipe for the constant erosion of liberties.

Governments now more than ever extensively and intensively regulate every conceivable corner of life, including condom use, doormat thickness, and so on. In many ways, democracy is the perfect tyranny because the population are indoctrinated by the state into believing that "we" are the State, and if the State does something bad it means "we" are responsible. The absolute monarchs never dreamed of such docile people and absolute power.

Under democracy, if 9 year olds had the vote, all of a sudden free ice cream would become a "right". That's the level of discourse on rights in Australia today, and it's caused by democracy.

G'day Banjo,
The Indonesian system is nothing like the system I envisage.
My vision is of an adversarial relationship between parliament, with a mandate to represent the will of the majority and a contract to defend, protect and abide by the Constitution; and a fully independent...
Let's call him “Chief Defender” just for fun.
The CD would have a clearly defined mandate to defend minorities FROM the majority. His/her role could and should be fully apolitical, as he would have nothing to do with policy. His job would be to defend, protect and abide by the Bill of Rights, which would be a clear -and enforceable- contract between individual citizens and the Government, outlining the Rights, duties and responsibilities of each party. Currently something like a contract exists, but it's remarkably one sided. Citizens (and non-citizens are obliged to obey laws arbitrarily written by the Gov. Failure to abide by this -unsigned- contract can result in being fined, having one's possessions taken, or being locked in a cage for any period.
When the Gov. fails to live up to it's side of this “contract”? It may -or may not- offer some form of compensation, as it sees fit.
The Chief Defender's duties as outlined earlier would include Head of Ombudsmen investigating complaints against Government departments; nominal head of investigative commissions against corruption in the Public Service and the Parliaments, and perhaps most importantly chief of legal aid; justice can never be served by the depth of one's pockets.
Such a personage may or may not belong to a political party. In this day and age of instant and universal communication it is perfectly possible for full disclosure of an individual candidates' beliefs, opinions and character, without requiring a party policy outline -which is appearing more and more worthless every moment, these days.
The Chief Defender, having nothing to do with policy, should therefore not be judged so much by his beliefs or opinions, but by a demonstrated attitude of incorruptibility and unshakable belief in fair play and justice for all.

Greetings, Grim. I fear you are correct. The grim truth is that, as someone wrote a few posts ago, most people want a leader to shoulder the responsibility of running things, including their lives. Therefore, the only form of government that will guarantee the best results for everyone, regardless of colour gender etc... is a truly independent, benign dictator/ emperor/king... as you suggest
There have been a few, apparently, but very few and with the PR available today, as we've seen in the USA where billions of dollars are spent on presidential elections alone, it is usually the worst possible candidate who is elected.

.

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

.

Thanks for that. I see from the Aust. Govt. website that the citizenship laws were modified as follows:

"Whether you are an Australian citizen by birth depends on the date of your birth.

Most children born in Australia before 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth unless one parent was entitled to diplomatic privileges or was a consular officer of another country.

Children born after that date are only Australian citizens if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time of their birth.

Children born in Australia to parents who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, automatically acquire Australian citizenship on their 10th birthday if they have lived most of their life in Australia."

.

Hi Banjo,
A right of access to land must include the responsibility for behaving within the purpose of the right (maintain or develop housing, grow veggies,) and responsibility to the land itself so that right may be enjoyed by future generations (do it sustainably). again see http://on.fb.me/UbyrlD

With a population of 7billion and rising some forms of access to land are no longer sustainable. The land needed for a hunter gatherer lifestyle for all would be unsustainable, but it is clearly untrue to say that there isn't enough space for everyone to have a home and a veggie garden. There is plenty of space for that.

Those whose access to land is low because of their low income, have a right of free access to enough land to bring them up to the level of their land access entitlement. In a country like Australia, only those on $250pw or less would have enough birthright to build shelter and grow food. Others would have to buy these things at market rates.

The number of those eligible and wanting to claim free access to land with the associated responsibilities would not disrupt property markets. To see how this could be very attractive to taxpayers & property owners see http://bit.ly/YD3L01

Jardine - you might be right

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

Dear Landrights4all,

Your idea of a "birthright" to land puzzles me.

Unless we have some fundamental definition of ownership, the definition of a "right" is cyclical - a privilege bestowed by another who somehow had that "right" to begin with.

For a state to bestow land rights on its citizens/residents, it must have a right to those lands in the first place, but what right has the Australian state over the whole Australian continent? None whatsoever unless you consider the fact that 18th-century guns were more effective than boomerangs as "fundamental"!

(but if that's your fundamental belief and the state does not wish to grant you land rights, then you should not complain, but instead, according to your philosophy, recourse to obtaining better guns than the state's)

One solution you may want to look at is the biblical, where the Jewish God declared "Mine is the land!" [Leviticus 25:23], followed by the discussion of the year of the Jubilee (verses 23-31), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28biblical%29.

Compared with those 3 alternative fundamental and consistent philosophies:

1. Might is right;
2. God's absolute authority and ownership of all;
3. Jardine's concept of absolute individual freedom, so carefully explained above;

your claim of "well, if it's $250pw or less then it should be so, otherwise it's too expensive" looks so fleeting, so fragile, so incidental, so arbitrary, so artificial.

I strongly recommend that you adopt a complete, solid and universal philosophical model on which you can base your claim to land rights for all.

Dear Y,
My belief is that access to land, as to air water and sunlight is a birthright for the purpose of sustaining life. The limit to that is that if your rights are to be respected, then so are the equal rights of others, including future generations, thus requiring sustainable usage of your birthright. It also imposes the obligation to limit your use of any access claimed as a right to shelter and food.

At best, the State can acknowledge & protect that principle, but if it doesn't, that doesn't negate the right to life & to sustain it.

Why do I hold myself & others equal & entitled to life rather than accept the old kill or be killed view - because I DO believe we have a God given dignity - and I uphold the solution you referred me to that the land is not "ours".

You would have seen "why $250" if you had read the links provided (http://on.fb.me/UbyrlD).

It is not an arbitrary figure. $Income = resources .. you may come up with a different number but $A250 is a reasoned approximation of the resources an Australian could have as a just share of the earth's resources if each of 7bil had equal access (the actual number is less important than the principle that all are equal - perhaps you would say it's $A300 - Ok, we could debate that, but we would probably both agree it's not $A6000/wk. That is, there is a number and, if you accept the scientists consensus, it's clear that the average $Aincome isn't sustainable (or just in terms of resource access).

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

Dear Landrights4all,

Thank you. I will not go into numbers, firstly because I cannot read your link (my router and firewall blocks this kind of websites), but mostly because I rather concentrate on the principles.

In essence, I understand that you believe in the sanctity of life.

That raises the ancient question - "What is life?"

* Is life an objective biological phenomena or a subjective experience?
* Is life an individual or a collective phenomena/experience?
* Is life limited to humans? If so, why?
* Is life limited to this planet? If so, why?
* Is life limited to current forms or also includes past and future ones? If so, why?
* Is life binary or a matter of degree? Accordingly, can we tell whether another is alive, or can we construct a life-o-meter?
* Can life be taken away? If so, can life be resumed?
* What are the resources required to sustain life? Do they include good-will or love, or are all just physical? Also, within the physical, land, water, air and sunlight may be enough for some plants, for a while, but what about other forms?
* If life depends on resources, is there enough to sustain all living beings, past present and future? What for example if the required resources rise exponentially with old age?
* Do those who abused theirs or others' lives and the resources needed to sustain them, still have a right to live and have the same resources? What then about those who only intend or are inclined to abuse theirs or others' lives in the future?
* Is life a desirable feature at all? If so why - or else, why do we live and why is it worthwhile to promote the lives of others (if indeed there are others)?

Can you answer those questions?

That raises the ancient question - "What is life?"

Good heavens - is this essential to a discussion about land access as a birthright essential to "our fragile liberty"?

Ok, but I don't even want to wonder where you are going with this. I'm answering in order - so I don't need to repeat your questions.

* Both
* Both
* No
* Who knows
* Future life will have future rights & responsibilities, but all based on equality of men in balance with the natural world
* Everything physical is recycled by nature into new life - everything spiritual continues to grow in the spirit
* I guess so
* Life's requirements are in a hierarchy - first physical, then as those needs are secured, spiritual
* The resources required to sustain life are limited by the rights of others to have equal resources - a rich old person couldn't consume more than their share of resources to sustain their own life when for want of some rice others are dying.
* a)They have right to enough to sustain life so long as what they need is equitable in terms of what others need.
b) they would have a right to no more than their share.
* a) Yes b) through the experience of life, to grow into the spiritual beings which make up part of our nature. c) because this is our fulfillment - our natural desire ... to be happy and to live. d) "(if indeed there are others)"?? You mean everything is an illusion, including our own existence? Well I know that is a view some (who in this view don't exist) hold (if "holding" makes any sense when nothing exists) .... but I reject it with as straight a face as I can manage.

(By the way, in your last post you "quoted" me. I would be grateful if you want to quote me, please use my exact words which I will clarify if necessary, or repeal if I should.)

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

.

Dear Grim,

.

According to The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2011, the top ten most democratic countries in the world were as follows:

1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Denmark
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand
6. Australia
7. Switzerland
8. Canada
9. Finland
10. Netherlands

The UK ranks 18 and the USA 19. Indonesia is 60 and North Korea ranks last at 167.

The Intelligence Unit notes that almost one-half of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 11% reside in full democracies (25 countries in all).

Though it does not correspond to your criteria, I have a soft spot for Iceland, its people and their way of life. I spent a few months there during my travels when I first arrived in Europe many years ago, working on an Icelandic fishing trawler in the Arctic ocean.

Its population of 320 000 is not much more than was that of Ancient Athens and its region, Attica, from the 6th to the 4th century BC during the golden era of democracy. Two thirds of the population live in the capital, Reykjavik.

It is the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world, having created the world's first parliament, the Althing, in the year 930 AD.

The president is elected by popular vote for a term of four years, with no term limit. The elections for president, the Althing and local municipal councils are all held separately every four years.

The country is known for its gender equality (rated first in the world) and 13th in Yale University's Environmental Performance Index 2012. Iceland has no armed forces.

The Norwegians are wonderful people too. They must still be pretty shocked by the mass killings perpetrated by Anders Breivik in July 2011.

.

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

" ... it is clearly untrue to say that there isn't enough space for everyone to have a home and a veggie garden. There is plenty of space for that."

The populations of the capital cities of the five States of Australia in 2011 were as follows:

Sydney .......... 4,605,992
Melbourne ..... 4,169,103
Brisbane ........ 2,146,577
Perth .............. 1,832,114
Adelaide ........ 1,262,940

Of those populations, what are your estimates of the number of people who would qualify for land hand-outs for each capital city and where would those plots of land be located?

Take the case of a hotel maid living in the heart of each capital city. Where would her plot of land be located? Who would build her shelter? How much would it cost? Who would pay for it?

If she had to relocate to get the benefit of the shelter, how would she commute to and from work? Who would pay for that? If she has one or more children, where would they go to school? Are there shopping centres and all the usual commodities close by?

If there are several tens of thousands of people involved in each city, would they all live in ghettos on the outskirts of the cities as in the suburban slums of India?

Or would they be scattered around the country in isolation where, as you say, "there is plenty of space for that", e.g., in Central Australia where the current population is only about 60 000, of which 50% aboriginal?

Can you give us a few practical examples of how it would work for real people?

.

G'day Banjo,
A list of the world's most democratic countries doesn't really address the issue of whether or not Democracy is actually a good thing.
The classic simple argument against democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. In a pure democracy there is no rule of law, only the will of the majority. There is no “significant minority; the only rights minorities have are those conferred by the majority. If 51% (or 50.0000001%, in a large enough constituency) vote one way, it's tough luck for the rest.
It seems the distinction I quoted appears to have become outmoded (it was common in the 90's). More modern distinctions focus on the Rule of Law -in constitutional republics- but this isn't really a distinction as it's theoretically possible to have a constitutional (limited) democracy.
(In both cases, the elected representative should bow to the will of the constituents -but only within the legal framework).
I think Jardine would enjoy this link:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

A representative's democratic duty was discussed by Edmund Burke:

“...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.”

But here he highlights the difference between the pure democratic model and the constitutional (or Republican) model:

“But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Continued:
The question is, how much of each? Which should the rep. Weigh more heavily, his own opinion or his constituents?
Our politicians live on the knowledge that voters have notoriously short memories. They can get away with remarkable transgressions early in their tenure, as long as they deliver a tax cut just prior to the next election.
The inherent weaknesses of the Democratic system can only be overcome by the rule of Law, and strictly defined powers. The separation of powers is a great idea (IMO) but is more apparent than real -especially in Australia, where there is no real separation between the legislature and the executive, and the judiciary are political appointees.
A Bill of Rights should -in theory- be defended in the courts, but this is unsatisfactory for several reasons; not least of which is the matter of who can afford the best legal representation, and parliament's insistence that it's power should over-ride the Bill anyway.
I maintain, the only way a BOR can be truly effective is if it is protected by the Head of State, who has strictly defined powers to combat the majority rule of parliament and defend and protect minorities and individuals.

Hi Banjo,
Firstly, it is wrong to characterise what I am suggesting as “hand-outs” which implies something given by someone who owns (perhaps as charity or welfare), something undeserved and without strings attached ... and something more than what most people have already, hence, I guess, your fear about how much land it would involve which might impact negatively on property markets.

.. the eligible numbers question
As I said, only those who have too little secure access to land for housing based on income of $A250wk (no one has less as that is the unemployment benefit and all are eligible for that much at least). People with higher incomes than that already have at least their rightful access to resources (land).

In addition to that income restriction, another restriction that would limit numbers is that only those who would limit their land use to simply housing themselves and growing some veggies (10sq m is enough for a family of 4). Doing this sustainably would be a commitment, consistent with the reasoning that they have a landright to house and feed themselves. As there are many things involved in housing and growing veggies, there are many ways to meet that commitment, but it would require accountability for participation. I’ve calculated 15hrs/wk doing approved activities around building/maintenance & gardening.

To begin with, the invitation would be to those unemployed already in public housing who pay 25% of their income in rent (count this as rent for building materials/labour, NOT land rent) – either they continue to meet their mutual obligations as usual, looking for paid work or studying for a job, or they adopt the right and responsibility as described above. Initial numbers would be small, but enough to trial the model.

contd

contd
back again Banjo

Let’s be generous and say that over time, if it proved attractive (say after 5 years), up to half the unemployed in public housing might be interested, the other half wanting instead to get more than $250 ASAP, consequently leaving less time for 15hrs/wk ‘homework’. If it was as productive as hoped, perhaps other unemployed not in public housing would like to participate in building public housing for themselves .... ultimately this could become half of the unemployed workforce? ... perhaps some retirees would round it up to 5%. Public housing would be expanded at very reduced cost to taxpayers, skills would be developed and neighbourhoods revitalised.

Once people have that physical security, Maslow says most people then look further afield. Some will continue to dedicate themselves to improving the model, but many (?most?) will want to use their new skills to get some extra money. Your hotel maid would fall into that bracket. As income increases, birthright reduces, & so rent should increase, just as is now the case in public housing.

So there is a natural plateau to the numbers interested but an ?infinite? capacity to expand the opportunity to meet the needs of a growing population, whatever the economic circumstances.

Similarly, my proposal doesn’t involve additional transport/services/infrastructure – it is a proposal for existing and expanding public housing in the cities, not a fringe or isolated area idea. It isn’t a slum issue either – can you imagine what a difference it would make to public housing? ... community gardens, cooperation, skills development? I should also emphasise that this is not about food/transport/medical self sufficiency as you seem to think ... it is about contributing a valuable role in the neighbourhood, being part of society with the benefits of that & enjoying the modern but modest life that even a low income can afford, especially once security around housing and food are achieved, cooperative skills are gained and sharing is developed. See http://bit.ly/YD3L01

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

.

Dear Grim,

.

"The classic simple argument against democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."

I see that as a classical example of black humour.

I think it's quite funny. It's the fruit of someone's imagination. But it has nothing to do with reality. Auto-derision is healthy but should never be confused with reality.

I agree with and share all the concerns you have expressed in your last two posts.

Thank you for that introduction to Hamilton Albert Long's book on "The American Ideal of 1776". I shall read it with interest.

It seems to me that Edmund Burke, whom you quote, is something of an idealist. I have had quite a lot of contact with various Australian and French "representatives" over the years, including our ex-prime ministers, Howard and Rudd (even a quiet chat with the latter last year here in Paris).

Though I have nearly always received prompt, polite and instructive responses from the Australian "representatives" to my written queries on specific issues, the French generally tend to ignore them, except on the local, municipal level.

My impression is that, generally speaking, the "representatives'" allegiance to the political party they represent takes precedence over all other considerations.

Indeed, it is crystal clear to me that they have little or no power, individually, even to represent themselves, let alone anybody else. Whatever power they might have is strictly collective. They are there to vote on party lines and that's it.

They would like to have us believe that they are invested in political power from the "constituency", as you say, but the hard reality is that the only power they hold is invested in them by their party. The party dumps them if they dare cross the line. It is the party that the "constituency" invests, not the individual.

Your quest for the "holy grail" is thoroughly commendable. I wish you well in your endeavours.

I, personally, encourage you to reflect on the remarkable innovation of the Ancient Athenians 2 500 years ago and their modern emulators, the Icelanders.

.

Dear Banjo,
You write:<< They would like to have us believe that they are invested in political power from the "constituency"... but the hard reality is that the only power they hold is invested in them by their party. The party dumps them if they dare cross the line. It is the party that the "constituency" invests, not the individual.>>
This unpalatable fact is the reason political parties are incompatible with democracy. Only informed independents who seek the best for the country and who are prepared to compromise to reach solutions acceptable to all, can give us democratic government. Iceland being a good example; but they can only do that because of the small population and consequent lack of anonymity that demands accountability.

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

" ... up to half the unemployed in public housing might be interested, ... If it was as productive as hoped, perhaps other unemployed not in public housing would like to participate in building public housing for themselves .... ultimately this could become half of the unemployed workforce? ... perhaps some retirees would round it up to 5%."

I am afraid you have lost me with your mathematics there, landrights4all. I was OK up to "half of the unemployed workforce", then when you added on "some retirees" it dropped back to "5%", which you present as "rounded up to 5%". Very confusing.

So let's forget about the retirees for the moment.

The total workforce is 11.5 million. The unemployed workforce is 658 000 as of January 2013. Half of that is 329 000.

You propose land hand-outs for about 329 000 unemployed persons plus their families - a total population of between 329 000 and a million or more. Subject to expulsion of families failing to meet their commitments.

That's quite a lot of tents and makeshift shanties. Just how solid would they be? Wooden sticks and corrugated iron? What would the security be like in those ghettos? How about the infrastructure? Streets? Electricity? Water? Sanitary services? Street lighting? Hospitals and medical services?

If each shanty is 10sq m or less do they touch or are they to be well separated from each other. What about the inevitable noise and lack of privacy?

Are these unemployed people to be parked in these ghettos permanently, with no prospect of finding work, no longer integrated into society?

Locking up nearly a million people in ghettos or scattering them around the Australian desert would not seem a very attractive prospect for me and my kids if I were on the dole. It is not the way I should like to see my country treating anybody, especially the poor and defenseless.

I have no idea what your motivations are, landrights4all. I can only hope they are innocent, misguided generosity and not some cynical ploy of callous inhumanity in disguise.

.

.

Dear ybgirp,

.

As I already wrote on page 7 of this thread, I confirm:

"I agree that abolishing political parties might be an improvement on the present system. We could give that a try. Hopefully the inconveniences would not outweigh the advantages."

.

Banjo
I've got no idea why you are imposing images of "tents and makeshift shanties" "Wooden sticks and corrugated iron" "ghettos" "scattering them around the Australian desert" onto what I have proposed - have you actually read it?

When you ask me a question I think it is reasonable to think you will listen to the answer, not just scan it and assume things to support your own preferred imaginings. There is nothing in what I said to allow you to think that this is socially unintegrated. You need to be able to clear your mind to receive something new. This proposal is all about social integration and participation. I have already given you all you would need to realise this, including a link to a web site with modern images of suburban cooperation which even someone with a closed mind could not ignore.

Dear Landrights4all,

I understand that it may be tiresome, but if you believe it's important to protect life, then it's crucial to understand exactly what life is and all about, which may then be protected.

I'm glad that you answered "No" to my third question, that life doesn't only mean humans. In contrast, however, you mentioned "all based on equality of men in balance with the natural world", which seem to exclude all other life-forms but men (and women, I assume) from being equal.

If all men are equal (a concept I find strange and contrary to empirical evidence), why should non-humans be unequal? why should they for example have less rights to land, water, air and sunlight?
Also, where would you draw the line between [equal] men and [unequal] animals? should "men" for example include those on the fringes of humanity (the unborn, the unconscious/nearly-dead, mass-murderer-psychopaths, the severely-retarded, etc.), as well as those already dead, but who may perhaps be brought back to life (if we invested all our resources in scientific-research to that end)? After all, if all men were equal, including those of the future, then why not those of the past?

Obviously, if everyone without discrimination, including animals, plants and microbes, past present and future deserves land, water, air and sunlight rights, then there isn't enough to go around.

Next you state: "Life's requirements are in a hierarchy - first physical, then as those needs are secured, spiritual".

As you place physical needs before the spiritual, and given there isn't and never will be enough to fulfil everyone's physical needs, it implies that spiritual needs should never be attended to.

Sorry, but I find these priorities wrong because I believe that life's purpose is spiritual, that biological existence on its own, including its social extensions, is of no value.

Yes, I also believe that men should generally have the opportunity to live on the land, breath fresh air, drink clear water and absorb [moderate-amounts-of] sunlight, but the purpose of that is to allow them the peace to grow spiritually, not to make them "equal" to others.

Yuyutsu,
You say "I also believe that men should generally have the opportunity to live on the land, breath fresh air, drink clear water and absorb [moderate-amounts-of] sunlight". We agree on that, and I reckon most people would. Problem is that some who are stronger have stolen that opportunity and commodified it(made it into "property"). They demand we serve them for our shelter and food (essentials for life)in order to get back our opportunity to be free.

The scam is that currently "human rights" pretends to protect our opportunities to live and grow into fulfilled beings, but in fact human rights legislation (eg UNHRD) actually protects the property rights of the strong and not our "opportunity to live on the land" which we both agree.

The state should play its proper role to protect us against the brutal strong, and they could do this through law. So the law has a place and it should recognise our natural right of access to land, air, water and sunlight as the foundations for life. "Human Rights" legislation should make this clear - then we would need to address our minds to how rightful (ie free) access to land should work. I have done that and my conclusion is that we could do it through the expansion of public housing in our neighbourhoods AND by recognising the responsibilities that go with a right of access to land - to live sustainably. (again I refer you to http://bit.ly/YD3L01)

That is a big responsibility requiring new skills which society as a whole needs to explore. How better to do that than by giving those who are already trained in simple living by virtue of their low (environmentally sustainable) income and who need the opportunity for a better life and a meaningful sustainable role in society.

My hope is that this could be a model which any state anywhere could see, adopt and benefit from by putting the poor first.

Dear Landrights4all,

I agreed that in general, people should have the opportunity to access these natural resources - I did not agree that this should be achieved by "rights", how less so "rights" granted by state/government. I might just as well ask for the protection of the mafia or of Ali Baba and his 40 thieves. States are the problem, not the solution and responding to violence with violence is not the answer.

Also, the answer is not in building more cities and suburbs. Either you want to live in nature or you want the perks of civilisation: you can't eat the cake and have it too.

Those who truly wish to live in nature, should even today, I believe, even despite the atmosphere of fear and greediness created by government, be able to find a spot on the map, away from cities, and ask the land-owner to live there, building a simple shelter for themselves with a veggie patch and leading a simple life. Most land-owners will agree and even feel privileged to help you, as long as you are polite and use that magical word, 'Please'. Yes, they may set some basic conditions (such as "don't eat my chicken or spread poisonous baits"), but on average those conditions would be far less demanding than the conditions, or "responsibilities" which you are suggesting that the government should impose on those seeking a space to live.

And if you continue to be nice and polite and prove yourself worthy, there's even a good chance that over time you and the land-owner will end up as one family where property ownership matters no longer.

The irony is, that as it stands today, even while the land-owner has no problem with you living on a patch of their land, it is the government that would oppose it on grounds of breaking their building and "health and safety" regulations.

I still think it is worthwhile speaking the truth out loud rather than just writing people off as hopeless - like Ali Baba or politicians.

The truth they need to hear in this case is what you & I agree - that free access land (and air water and sunlight) is the essential butilding block for life, which is sacred. They should be prepared to say so and to develop policy that upholds that. Such policy would ensure that people had the access they need for life, not by having to pay a landowner or serve any system that is in operation at the time.

I agree that the state isn’t doing this & as exhibit one I referred to the UNDHR’s protection of “property” and the red herring of “shelter” rather than land access. I’m not waiting for their “conversion” either – I’m working in public housing at the grass roots.

I’m not a luddite either. I see nothing wrong with technology – just how we use it. It’d be hypocritical of me to be typing on the internet about the sacredness of life if I believed there was something wrong with technology. I see nothing wrong with cities either – they may be the only way 7+bil people can live sustainably on earth.

There need to be established understandings about many things like where you can and can’t defecate – laws in other words.

I’ve known people who went bush and, using the magic word “please sir”, were allowed to build a home on someone else’s land. After all their work building and husbanding the soil for their veggie garden, the owner retired, changed his mind or died– they had no rights to stay. If we are looking for a sustainable model, that is not it, although it might work for an individual here or there who might then say, “pull up the ladder Jack, I’m aboard”. We’re not talking about that sort of individualistic approach but about how we might proceed in a way that respects all.

It occurs to me, observing the direction that this conversation has taken, that it represents the clearest evidence possible that you will never, ever achieve a consensus on what our "rights" actually are.

By definition therefore, they will need to be conceived, drawn up, imposed and upheld by some form of authority. Personally, I wouldn't trust this task to either politicians or lawyers.

In short, be very, very careful what you wish for.

My grandmother would have been a good choice for the task, though. She did not have an evil bone in her body, and insisted on seeing the absolute best in every human being. Moreover, she would not even countenance the possibility that she should have power - any power whatsoever - over her fellow humans.

Sadly, she passed away some forty years ago.

Dear Landrights4all,

So it's not space, water, air and sunlight that you are after - these are sufficiently abundant for those who want them, but what you are after is that very elusive commodity for which most land-owners worked and saved all their lives, but which truly cannot be bought in any way and can only be obtained in one place: the grave - security!

No matter what rights you receive, none would give you security. You seem to think that the wealthy have it, but they too cannot sleep at night for worry of losing theirs. Take superannuation, designed by government to supposedly provide individuals with security, but to which instead governments are constantly changing the rules and people scurry never sure how not to lose their hard-earned super-savings.

<<I see nothing wrong with cities...only way 7+bil people can live...>>

They sure are, but why should there be 7+billion people on earth in the first place? The bottom line is again, security: people wanted children, and several of them, to secure being cared-for when old. Those children all want the same security - and look at the mess we got ourselves into!

Technology is the high price that we must pay just to survive that mess. It holds the fort for awhile, but ultimately there is no sustainable model for keeping 7-billion people alive, nor should there be: human numbers must drop.

You still claim that life is sacred, even after my-previous-post: there is some grain of truth there, but is the life of cockroaches and germs sacred? should we keep them on respirators when old and in glass cases lest the cat eats them? I think you need to revise that idea: while there is an element within life that is sacred, it's not the biological functions of breathing and procreating.

<<We’re not talking about that sort of individualistic approach but about how we might proceed in a way that respects all.>>

To respect all, one must respect their individual choices. All those who want CAN live in nature, but most CHOOSE to live-in-cities, get-addicted-to-hi-tech and procreate-like-there's-no-tomorrow.

Yuyutsu
You must be joking to imply you see no difference between the security of an “owner” and that of a renter, a guest, a squatter or a homeless person, lumping all people together and pretending that since there is no such thing as real security in our mortality, all these are in the same boat. In contradiction, you recognise everyone should have the free & natural opportunity of access to land air water and sunlight for their life journey, and see shelter and food as essential to this.

One can’t have food or shelter by just being able to stand on the land …. you have to have a level of security to be able to build & cultivate and that is what is denied by the “property” system which, for want of security, people are forced into service of masters. A landless person should not be deprived of their opportunity for a free life by a system of ‘property’ which makes them slaves to property owners.

If all should have the free & natural opportunity to build shelter & grow some veggies, where can that be done without being moved on by police who protect property? – not on private property, not on public property – not in the city, not in the desert, not in the parks or the domain – nowhere!

Just as there used to be “commons” for growing food, there should be “commons” for housing.

This article is about our fragile liberty – it’s not fragile, it’s non-existent without land rights. Until the 20 years of mortgage is over, even those who want to join this evil property system are enslaved to an unsustainable and unjust system of abuse. But I have referred you to a way out, non confrontational to the system, non threatening to property owners and consistent with the highest spiritual values.

landrights4all

Every time someone is born the equal share would change, right?

Economists distinguish between land in its unimproved state, and land that has been improved by human effort. You have only established a right to land in its unimproved state. Anything that costs human effort cannot be "free"; it's only a question of whether you're going to obtain it by consent or by force. You have not established a right to take others' efforts in land by force of law.

Also it's not okay to reason that because something is desirable, therefore the state should enforce the satisfying of that desire. If I think free ice cream is a basic right, does that mean the state should protect that "right"? Need a theory of right, not just a bald and arbitrary assertion. In other words, it's not use asserting something as self-evidence unless everyone either
a) agrees, or
b) performs a self-contradiction by denying it.

And it's no use assuming what the proper role of the state is. You need to explain why. Otherwise I'll just say its proper role is to protect the right to free ice crea. Need a theory of the state, not just an assumption that it's there to enforce what you want to be enforced

Pericles, I like your grandmother and am in complete accord.
As for "rights", they fall into the same category as other human concepts such as "purpose". There is no purpose in "life" it simply is, and there are no "rights" for any living thing. Survival has always been the result of fighting for it in some way or other. Fighting for 'rights" is one way of surviving, but it depends on the goodwill of the powerful, and that can never be guaranteed, especially in times of hardship.
Furthermore, the chance of achieving any rights is rapidly receding. We live in an anachronism. In Australia there is still some land to buy. I can live on three hectares of beautiful but unproductive land because others are prepared to live like battery hens in cages in vast cities and work in unrewarding jobs that make them neurotic, in order to survive. It isn't fair. But fairness is yet another human concept that has no meaning in the reality of "life" on planet earth. Water wars are underway. Land wars, dressed up as religious differences,are already destroying civilizations. 7 thousand million people cannot survive for long on a ball of rock on which the system that permitted life to evolve is being changed so much that its capacity to sustain this life is dramatically reduced. The saying: 'god helps those who help themselves' is true, no matter which god you refer to.

Dear Landrights4all,

You are confusing between liberty and rights. The difference being that liberty is inherent while rights are man-given. Rights always come with Wrongs like electrical positive and negative: in order to give you rights, the granter must take the liberty away from others making it wrong for them.

If you can achieve living-spaces for everyone without violence, that's great, but if you try to get it through government, then you are bound to create more violence, because that's what government is all about. It would probably come in a form of more "planning" and "zoning", further limiting people's freedoms (including the ones receiving land-rights under this scheme, as you stated yourself that it comes with strings-attached).

Had the state not been hogging the whole continent, housing would have never become a problem to begin with.

I see that Jardine already reiterated my point that you can't eat the cake and have it too, live in civilisation without paying the price. That high price includes commodification; government; increased population; and dependence on technology, of which strangely only the former bothers you.

Yes, if you lived out in the bush, then you and your progeny were less likely to survive, but that would be closer to nature's intention of keeping a balance between species.

Those "evil" property-owners are men and women like me and you who feel insecure, who are unable to trust that there will always be a roof over their head and their daily-bread on their table. In addition, people understand the sad reality of our age, that without ownership their dignity will not be respected and their values will be trodden on.

Worrying is a human-specific disease. We suffer from it more than from all real dangers combined. Governments, lawyers and insurance companies feed on that energy of ours.

The alternative to this adversarial lifestyle, stated beautifully, is: Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth, good-will towards man.

By asking land-owners to PLEASE allow you to live on their land, you also help THEM to become better persons. Shouldn't it be their right too?

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

We evidently have a communications problem.

I have carefully read your Facebook article entitled "Human Right to Shelter?" I also tried to access the web site indicated next to the article (http://bit.ly/S4EjvG) but access was refused: " The link you're trying to go to has been reported as abusive by others on Facebook."

I visited the "landportal.info" site indicated at the bottom of your article and read Marie Bohner's article entitled "Is right to land for shelter a human right?"

I also waded through the voluminous "Neighbourhood That Works (NTW) documentation on the link you indicted.

Your article as well as that of Marie Bohner and the NTW documentation are all purely theoretical and of a philosophical nature. They explain "why" but do not explain "how?".

It's no big deal but I fail to see the connection between your land handout proposal for 329 000 to a million unemployed people and NTW's property rental project in the Blue Mountains.

I have read your documentation carefully. I have carefully studied your replies to me on this thread but have not found answers to a number of my questions.

Essentially, it is "Can you give us a few practical examples of how it would work for real people?" (page 10 of this thread). I am referring to your proposal, not that of NTW or anyone else.

Might I add that for a socio-economic proposal such as yours, it is not possible to arrive at a meaningful appreciation of the possible validity of the project without, at least, an initial feasibility study describing its socio-economic interests, objectives, the broad details of how it would be engineered, structured and financed with a rough indication of the time frame for its realization.

A project such as yours is highly sensitive both socially and politically. Basic details are indispensible regarding how people would live, work, commute, be integrated into society or outcast (parked in ghettos, or scattered around the country).

May I suggest you post a feasibility study on Facebook? That would clear the air on any possible communications problems.

.

Jardine,
Every time someone is born without someone dying we should move over a bit. I hear the “over-populationists” warming up now to distract us, but, as Yuyutsu noted and as social scientists affirm, family size shrinks as security rises. Large families are an attempt at security for people without any security other than many sons. Stop the land commodification and population stabilizes or drops. Unfortunately over-populationists prefer to hold on to an unsustainable lifestyle rather than move over a bit. They then blame the poor for the problems they themselves create.

The property system gives capital gain to owners. It doesn’t account for the fact that increase in land value isn’t just a matter of improvements, but of desirability which the community as a whole contributes to with infrastructure, amenities, social life, etc etc.. Build a mansion in the desert and see how much it is worth. Everybody in society contributes to the value of land, right from the moment they’re born.

“Everyone” agrees that human life is a “right”, and recognises that life depends on land air water and sunlight. Ice cream or internet access might be desirable, but they’re not essential to life, as are those elements freely provided by nature. The failure to recognise & protect those elements for the life of every individual is a contradiction to the belief that life is a “right”.

Yuyutsu

I’ve referred you to a practical way that we can achieve living spaces for everyone without creating violence – indeed by creating harmony (see http://www.ntw.net46.net/NTWmodel/NTWModeloverview.htm)

(Banjo – try that direct link)

Everything has a price – living in the bush, living in society – living itself has a price. You’re no less dependent on society when you ask a farmer “please can I stay on your property”. How do you think he got ownership if not by being dependent on society. So aren’t you just as likely to confirm for him that he’s fulfilling his proper role by becoming so rich that he can say “yes, ok little boy”, and then feel holy about it all?

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

You wrote: "(Banjo – try that direct link)"

I tried that direct link but it is the link to the web site of "Neighbourhood That Works (NTW) whose voluminous documentation I have already waded through, as advised in my previous post.

Why are you indicating it to me yet again?

It has nothing to do with your proposal. It is an entirely different operation regarding a private property rental project in the Blue Mountains. What you are proposing is a land hand-out for about 329 000 to a million unemployed people for each to build a" shelter" and grow vegetables.

In your post to me on page 11 of this thread you indicate that a "shelter" is not a tent nor a shanty made of sticks and corrugated iron.

Would you be so kind as to indicate then, what it would be made of. I was just trying to make an intelligent guess, given that a poor, unemployed person with several mouths to feed would probably have difficulty financing anything else.

Also, as previously requested, please advise who would build the "shelter"? How much would it cost and who would pay for it?

Am I right in thinking, as previously indicated, that families failing to meet their commitments would have their land rights withdrawn and be expelled from their "shelters"?

Another important question which remains unanswered is whether these poor, unemployed people will be integrated into society or outcast (parked in ghettos, or scattered around the country)?

Can you give us a few practical examples of how your proposal would work for real people?" (page 10 of this thread)? Again, I am referring to your proposal, not that of NTW or anyone else.

And, finally, what do you think of my suggestion that you prepare a feasibility study and post it on Facebook as you did for your article?

If, as I am willing to believe, you sincerely wish to have your proposal implemented, and for good reasons, you will need to address these matters clearly and to the best of your ability.

.

landrights4all
You obviously haven't thought through the issues.

The fact we all use land doesn't establish a right to *free* land, any more than the fact we all use food establishes a right to free food; and the same with anything that is produced by human effort.

You haven't shown why the same rationale doesn't apply to other species; haven't justified the role of the state; haven't explained why the "right" would be different in different states; haven't explained how it would be enforced. Ultimately the values you are contending for boil down to subjective values; the distinction between needs and wants cannot be maintained. It would require the redistribution of land every time someone was born. The idea that you are capable, in the abstract, of deciding how to organise society and decide what other people's values should be is truly laughable. And you're kidding yourself if you think the welfare recipients of this country want to live by growing their own vegetables.

In short it's just a garbled statist fantasy of something for nothing paid for by someone else as usual. It's in the same category as the free ice-cream philosophy. I'm guessing you have little or no experience of actual productive activity, and that is what gives you this overblown sense of entitlement to make other people your slaves.

Hi Banjo,
The link you quoted as blocked is to NTW Overview - which link were you a having trouble with?

NTW is public not private housing! It’s description is to be the practical implementation you’re asking for – it IS my strategy for the recognition the viability of land rights through social participation of unemployed public housing tenants in sustainable building, veggie gardening … and community work of 15hrs/wk in return for access to the facilities of modern society.

Public housing, built by taxpayers is rented to them for 25% of their income, paid by taxpayers as dole of $A250wk. Currently their obligation is to look for paid work, but with globalisation and technology, an increasing number are long term unemployed with little prospect of getting paid work. It’s a dead end for them and taxpayers.

They are treated as bludgers, are socially isolated and increasingly resentful.

However, what if, in return for them taking on the responsibilities identified above we recognised the land access they have in public housing as their right rather than as welfare. In doing so they could become a neighbourhood asset. With even basic maintenance skills they can take on more and more tasks, even moving into building labour in due course – or they can choose to stay on welfare and be demonised, isolated and hassled by Centrelink to look for work they will find less and less likely to get. It’s up to the individual, but I know what I’d choose (actually have chosen!)

I’m not proposing a hand out, nor to start with a million people but to evolve from the success of one project to the next until perhaps in 10/20 years time, the million+ who can’t get work in the market place can make the same choice – be hassled, demonised and increasingly criminalised, or by recognising their rights and responsibilities, become a very welcome asset in any neighbourhood … ultimately, new participants could even build their own public housing ... saving taxpayers through social returns on their investment, simply by recognising peoples’ rights and responsibilities!

Jardine,
What brought that bit of vitriol on? Are you OK?

Land isn’t produced by human effort – it is like air, water and sunlight – would you also deny they should remain free?

Re other species I already said man should exist in balance with nature – did you forget that?

Re the state – I’ve said the state (politicians) like everyone else, should speak up for truth & stand up for the poor – lead the discourse, and even enact legislation to help educate people and give them pause to think about their actions – that’s the best law can do.

The rights I am referring to are universal human rights – not different from state to state and whether they are recognised and supported by law or not.

Redistribution would only be necessary if all the land was fully taken up by rights. Only some would take up the right because only some would take up the responsibilities – mostly the poor. The rich would thus have to pay more for a reducing supply and at some stage might even decide to liquidate their massive land holdings.

“How would it be enforced?” – I thought you rejected force. Personally I would rather attract support for the benefits. As I’ve said often in these posts, the law on human rights UNHRD being the standard, is a scam to give the illusion of freedom but in reality being there to protect the property rights by which we are exploited to enrich others.

You seem to be in the headspace of “authority”, “leadership” and “paternalism”. I’m not talking about re-organising society. I’m talking about creating a new opportunity, that’s all.

Needs are things without which life ends – wants are things which come after life is reasonably secure. You can have a different definition, but at least you know what I am on about.

I’ll ignore the rest shall I?

.

Dear landrights4all,

.

All I can say is good luck, my friend, I wish you well.

No need to tell you to forget about my questions. I see you already have.

Regards,

.

"Needs are things without which life ends "

Like an ambulance, and surgery, and a mobile phone to call the ambulance? I told you you can't maintain that distinction and you can't. Making the distinction rest on what's reasonable only begs the question, according to who?

"Land isn’t produced by human effort – it is like air, water and sunlight – would you also deny they should remain free?"

Unimproved land isn't produced by human effort, but farms and fences and dams and factories are. Since the more productive land is already taken, that leaves the more desert land available to people to grow their own vegies, where it may not even be viable consistent with the standard of living they would be foregoing to get it. That's why they're not doing it now!

As for water, "God made the water, but man made the pipes." People don't have a right to "free" water brought to them by capital goods worth millions of dollars and years of human effort.

The basic problem which gives rise to the need for ethical rules, and enforceable rights, is scarcity. This problem is caused by nature, not property rights. Property rights, more than anything in human history and pre-history, relieve that radical problem. You've got it back to front. Natural scarcity cannot be made to go away by trying to make things "free". That can only intensify the problem by causing the tragedy of the commons. It's a fantasy based on ignorance.

So your theory doesn't make sense, even if your own terms, quite apart from the fact that in practice, its intended beneficiaries wouldn't have a bar of it. The poor of Australia aren't going to go out to the marginal lands on the edge of the Great Stony Desert and try to make a life growing their own vegies, because they can have a much better life taking advantage of social co-operation based on private property, even though, being landless, they are poorer than others who own land.

That's why you can't defend your own theory, and end up trying to cope by dodging and evading the real issues.

For a more logical and more ethical take on the same problem, I respectfully refer you to "Man, Economy and State" by Murray Rothbard

Jardine,
OK I take your point on the idea that “needs are things without which life ends”. My crude definition assumed you would try to interpret it with understanding.

I’ll try again, still hoping for your effort to understand.

In Australia’s Christian tradition we are told in symbolic language (not literal fundamentalism) that we once had a garden of Eden – but that man believed that he knew better. So Cain killed Able over a block of land and the war over land, the establishment of boundaries has continued. In spite of this, or perhaps even because of it, life has multiplied over the years. On that measure you are right – “life” as measured in numbers has thrived on the back of murder, oppression and wealth creation based on property theft. – but this war was always a dead end model, the antithesis of the message of love.

In this continuing war over land we are no longer limited to throwing stones at each other and the earth itself is revolting at the consequences of our ignorant pursuits. The consequence of our ignorance are becoming more dangerous and more apparent. As some Christians say, we must repent .. be born again as it were.

Now I’m no fundamentalist – I’m not even religious - but I understand the truth of all this.

The fact that all the good land is taken doesn’t make the taking now right. It’s true that it has also been “improved” with fences etc, but the “ownership” can be traced back to theft. The fact that the richest (or the fittest) got there first and put up fences doesn’t make it theirs. Those deprived by this (the landless) must have their rightful access restored if we are to have a chance to avoid further war. The poor can’t even collect and store rainwater without stable and secure access to land!

I’m not going to convince you I see, but the conversation has allowed me to understand a way of thinking that is quite alien to me, so thanks, and all the best for your life.

We agree that much “title” to land originates in theft, murder etc.; on the desirability of the message of love; and the need for an ethic of sharing in scarce goods that avoids war and injustice.

However I submit that your principle would have the opposite effect than you intend, both in ethics and in practice, for the following reasons.

Even in a garden of Eden situation, there is still the radical scarcity of the physical stuff of one’s own body. I cannot make use of the molecules that you have taken from unowned nature and incorporated into your own body without violating you. Without your consent, I cannot make use of the physical space that you occupy without violating you.

Therefore there is still scarcity, there is still the need for an ethical rule as to how society is to rationalise that scarcity with minimal aggression, and that ethic must necessarily be on the basis of private property rights. (By which I mean a right – an ethical principle that is enforceable – to exclusive use and possession.)

This must be so, because you either agree; or by denying it you perform a self-contradiction. For if you deny this radical principle of self-ownership, you deny your own right to participate in the discussion, quite apart from the further problem that you accept the possibility, even in theory, of one person owning another.

This radical right must entail the right to appropriate unowned goods, unowned matter, from nature, without which we could not even breathe – as you yourself argue.

And it must entail the consequential right to enter into voluntary transactions with others, without which, the fruits of human society would be denied to us in favour of … what? The idea that the most powerful party owns himself and us, while we do not even own ourselves, let alone someone else?

Therefore
a) by participating in the discussion you acknowledge the principle, and the right, of private property
b) there is no other way this could come about but on a first-come first-served basis.

Any other way requires you to perform a self-contradiction, which is what you have done.

Past wrongs create a defect in title, BUT ONLY as against the earlier wronged owner. The Normans took from the Saxons, the Saxons from the Celts; the later waves of Aborigines took from the earlier, the Romans from the Gauls, and so on. If your principle held true, no-one would be entitled to the use of land anywhere at any time, while the true title holders would be lost in the mists of time and we would all starve.

Therefore the owner or his successor has a right good against all the world, except the original owner or his successors in title. There’s no other way it could be without
a) self-contradiction, and
b) a result absurd in practice. That’s why you’re sitting where you are today.

Hence the right of private property in land.

If your principle were granted, the new owner would himself have no secure right to land because, as soon as someone new was born, his rightful share would be open to challenge as you have admitted, and the new-comer would have a right to use force (= aggression) to get someone else’s land. Furthermore, obviously Australia would have no right to enforce it; the poorer Chinese, Indians and Africans would have a right superior to Australians’.

This means that, ethically, there is a right to free land ONLY if it is unowned. There is no more right to use force – the law - to take owned land for “free”, than there is a right to own a person, because both entail using aggression to steal the fruits of someone’s labour.

The ethical and practical solution to the problem you pose is not forced redistribution of land titles. It is peaceful sharing based on private property and voluntary exchanges, which is precisely why the poor, in reality, don’t need to collect their own rainwater – they can buy it much cheaper!

The only alternative is ethically unjustifiable aggression, and practically unjustifiable mass starvation based on self-contradiction, as I have shown.

Jardine,
Why would you want to take what I need when there is plenty for all – yes for all 7bil, or double or triple that if done sustainably. Scarcity is created by fear and greed.

You believe in first come first served. You believe in war to protect what you say you own. You believe in borders. As all land is now owned you believe that those who come late can have no right, but must hope for the “charity” of those first come first served master families who own, hold and pass on the ownership of the land to their own – who protect their privileged position with force.

This is clearly a world of slavery, not the plan of love.

You have shown a lot, but nothing worth embracing.

In your fear you jump to the assumption that I am talking about forced redistribution of land titles. You will not find anything I said that suggests that because that is not what I believe – so where did you get it from? – fear! You talk of love and peacefulness but what is evident is your determination to put yourself first, and above others. Sorry Jardine, I’m not at all with you, so can we should end this now as it is pointless and disturbing to go on.

Dear Landrights4all,

I see that so much transpired here while I was away, so I can't catch up with it all soon, but I'd like to relate to one item of yours:

<<They are treated as bludgers, are socially isolated and increasingly resentful... or they can choose to stay on welfare and be demonised, isolated and hassled by Centrelink to look for work they will find less and less likely to get.>>

My heart goes out to those miserable ones who must attend that horrible building. What goes on there is pure sadism. That institution must be bulldozed and the remaining bricks ground to dust and buried in the deepest part of the ocean.

"But what about the dole?" you ask - well, EVERYONE should receive the dole, young and old, employed and unemployed, healthy and ill, rich and paupers - no questions asked. It shouldn't be regarded as a favour, but as rightful compensation.

Society has done all of us wrong by creating conditions, laws and by-laws where we are practically not allowed to live on the land undisturbed without recourse to money (turning land into property is part of it, but not the whole story). Society is responsible for the scarcity of resources because it recklessly created conditions conducive to overpopulation. The damage may take centuries to repair, so the least society can do now is compensate us all, and since it turned money into the only means of survival, it should compensate us with money.

Those (but only those) who wish, may then convert that money into property-rent, perhaps even in some NTW-like model.

Technically, this is called negative-income-tax. Everyone gets a fixed, subsistence-level sum per-annum (those in need may receive it in instalments), which is covered by a flat income-tax paid from the first dollar earned. For middle-income-earners, the outcome is about the same.

This approach both respects the unemployed's dignity while removing their incentive to not work. It also goes well with removing minimum-wage restrictions, since subsistence is assured irrespective of employment and one needs to work only for their extra comfort and luxuries.

Hi Yuyutsu,
So good to find some in principle agreement! (

Compensation is due, but I don’t think money is enough, appropriate, or sustainable. More & more dependence on money means unsustainable growth.

What’s been “stolen” by commodifying the land is our independence, freedom and our role as caretakers. We’ve been enslaved and made disposable. Everybody is paying a big price for this, and nature itself is revolting.

While the poor have every reason to complain, others see no problem this system – some even still deny man made climate change. It’s up to them – you can’t force anything on anyone, but they don’t need compensation for something they support.

So the idea of a universal basic wage is problematic, just as more land access for those who already have more than their share would be too.

Basically it comes down to “compensation” for the unemployed & restoration of freedom.

We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water. We already have the dole which is distributed only to the right people. So mechanisms are in place, but the philosophy of it is all wrong because the dole isn’t seen as “compensation” – it’s a way to whip people into subservience by threatening withdrawal of the food and shelter it can buy.

Many people I know on the dole are in a slow decline, not because it’s too little but because of stigmatization, lack of a meaningful role (not necessarily meaning paid employment) and social isolation.

For taxpayers to agree to a basic wage would represent a change in philosophy, but a basic wage would not give people the dignity of taking responsibility for their life – it would be “sit down money”

Since the problem of loss of freedom and dignity originates with the loss (the theft actually) of access to land for shelter and food, payment of compensation needs to be paid in the context of the recipient taking up responsibility for a rightful access to land. In this combination freedom and dignity can be restored, and I see NTW as fully suited for this.

Dear Landrights4all,

There is no shame or stigma in compensation, how much more so when EVERYONE receives it!
Negative-income-tax is NOT a "basic wage", but a rightful compensation for damages made by society.

The reason it needs to be financial is that now with all the mess already created by society, it will take centuries to fix, that is to reduce human population to a level where money is no longer required. It's less than ideal, but negative-income-tax is practical, more flexible, readily implementable, and non-violent. In parallel certainly, it should be made legal for individuals to settle away from cities and live money-free, but it currently suits only a few and most city-dwelling people living today would be too spoiled to agree.

Everyone suffers from the situation, hence everyone needs to be compensated including those who do not complain but force themselves to get up every morning to do a job for someone else: the vast majority of the billions who do it don't like it, in fact most hate it!

<<We already have the dole which is distributed only to the right people.>>

You just mentioned yourself that it is a terrible system. It is not distributed to the "right people" anyway, but mainly to those who feel no shame in lying and cheating. It's a system that encourages and trains people to lie! Negative-income-tax will remove their incentive to lie because there will be no questions asked and no financial incentive to do so. There will however be an incentive to work, because that would mean extra money for comfort and luxuries.

Freedom and dignity are not gained by being demanded to contribute against one's will. Those who do not wish to contribute (at least not in a formal manner), but are willing to remain on subsistence income, should be free to do so. Those who wish to enter into NTW-like agreements with others should also be free to do so.

landrightsfree4all
"Why would you want to take what I need when there is plenty for all"

If there's plenty for all then you don't need anyone else's do you? = self-contradiction.

"In your fear you jump to the assumption that I am talking about forced redistribution of land titles. You will not find anything I said that suggests that because that is not what I believe – so where did you get it from?"

I got it from you talking about your "right" to "free" land. So you're contradicting yourself again.

A farmer farming his land commits no act of aggression against the landless. But if your "rights" are to be enforced, then you are advocating aggression against him =>self-contradiction.

And if they are not to be enforced, then you are arguing for a charitable gift, which
a) contradicts yourself again, and
b) is outside the scope of the OP.

I told you that you cannot defend your theory without immediately falling into a welter of self-contradictions, and you have just gone ahead and proved me right.

But don't worry, you're not alone. The original article has all the same defects, for all the same reasons. If he tried to defend his thesis, he would end up in the same moral and intellectual confusion as you have been displaying so un-self-consciously.

Yuyutsu,
First, do you think NTW is a rural idea? – it’s suburban, and it’s for people already in or eligible for suburban public housing. It needs to be suburban for a modern life with access to modern facilities AND to be sustainable. It’s also easier for participants to be socially included and to contribute to society.

From my perspective they’re eligible for free land access (the land on which suburban public housing is built) because $250 gives them resource access at an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable level – it means they aren’t already using more than their rightful share of land access.

I see the land as restitution. Compensation is the dole, the housing materials, the cost of labour paid by taxpayers, the modern infrastructure and the access to modern technologies. If we want to continue to enjoy these benefits we also should do something to maintain them.

Eligibility for public housing, income support (ie free land access) erodes once you increase your income with paid work. Your increased income is your compensation and you can afford to pay for more “goodies”, if that’s what floats your boat. This is already accounted for by Dept of Housing and Centrelink – rent increases and income support reduces as income increases - no change needed there. If you really don’t like the work, quit and get income support and eligibility for public housing.

But a change is needed to make this respectable, viable AND attractive for taxpayers.

Currently the only way to contribute is to get paid employment. We should be able to meet our obligation to society by doing ANYTHING that society would value. Unemployed over55’s can already do community work for approved community organisations in full satisfaction of their “mutual obligations”. This should be extended to all unemployed people.

This would be the foundation for neighbourhoods that work. It would immediately cost less and, as food and building skills grew from gardening and building maintenance, public housing could become tenant built, and the need for income support for food and shelter would reduce. Sustainable neighbourhoods would evolve.

Dear Landrights4all,

I thought we were over this, but you keep making references to the existing welfare system, evil even by your own words, which should be totally dissolved and replaced with a negative-income-tax.

Whether one wants to have a modern or an ancient lifestyle, whether in cities, suburbs, country, outback or in the middle of the ocean, whether one works and whether one charges money for their work, is none of anybody else's business and nobody else should be forced to pay for another's choices and preferences. People (and all other living beings) should not be classified by their "employment" status, any more than by their race, gender and eye-colour.

The only thing that morally justifies taking people's money as tax and giving it to others is that society has wronged everyone and should therefore compensate. As we were all wronged, we should all receive compensation, which has absolutely nothing to do with one's work-situation, including whether, and how much, one charges money for their work. Compensating some and not others (or compensating some more than others) is a theft. Negative-income-tax is a simple, straight-forward fixed sum given to everyone, ending all complexities, loop-holes, humiliation, waste and injustices of the
current welfare system.

We have no obligation to society unless we willingly benefit from being in it. A fixed-percentage income-tax, starting from the first dollar earned is due, so one pays in proportion to the benefit they derive (if any) from being in that society which caused the damage.

Dear Yuyutsu,

What I see as evil about the dole is the thinking behind it and so the use to which its mechanisms are put, not the mechanisms themselves. I’m not advocating for the current welfare system, but for a revision of it that would recognise rights rather than demonise recipients.

You originally decided to talk to me about the issues I was raising (basically landrights4all) – but now you are raising an entirely different topic, negative income tax. Fair enough, but you will understand if I want to stay on topic.

Most work these days has a very negative environmental impact – that is everybody’s business (including the other species you rightly insist on mentioning again).

Most work also provides access to resources way beyond anything remotely just – that is everybody’s business too.

Nobody should be forced to do anything, but the injustice of resource distribution resulting from the work done and the incomes raised is forcing many (especially the poor and other species ) to pay severe consequences for those choices and preferences – that’s what's wrong and that is my business.

In Australia at least, everyone is “compensated”, either by having access to wealth or access to welfare. But while these can be seen as financial compensations for historic wrongs, neither of these compensations restores the rights. Without restitution of the freedom which land provides, the property system just goes on creating more wrongs. Even if a few would take their “compensation” and just opt out, that is no way out for people generally.

Increasing taxes on the rich (much as I like that idea) and increasing spending power of the majority just cranks up consumerism further. In the words of a wise character, “She won’t take it any more Scotty”.

On the face of it a fixed-percentage income-tax might be OK so long as it couldn’t lead to increased consumerism of those already over-consuming. – to avoid that disaster perhaps it could go to foreign aid for those who are starving and homeless.

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

Dear Landrights4all,

The original topic is "our fragile liberty", where the author wishes to replace our inherent liberties with some bill-of-rights, to which I'm opposed because nobody has a right to "grant" me what's already mine by nature.

For the same reason I don't accept "recognising rights" in the welfare system. The state isn't my father or my mother, I haven't married it or otherwise accepted it as my relative: let it not steal my freedoms to begin with, then it need not chew them and hand me back the stuff as "rights".

Next you address the issue of environment. While a noble cause, it mustn't be used as another pretext for government to impinge on our freedoms.

The environmental situation is already way beyond sustainability and is mainly caused by overpopulation. Even if population-levels were sustainable, we pay a very high price for it, including-but-not-limited-to environmental-demands; killing-off-other-species; property-system; and consumerism which you mentioned as well as dependence-on-high-technology with I mentioned. To combat this, making-babies should be stigmatised rather than encouraged, and while it must never be prohibited by law, parents should pay out-of-pocket the full costs of raising new children, including for their health-and-education.

Employment also has a high environmental impact (though not as high as population-levels). You can cut much unproductive employment both in government and by those employed to comply with government regulations. You can also cut the unproductive advertising industry by making it a point to avoid buying anything that's advertised (meaning, a significant part of your payment goes to the advertisement-industry rather than for your product/service) and stop recognising advertisement-expenses as tax-deductable. To cut any further, you must make personal sacrifices, but it's hard unless you have a spiritual alternative, because much of our consumerism is a way of compensating ourselves for the stress caused by overpopulation.

<<Even if a few would take their “compensation” and just opt out, that is no way out for people generally.>>

Exactly, there is no way to eat the cake and have it too, enjoying a modern lifestyle without taking part in the rat-race which makes it possible.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I didn’t see the idea of a bill of rights as something which granted or handed back anything, but as something that might officially recognize what is already yours by nature so that policies should take that into consideration.

However such implements have so far been concerned about protecting “property” – they’ve been drafted to bury what’s yours BY NATURE - access to land air water and sunlight by which you can (at least in principle) sustain your own life.

On the one hand you are claiming deep concern for all creatures, while on the other calling for more money from a system which generates it by exploiting all creatures.

The real problem is that PART of earth’s population is over exploiting all creatures in order to have more money. “Population” is a red herring to transfer responsibility.

The first world isn’t having enough babies to replace itself so you’re clearly pointing the finger, perhaps at “illegal” immigrants and more broadly at the third world. What you are saying in effect is that the environmental problems, 80% created by the first world’s 1/5th of the earth’s population (us), are actually the fault of the 4/5th … and that as a 1st world person you want “freedom” from any laws that might restrict you from taking even more. You don’t want to worry about the fact that the 4/5th of the 7bil who had little to do with the catastrophe we created by our greed, NEED more to live.

By encouraging “property” (land grabs) we’re leaving the 4/5th with no way to escape their poverty but by following in our footsteps.

We could demonstrate another way forward by restoring what is ours by nature – enough land access for us to build shelter and grow veggies …. and to form new communities of cooperation rather than the competition of the survival of the fittest.

But still you want “compensation” …. “more”. "You can’t have your cake and eat it too".

I need to sign off on this conversation and move on. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Dear Landrights4all,

<<but as something that might officially recognize what is already yours by nature so that policies should take that into consideration.>>

Why should I seek recognition from that evil gang, or that they take my freedom "into account"? They have no right to touch my freedom in the first place!

<<But still you want “compensation”>>

It's nothing to do with greed: as a middle-income-earner I'll probably end up the same. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that we all deserve to have the minimum UNCONDITIONALLY because society has taken away our freedom to roam the earth without recourse to civilisation and its money. It means that slavery is not on, so nobody should be forced to "work for the dole".

One day, when human-population declines sufficiently (either willingly; through some catastrophe; or both), it will be possible again to live without money or "property", but meanwhile, property is very important for protecting our dignity. When used properly (rather than commercially), it means that "my home is my castle", that we (either individually; as families; or as independent communities or tribes) are sovereign on our own land, that we may take refuge there and others (including government!) may not enter and disrupt our privacy and lifestyle. The problem is not the existence of property, but rather that it is not truly respected (other than as a commercial commodity).

If your NTW concept is adopted by government, do you really think you will have any sovereignty over your space and your life? No! The government will keep entering your home to check whether you indeed have a veggie-garden and how many hours you put into it. That's not freedom!

With negative-income-tax, OTOH, no questions will be asked and you'll be free to enter into NTW-arrangements with any interested land-owner by any terms you both agree on.

I have not pointed my finger at immigration or in any other direction. The world as a whole is overcrowded and therefore poor: the 3rd-world is materially-poor and the 1st-world spiritually-poor. Neither should replace itself and both can escape their poverty by stopping having babies.