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.