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.

.