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