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.