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.