.

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

.

Thanks for that. I see from the Aust. Govt. website that the citizenship laws were modified as follows:

"Whether you are an Australian citizen by birth depends on the date of your birth.

Most children born in Australia before 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth unless one parent was entitled to diplomatic privileges or was a consular officer of another country.

Children born after that date are only Australian citizens if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time of their birth.

Children born in Australia to parents who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, automatically acquire Australian citizenship on their 10th birthday if they have lived most of their life in Australia."

.

Hi Banjo,
A right of access to land must include the responsibility for behaving within the purpose of the right (maintain or develop housing, grow veggies,) and responsibility to the land itself so that right may be enjoyed by future generations (do it sustainably). again see http://on.fb.me/UbyrlD

With a population of 7billion and rising some forms of access to land are no longer sustainable. The land needed for a hunter gatherer lifestyle for all would be unsustainable, but it is clearly untrue to say that there isn't enough space for everyone to have a home and a veggie garden. There is plenty of space for that.

Those whose access to land is low because of their low income, have a right of free access to enough land to bring them up to the level of their land access entitlement. In a country like Australia, only those on $250pw or less would have enough birthright to build shelter and grow food. Others would have to buy these things at market rates.

The number of those eligible and wanting to claim free access to land with the associated responsibilities would not disrupt property markets. To see how this could be very attractive to taxpayers & property owners see http://bit.ly/YD3L01

Jardine - you might be right

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

Dear Landrights4all,

Your idea of a "birthright" to land puzzles me.

Unless we have some fundamental definition of ownership, the definition of a "right" is cyclical - a privilege bestowed by another who somehow had that "right" to begin with.

For a state to bestow land rights on its citizens/residents, it must have a right to those lands in the first place, but what right has the Australian state over the whole Australian continent? None whatsoever unless you consider the fact that 18th-century guns were more effective than boomerangs as "fundamental"!

(but if that's your fundamental belief and the state does not wish to grant you land rights, then you should not complain, but instead, according to your philosophy, recourse to obtaining better guns than the state's)

One solution you may want to look at is the biblical, where the Jewish God declared "Mine is the land!" [Leviticus 25:23], followed by the discussion of the year of the Jubilee (verses 23-31), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_%28biblical%29.

Compared with those 3 alternative fundamental and consistent philosophies:

1. Might is right;
2. God's absolute authority and ownership of all;
3. Jardine's concept of absolute individual freedom, so carefully explained above;

your claim of "well, if it's $250pw or less then it should be so, otherwise it's too expensive" looks so fleeting, so fragile, so incidental, so arbitrary, so artificial.

I strongly recommend that you adopt a complete, solid and universal philosophical model on which you can base your claim to land rights for all.

Dear Y,
My belief is that access to land, as to air water and sunlight is a birthright for the purpose of sustaining life. The limit to that is that if your rights are to be respected, then so are the equal rights of others, including future generations, thus requiring sustainable usage of your birthright. It also imposes the obligation to limit your use of any access claimed as a right to shelter and food.

At best, the State can acknowledge & protect that principle, but if it doesn't, that doesn't negate the right to life & to sustain it.

Why do I hold myself & others equal & entitled to life rather than accept the old kill or be killed view - because I DO believe we have a God given dignity - and I uphold the solution you referred me to that the land is not "ours".

You would have seen "why $250" if you had read the links provided (http://on.fb.me/UbyrlD).

It is not an arbitrary figure. $Income = resources .. you may come up with a different number but $A250 is a reasoned approximation of the resources an Australian could have as a just share of the earth's resources if each of 7bil had equal access (the actual number is less important than the principle that all are equal - perhaps you would say it's $A300 - Ok, we could debate that, but we would probably both agree it's not $A6000/wk. That is, there is a number and, if you accept the scientists consensus, it's clear that the average $Aincome isn't sustainable (or just in terms of resource access).

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

Dear Landrights4all,

Thank you. I will not go into numbers, firstly because I cannot read your link (my router and firewall blocks this kind of websites), but mostly because I rather concentrate on the principles.

In essence, I understand that you believe in the sanctity of life.

That raises the ancient question - "What is life?"

* Is life an objective biological phenomena or a subjective experience?
* Is life an individual or a collective phenomena/experience?
* Is life limited to humans? If so, why?
* Is life limited to this planet? If so, why?
* Is life limited to current forms or also includes past and future ones? If so, why?
* Is life binary or a matter of degree? Accordingly, can we tell whether another is alive, or can we construct a life-o-meter?
* Can life be taken away? If so, can life be resumed?
* What are the resources required to sustain life? Do they include good-will or love, or are all just physical? Also, within the physical, land, water, air and sunlight may be enough for some plants, for a while, but what about other forms?
* If life depends on resources, is there enough to sustain all living beings, past present and future? What for example if the required resources rise exponentially with old age?
* Do those who abused theirs or others' lives and the resources needed to sustain them, still have a right to live and have the same resources? What then about those who only intend or are inclined to abuse theirs or others' lives in the future?
* Is life a desirable feature at all? If so why - or else, why do we live and why is it worthwhile to promote the lives of others (if indeed there are others)?

Can you answer those questions?

That raises the ancient question - "What is life?"

Good heavens - is this essential to a discussion about land access as a birthright essential to "our fragile liberty"?

Ok, but I don't even want to wonder where you are going with this. I'm answering in order - so I don't need to repeat your questions.

* Both
* Both
* No
* Who knows
* Future life will have future rights & responsibilities, but all based on equality of men in balance with the natural world
* Everything physical is recycled by nature into new life - everything spiritual continues to grow in the spirit
* I guess so
* Life's requirements are in a hierarchy - first physical, then as those needs are secured, spiritual
* The resources required to sustain life are limited by the rights of others to have equal resources - a rich old person couldn't consume more than their share of resources to sustain their own life when for want of some rice others are dying.
* a)They have right to enough to sustain life so long as what they need is equitable in terms of what others need.
b) they would have a right to no more than their share.
* a) Yes b) through the experience of life, to grow into the spiritual beings which make up part of our nature. c) because this is our fulfillment - our natural desire ... to be happy and to live. d) "(if indeed there are others)"?? You mean everything is an illusion, including our own existence? Well I know that is a view some (who in this view don't exist) hold (if "holding" makes any sense when nothing exists) .... but I reject it with as straight a face as I can manage.

(By the way, in your last post you "quoted" me. I would be grateful if you want to quote me, please use my exact words which I will clarify if necessary, or repeal if I should.)

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman