This essay also addresses what a Truly Human and humanizing culture would be based on--that is the right acculturation of human beings to a Culture of Wisdom and thus by extension the right use of the natural world.

http://www.dabase.org/socrevip.htm

I agree with the under-current of the thread

I always believe those who own and work the land know better about that land

than some amateur, yet loud, environmental activist or professionally paid bureaucrat with a bee in his bonnet about wood lice, living in the burbs, demanding that every tree (living or dead) be sanctified.

I fear we have too many busy-bodies usurping their acquired authority in local and state politics.

I find the price or practice of turning a blind eye to dictatorial abuse of governmental powers, regardless the manner in which it is dressed or the supposed sincerity of the abusive proponents, just too high to pay or even bargain with.

Justin is correct in his basic premise -

He who owns the land and is possibly assessed taxes on that land, should control what happens with that land.

Conversely, those who sit in a cute office, funded by the tax payer must be forced to remember, they are the servants, not the masters, of the electorate and as such have no right or authority to usurp the rights of their land-owning electors.

And those who feel they have to succumb to some god-given desire for “environmental activism”, should take a cold shower or find something else to burn off the excesses of their emotional righteousness…

Maybe try working for a living.

Winston Smith, as you might guess, I agree with your view.

Ah Ho-Hum… you illustrate my point perfectly, ”environmental degradation” was more excessive under the jackboot of the collectivist government in USSR than it was anywhere else. Just look at what “leftwing politics” did to the Aral Sea

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/678898.stm

doubtless we would find similar excesses in North Korea, if anyone was allowed to go and check.

Honest and open government is only ever preserved when the rights of the collective are acknowledged as being subordinate to the rights of the individual.

Peter Spencer probably (I’m not sure of the facts of the case) should have been compensated, as should all farmers being forced into ‘helping’ the environment. However, I must say that, for a person supposedly living on nothing except water and vitamins for 55 days, Mr. Spencer looked to be in good shape physically and was very lucid when he was being interviewed. True, he couldn’t walk when he was brought to the ground, but nobody else who had sat for 55 days, eating or not, would have been able to walk either.

The same media who brought us the story also advised the public that Mr. Spencer had declined an offer of $2 million dollars for his property. Now, we don’t know the truth of that, but nor do we no the real truth about anything to do with Mr. Spencer when we have to rely on the media for information.

The fact remains that governments in Australia can take away land, and even peoples’ houses; there is usually compensation involved and, as said above, we don’t know the true facts of Mr. Spencer’s dealings with the government.

As one who does not believe in the man-made theory of climate-change, I don’t think that preventing anyone from clearing land is going to make a damn of difference; it only gives the government the chance to say, “Look what we are doing.”

Nevertheless, I don’t think we should be making political comment on this case, or any other case, until we know the full facts. We do not no the full facts of the Peter Spencer case

There are some good points made in this article. However, they are the kind of uneducated, poorly informed, inflammatory points made to stir up a good argument where proper logic holds firm.
As an earlier comment accurately stated populations are in a constant state of flux. As one population increases another may fall. In the end they balance out. The continuity of both is very important. Each small part of an ecosystem plays a role in the sustaining the whole. If the ecosystem collapses production will also collapse. Allowing unfettered use of land through ownership would enable profitability to rule. This would be the worse case possible as preservation of ecosystems has no market value. Without one– ecosystems – the other would not be able to exist.
Secondly, people are motivated to act out of self-interest. This does not mean that they will do what is good for them. We need strong government and regulations to protect people from themselves. Farmers’ clear land for production because they want more profit or other land is no longer usable. Self-interest is the motive and environmental factors are not considered. Farmers in the West Australian Wheat belt were told 100 years ago that if they cropped the land it would cause salinity issues. The farmers cropped and now there is a huge salinity problem in the Wheat belt. Land needs to be protected from narrow self-interest.
Finally there is the issue of ownership. There is a strong link here to market profit and to motivation. People see profit from farming but there is no visible profit from preservation. It is difficult therefore for large sums to be spent by philanthropic individuals to preserve land which does not generate any financial reward. So next time you pen such an inflammatory story do more research before you open up a debate on subjects which you clearly do not understand. This can undo much of the hard fought victories of the environmental groups because people do not always see what is in their best interest.

Theoretically, if for some reason an owner has been overseas for a couple of years, and there is regrowth over his entire farm, he may never be able to farm there again.

If the law was rationalised to a limit of say 25% or some other figure, both the biodiversity and the farmers would be protected. However, this was easy to forsee, it simply boils down the the greens not giving a damn about people.

Thank you Justin
You have outlined how the theft of millions of hectares of privately owned land has been stolen by government because they hold the power to do so and have acted aganst the moral intention of the constitution. Those who think that it is ok to steal would be the same people who would complain the minute that someone touched anything they owned. Try locking up 90% of the rooms in your own homes and see how that feels. Not real good eh! Don't forget to continue to pay the rates and taxes even though you can't use those rooms. Many environMENTALS think it is ok to go against the commandment "Thou shalt not steal". How about saving up and buying as much land as you can and turn that land into a private parkland at your own expense and you can then become what most farmers have become unpaid park rangers.Don't covert what others have paid for.