Interested in your critiques & comments on the upcoming referendum.
I am not following this Conza. I did read the mailout from the AEC and the Yes proposal seemed very vague. Apart from being nice to aboriginals there didn't seem to be any concrete proposals. Inevitably it will result in a new plague of bureaucratic rent seekers bleeding us dry and nothing will improve.Interested in your critiques & comments on the upcoming referendum.
An “anti-something” movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program that they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be. They must, without any reservations, endorse the program of the market economy.
— Ludwig von Mises, Anti-Capitalist Mentality, Chapter 5.
Or say I have built a log cabin in one nook of a valley, and announce, “this entire valley is now mine,” expecting the valley to be socially recognized as mine. Clearly, my objective linkage to the use of the entire valley is probably too weak to hold up to any reasonable counterclaim that others might make to other parts of the valley on the basis of their respective activities. I have never put those areas to use in any way that others could possibly perceive.
“Suppose that centuries ago, Smith was tilling the soil and therefore legitimately owning the land; and then that Jones came along and settled down near Smith, claiming by use of coercion the title to Smith’s land, and extracting payment or “rent” from Smith for the privilege of continuing to till the soil. Suppose that now, centuries later, Smith’s descendants (or, for that matter, other unrelated families) are now tilling the soil, while Jones’s descendants, or those who purchased their claims, still continue to exact tribute from the modern tillers.
Where is the true property right in such a case? It should be clear that here, just as in the case of slavery, we have a case of continuing aggression against the true owners-the true possessors-of the land, the tillers, or peasants, by the illegitimate owner, the man whose original and continuing claim to the land and its fruits has come from coercion and violence. Just as the original Jones was a continuing aggressor against the original Smith, so the modern peasants are being aggressed against by the modern holder of the Jones-derived land title.
In this case of what we might call “feudalism” or “land monopoly,” the feudal or monopolist landlords have no legitimate claim to the property. The current “tenants,” or peasants, should be the absolute owners of their property, and, as in the case of slavery, the land titles should be transferred to the peasants, without compensation to the monopoly landlords.”
— Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, Chp 10 -The problem of land theft
"In 1993, 23% of Australia's land was publicly owned (table 14.20). Over half of this public land (54%) was vacant crown land" - ABS (couldn't find any more recent in ABS
"Pastoral leases cover 44% of Australia, according to Austrade. Pastoral leases are defined by Austrade as a title issued for the lease of an area of crown land to use for the limited purpose of grazing of stock and associated activities."
"About 40% of Australia is covered by native title, in both exclusive and shared title. Australian government reports state that Indigenous communities hold the freehold title to 17% of the country, mainly in the Northern Territory and South Australia."
"Guardian Australia’s definition of Indigenous tenure, for mapping purposes, includes exclusive-possession native title and freehold, which confer the right to exclude others from the land. This amounts to about 26% of Australia’s landmass. "
"15% publicly owned"
"Pastoral leases cover 44% of Australia"
I agree with your statement of the libertarian position on native land ownership (or land ownership in general). We also need to remember that talk of aboriginal land rights is not a collective claim but the claim of individual people who may possibility have been disposed of their land. Land grants to aboriginal groups do not provide restitution to individuals (or their descendants) who have been harmed but rather represent transfers of wealth to institutional actors who use this wealth to entrench their own position. You could be cynical and suggest that the state benefits from this virtuous circle, the problem never goes away but now we have a permanent woke voice to marginalise the majority and make us all feel guilty.Walter Block recently wrote this as well: https://www.econlib.org/who-really-owns-the-united-states/
And I came across:
Looks like it's 15% now public, but note:
So not allowed to use for anything other than that (land can't be used for housing).
85% of Australias land mass basically not available for housing/private ownership.
10.5% private. 4.5% unknown.
* "About 40% of Australia is covered by native title, in both exclusive and shared title."
** "When non-exclusive native title is included, the proportion of Australia is about 54%."
It is good for a Kapauku to have a close relative as headman because he can then depend upon his help in economic, political, and legal matters. The expectation of future favors and advantages is probably the most potent motivation for most of the headman’s followers. Strangers who know about the generosity of a headman try to please him, and people from his own political unit attend to his desires. Even individuals from neighboring confederations may yield to the wishes of a tonowi in case his help may be needed.“