Answer my question.

Comment by Skull | November 16, 2009 ”

Hi Skull,

Although your question was double barrled and expressed a false dichotomy based on some of your illucid ideas, re: your bigoted hatred of libertarians, misunderstanding of common law and a poorly documented, autodidacted history of libertarianism, I will clarfiy our views on native title for you.

The LDP does not officially wish to change the status quo. In effect, it is supported.

Several members (myself and Terje Petersen for example) believe that native title should be granted where possible, as soon as possible, to end confusion and remedy injustices. The same believe in land rights strengthened as freehold title with attached mineral rights if the rights granted under native title law would be greater than a mere easement or profit a pendre. We also believe that members of the benefited tribes/language groups should hold ordinarily transferable shares in the said claims.

I hope this helps. If you repeat the same questions, we can conclude that you are illiterate, not inquisitive.

Libertarians have no problem with joint ownership of things, so long as it is voluntary.

Libertarians believe in the importance of civil society and voluntary community. Indeed, one of the saddest parts of the neo-socialist experiment with big government has been the destruction of many parts of voluntary society.

If people want to come together in a voluntary commune, a voluntary church, a voluntary marriage, a voluntary friendly society or football club, or any other voluntary group, then that is great. Humans are social creatures, and most of us will form groups.

Some people wrongly assume that the political debate is between those who believe in “individuals” and those who believe in “society”. This isn’t true. All sane people recognise that people are individuals, and that people live in society. The point of differentiation is whether those societies should be voluntary or involuntary.

You ask about the “group rights” of property owners, but that is not a group right. That is a human right that applies equally to all people. The right is simply this, “you have the right to do what you like, so long as it’s voluntary”.

You asked about Mabo and native title. I can’t speak for the LDP, but I can give you my preference. I think the most important thing for aboriginal land rights is that it should be upgraded to full private freehold rights where there is no competing claim. Where there is a competing claim, the current title should be respected as the time elapsed has been too great.

Aboriginal policy depresses me. After seeing how well socialist land-rights worked in Russia, China, Nth Korea and Cambodia we decided to experiment with socialist land-rights in Australia. But not on most Australians, thank god. We just imposed socialist land-rights on the most underprivileged groups in our community… and then we are surprised when it doesn’t work.

The sad part is that the victims are innocent, while the people who imposed the socialism continue to live in western capitalist comfort. Perhaps if Whitlam & his friends had to live in the aboriginal homelands they wouldn’t think it was such a cute anthropological curiosity and would start to care about economic development.

“you’re an idiot because of ABCD” “oh yeah, I am an idiot. so glad you informed of that” doesn’t happen. You do not convince people by being antagonistic to them. Sure, if you tear someone down you might feel surprised and very proud of yourself, but it just doesn’t achieve the point…

“Does that apply to a group called property owners, or are they an exception to the rule?”

To which i replied:

How are group rights conferred to property owners? A sale of a house down the road has no bearing on me.

“I don’t think many libertarians, even jc, would say it’s okay to take communally owned land from nomads.”

But that is exactly what he says at #223.

“Should he be legally bound to return it to person B?”

According to Australian Common Law, yes.