What is the first Human Right?

#1

I may be wrong but due to gravity and my feet touching the ground, I think the first human right is a piece of land.

Theoretically if our feet didn’t touch the ground and we could hover around then all those other BS human rights could be taken into account. What do you think?

Imagine a world where everyone had the right to one piece of land, no man could own 1,000,000-acres of land, he doesn’t need it. The owning of other peoples land creates rent and mortgage slaves to the mega billionaire land owner, why do we tolerate this?

Imagine a world where in-between the private lands would be communal land where people could run farms and businesses that benefit there local community and the world.

#2

I think It’s a good idea for people to be able to own their own land, but obviously not to excess. As it is today, all land seems to be claimed.And you have to ask yourself, do people actually own their own homes and land? After all we have property tax, car tax. even car insurance seems like a tax because we aren’t allowed to drive without it.

I belief every human on Earth has the right to a decent place to live, with good food, clothing, transportation, medical care. Right now many people wonder how that would work. You can’t have things for free. you have to work. But perhaps we don’t. I think in the future robots can be used to do the jobs we do today.
But I also believe that work is a good thing for people. But I believe our work needs to enrich our souls. We need to feel like we’re making an important impact in our environment, or that we have weight to throw around. Master of our domain so to speak.

1 Like
#3

I think you’re complicating the matter once again. I don’t believe we are all entitled to free food, to free money, NO, because your entitlement would put someone else into slavery working for you. But we should be entitled for one piece of land for one person, if a human could not own more than one piece of land. To maintain a sense of community there would be community land in-between the private lands so that people could have shared farms and shared businesses there. It’s quite simple but really just comes down to individual freedom to NOT be born into rent or mortgage/debt slavery.

Once a person has land he is able to feed himself and have space to run a small business, along with the opportunity to run larger businesses on the shared community land.

Right now we have a system where one person can own infinite amounts of land and so we have billionaires and millionaires, a handful of people who live off the misery of everyone else.

#4

We actually have less rights than animals.

Humans are not allowed to make a life in any National Park yet animals are allowed to stay there, live there, hunt there, make children there, build nests there. So us Humans have less rights than Animals, I would actually like to revoke my human rights and take back my animal rights to live in nature without being asked for rent money. You can shove your human rights up your ass Obama! Give me back my animal rights!

1 Like
#5

The first right should be freedom in all meanings. The term should be able to fit in everything.

#6

We are to the point where money is almost outdated. Once all tasks can be done without humans working them, we should be able to enjoy life inexcplicably. Therefore a new system allowing everyone to do/buy/enjoy everything we desire.

#7

If we all shared the land and just built homes on it their would be no problem. We all reason and just enjoy the land together as no one owns it we are all apart of it. One with Mother Earth

#8

It’s an interesting idea, but breaks down in practice as no two pieces of land will have the same value.

#9

True, i guess 100% inheritance tax and a one-world government in the style of Star Trek is the only way.

#10

I think we all have to re think everything
We’ve learned about how our world
Is ran. The wheels of capitalism and it’s effect on our society have been moving for a long time. New ideas are scary at first
Because we humans tend to cling to what we know
Even if it’s horrible. I think land rights is something to think about.

Of course we all discuss our ideas on here
but I’m pretty sure there are individuals
In the Meriticracy Party, Illuminati, and what have you who know exactly what they’re going to do. All that’s needed is enough critical mass for them to emerge, much like how the communists emerged at the right time.

#11

As @Ed_Chy commented, in a Star Trek future land rights would be rather irrelevant as everyone would reap the benefits (e.g. no billion dollar mine heiresses such as Gine Rinehart). The first human right should be equal opportunities because that way you guarantee that nobody will rig the game in their favour without contradicting this first right.

Please don’t count on anyone to come charging in to change the world. You are the cavalry. If you’re up for it, of course. Same for everyone else on MeritocracyNow!

#12

Hobbes argues that the first human right is the right to self-preservation, and all that entails - free access to food, clothing and shelter; and whatever we might need to produce and secure these things for ourselves.

I think private ownership of land and other things is okay. We all need a patch of land and a house to call our own, we can’t share our toothbrushes or our underwear, and we also like to own things so that we can customise them to our preference and liking (for instance cars). I think all of that is fine because it does not necessarily prevent somebody else from pursuing their right to self-preservation, unless somebody owns too many toothbrushes and pairs of underwear and so on; depriving others of them. It is the excessive private ownership of things and the private ownership of the means of production which is the problem.

#13

This is a useless topic (negative liberty; owning a patch of land and having therefore no inherent responsibilities or connections to social good). We need the opposite of this.

We can simply give more reasonable rights to people who are renting existing owned properties (without all the mess): lower the rent costs, for example; this would also have an effect on the wages/income because it would effectively raise it.

We need people to be integrated with the community; not fearing for their patch of land. We can simply help people stay wherever they currently are.

Property may be better managed by the state, but this is not a primary, immediate concern directly related to meritocracy (equality of opportunity; social consciousness). In fact residential property ownership is pretty much irrelevant in itself (before money comes into it).

People should feel at home whether or not they own the property. They are the ones living in it. Landlords should have to give a much longer notice than weeks, to evict a tenant, for example. Landlords should not be able to suddenly raise the rent beyond a certain threshold (e.g. a national average, perhaps).

A primary concern is money and inheritance, which relates itself to land ownership and other concerns about huge wealth disparities between the rich and poor. A smart government does not want to get bogged down in details, but rather, come up with grand sweeping changes.

#14

It’s not a useless topic. If we look at the history of indigenous cultures there was nobody who charged us rent, no landlords living off of us like parasites.

Perhaps we need community land rather than private land. The use of the land could be agreed upon by each community. Either way this is not a useless topic, it’s a primary topic, land is all that countries and people fight for, land is the most important resource. With land we can grow own own food, build our own factories, we can become mostly self-sufficient. But without land we live in little boxes and depend on money & going to the supermarket for survival. It’s a meaningless lifestyle, people are much happier when they get to grow their own food and feel achievement from building and making many of their own things.

#15

We are not an indigenous, primitive culture. Is it the job of a meritocratic government to make changes just for your preferences? No. We need to work with what the best option for everyone is. That is the only true socially conscious governing method.

Self-sufficiency has nothing to do with it.

Big business already produces food. We have a more rational civilization which frees us from primitive food production jobs. Why should we be scared of this progress?

The only thing land is useful for is biodiversity considerations.

If you want to live in a commune, such a thing can be built in a city. What’s the problem?

The grand sweeping changes are important for a meritocracy. Not something highly unattached to meritocratic principles, such as the usage status of a piece of land. Most of the economic production comes from business, services, trade, and not individual land owners. It would be very stupid and inefficient to suggest people are better off working on farms (taking up land) than working within a harmonious city environment with lots of varied job and education opportunities.

We are not an indigenous, primitive culture. Communism failed because it was scared of super-abstract capital power (amassing working capital) that corporations have. Rational Gnostics are not afraid of power, we simply want to direct the public good away from parasitic, predatory capitalism. We want capitalism without crutches. To that end, it is irrational and borders on concern trolling to say that property rights are a human right.

Land management is a much more complex issue than simply giving individual uneducated people the land. Business and infrastructure is a much more integral part of industrialized life than living on a farm like paranoid, primitive tribes. Living isolated from cities is nonsensical, there is no justification for not wanting to be a part of the regular industrialized world (consuming electric power; relying on the waste management of the state; relying on our laws and comparitively advanced products and services).

Meritocracy is inherently leftist, socially conscious, and concerned with the running of everyday society. Wanting to go off-grid (negative liberty) is the exact opposite, selfish kind of intent and set of values;- which do not belong in a discussion about meritocratic governance of the nation.

Living in boxes is exactly the figurative, subjective value we want to turn around – it is a false dilemma to suggest that living on farms is the only alternative to the soulless, bedgrudging, grim modern jobs and interactions that many have today “within the system”. The Gnostic worldview asserts that power and technology are simply things we can master and use for evolution. We are not afraid of the government in Principle; i.e. we will simply aim to turn it around for public good.

Meritocracy is about creating a world in which you don’t have to hide in the first place. This is the necessary grand justice for the atrocities (endless paperwork, endless stubborn rules, endless unmeritocratic advantage) which we need to set straight right in the very cities; the pillars of economic opportunity.

Hiding has nothing to do with meritocracy. Meritocracy must be about integration, inclusiveness for anyone who wants to contribute something truly amazing. So, we can’t be advising illegal and unreasonable expectations for everyone to follow such as living off grid or hiding away from common sense, rational, civil rules of engagement with the rest of the system. Instead, the system should simply change to what makes the most sense for everyone. It doesn’t make sense to punish people for wanting city lives. Therefore a meritocracy should not do that.

Growing your own food has nothing to do with national human wellbeing and social good (socially conscious government; meritocratic government), therefore it’s a useless subject to pursue in itself when we are talking about grand sweeping changes that need to be made to help everyone, not just people who want to stay on a farm while the rest of the world is exploring science and technology and philosophy and all higher cultural avenues.

Open land has nothing to do with modern life. The future of the world is attached to city life, taxes, and having to live within a ruleset fair to all. This is non-negotiable, it’s an undeniable fact of life.

#16

Surely there is a difference between owning your own place of residence and owning a farm or some other vital means of production. Homes, as an urban dweller would conceive of them, would have nothing to do with farms or factories or any kind of monopolization of power and resources; or going off the grid. They’re just a place reserved for yourself where you go to lay your head and keep your essential belongings.

The first human right is the right to self-preservation and having your own place can be a part of that. As an introvert I personally couldn’t imagine a world without private housing. It would drive me mad to have to live in some enormous communal room. If not a detached home like what we see in capitalist suburbia, then I would require at least a private room or apartment of some sort, where I could find some solitude from the world as well as an opportunity to slip off the Jungian persona and find my true self. I think a lot of people would feel the same.

Even the communal models which have been put forward as alternatives to capitalist private housing acknowledge the need for some basic form of privacy in the form of a bedroom, at the least.

#17

I will take offense to that, you did not have to use the word “primitive”.

“Your leaders don’t have the
power to change anything.
You television sets
have the real power.
They compel you to buy
things you do not need,
and anything that are worthless.
They tell you to drive cars
that cannot even move
because everyone else is driving one,
in cities where there is no clean air.
They mock the way you look.
And affect your happiness.
What can your leader do
about your nature?
When it is so corrupted that
when you live each day,
it’s base on consuming,
devouring and wasting.
Never happy until nothing is left.”

  • Chloe and Theo (2015)

^Therefore WE ARE THE PRIMITIVE ONES, besides iPhones, vibrators and other socially-alienating technologies lol

Isn’t that negative liberty? What part of earning a maximum of $1-million per year (as suggested by the AC website) sounds like capitalism without crutches?

So you’re implying that educated people have the right to be landlords over the uneducated people. This is an argument supporting the master/slave dialectic.

Actually according to The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project, taxes are not an undeniable fact of life when a resource-based economy doesn’t even use money. Also, rules and laws are based on a “PRIMITIVE” outdated understanding of human psychology. Our environment determines our behavior. You can refer to the “Rat Park” experiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

Overall you haven’t said anything of value, just “blah blah, indigenous cultures are all beneath our current culture, blah blah, we need to work together, blah blah, i like capitalism, blah blah, i think rent and the master/slave dialectic is good, blah blah we need to work together…” No method mentioned, how do we do it?

Well I will give you my solution. We need to slowly Open-Source each area of government, each division one-by-one. An Open-Source Government is the only way forward in my opinion. If you research OS you will find clear details about how the decision-making method works in infinite detail.

#18

I think it supports Meritocracy perfectly. If it were in a capitalist scenario, then yes, it would support master/slave dialectic. I don’t see the point of giving someone land that could otherwise be used properly instead of wasted by rich landowners just for the sake of having space, or, on the other hand, given to people who have no education or skills to turn that land into something useful to the community be it, for growing food, or a park, or building a business on it. What’s the point ? Give the land to those that can prove they are worthy of putting it to use for something other than their selfish needs. Simples.

#19

Standing on your own shouting “I have merit! I have merit!”… But can you prove it? What daily disciplines do you undertake? How do you spend your time? What makes you think you are any better than anyone else? The difference between you and me is that I don’t seek to be master over you, but you seek to be master over me.

At least the Open-Source Method is a way to prove merit. I do not believe in a world with landlords, I would much rather support The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project than assholes who believe landlords.

#20

Are you serious ?Where did I say I have merit ? As it happens, I have. i have a fully qualified passenger PCV vehicle license and CPC (European certificate of competence). I am very self disciplined regards nutrition and healthy eating. I follow strict protocols most wouldn’t. I have no interest in the word ‘Master’ as a noun. Only an adjective. I fear that isn’t the only difference between you and I if that is how you feel.

I’ll give you an example of what I mean. I have in the past, suffered with depression. I have since rid myself of this with diet and moderate exercise. I would not have been able to have this conversation with you 10 years ago. I would not have even half the vocabulary. So I can say, I have merit at least in the ability to converse with you on a serious topic without being silly or a prick.