I've never been a fan of rights because then you inherently have wrongs. ;) (Speaking strictly from an objective perspective)
I really appreciate your definition of rights though, it quite reminds me much of my definition of freedom.
The only thing I have any issue with is the "right to shelter." I do not support personal ownership, temporary authority surely but not ownership. Land is free and so are the materials which are procured from such (not processed materials, raw materials). I do agree that you don't have the right to the labor necessary to build the shelter, but you can surely build your own shack if desperate enough.
Great article!
But considering the fact that personal ownership of land has been a thing in many cultures and regions for a very long time, how can you extricate the land itself from the labor that has been applied to it?
For instance, if I purchased a piece of land with money that was the product of my labor, and then someone comes along and says, "You don't own this land! Land is free and so are the materials!" and then proceeds to move in/use the land, is that not an infringement of my rights to my labor and time that I gave up in exchange for the money to buy the land?
Very great point, @lesliestarrohara. My response was confined by a purely hypothetical situation where ownership has not been a part of the equation.
As for how we would implement these ideas into the current standing of society where ownership has been the standard procedure applied to land, I'm not 100% sure I could answer that well enough to suffice everybody. I personally am a voluntarist anarchist, and I cannot force others to behave any differently than they already act. I can, however, band together with other like minded individuals who have already come together under this idea. I believe that given the choice, generally people would voluntarily help set up communities to assist each other where needed. Land would not be an issue because there would be no competition for resources as resources would be shared. I think that corporatism has basically programmed us into competition, it requires an us vs them scenario to exist - shooting for the top is the only goal in corporatism.
So how to employ these ideas right now?
Live the revolution.
As old Sidhartha says, "be the change you want to see..." the rest will follow.
Interesting. I also classify myself as a voluntaryist anarchist, but I take a different view on land ownership, competition, and resource allocation.
I think that communities like what you are talking about (where land and resources are shared) could exist and prosper in a voluntaryist society, and, at the same time, so could competitive, capitalist markets. To me, land ownership makes sense, and there is nothing inherent about ownership or competition that is damaging to people or to communities, or even to the environment. It is, as you say, the corporatism that ruins everything. But not because it's competitive--because it's monopolistic.
I was kind of lightly hinting at the capability of both ideas coexisting in my previous response, I should have made that more clear.
I absolutely agree that both communities could exist together, and could even work in collusion in some instances.
Corporatism creates competition, competition divides people and makes them take sides in order to defend the successes of their team. If competition is equal then it is not competition it's equal exchange.
Capitalism does not inherently create competition, though it can be an aspect of capitalism when extortion comes into play. Capitalism allows for equal exchange to flow freely in a free market, but standards can be enforced which cause an unequal exchange at certain levels and then competition takes place as you fight to do better than the other in any exchange.
I don't necessarily support capitalism, but I also know it's not a demon needing exorcised.