As implified above, the land-use policies put forth in various development plans throughout Ireland (whether at a national or regional or county level) are being justified largely on the basis that they are stepping stones in the implementation of certain ‘sustainable development goals’ (hereafter referred to as SDGs). For this reason, although the SDGs are not the primary focus of this article, it is important to examine them briefly.

There are 17 SDGs in total. They are listed on the UN website. Those perhaps most relevant to land-use policy are:

A common takeaway from these goals and the philosophy which underlies them is that humans are a burden upon and threat towards our natural environment and our countryside. Accordingly, the SDG authors urge all parties involved in environmental and societal planning — at all levels — to concentrate human populations in well-defined settlement areas.

Speaking very broadly, environmentalists typically identify four classes of potential threats to wildlife and the environment — most of which are genuinely harmful and problematic (at least potentially), but one which is far more controversial. These are:

The environmental issues and concerns raised in the WCCDP broadly reflect this list, and it places enormous emphasis on CO₂ emissions and ‘climate action’.

This author shares most of the environmentalists' concerns, and acknowledges threats 1 and 3 in the list above. The author tentatively acknowledges threat 2 also — in that thoughtless building and development in ‘ecologically sensitive’ areas is problematic. This acknowledgement, however, is a far cry from endorsing a blanket ban on home-building in rural areas or implying that every structure erected to nurture and sustain human life should be subject to the obtuse and heartless planning approval process set forth in our local development plan (which presupposes, entirely incorrectly in my view, that human habitation is automatically a burden upon or threat towards the natural environment).

Even more dangerous than their assumptions about the human threat to biodiversity is their promotion of the belief that CO₂ is a ‘pollutant’, and that human-caused CO₂ emissions are responsible for irreversible climate change. The reason that this is so significant — and potentially dangerous — is as follows. Every decision regarding where homes are built in this country, and whether or not a ‘one-off build’ is allowed in a rural area, is made based on a local development plan, which in turn reflects higher-level policies and objectives set forth in regional and national development plans and frameworks — such as the National Development Plan. All of these policies and objectives — every single decision regarding zoning and land use made by various authorities throughout the country — is based (at least partly) on the belief that our CO₂ emissions are causing (potentially irreversible and dramatic) harm to the earth’s climate. So — as peculiar as this may seem — it is potentially in our interest (potentially very much so) to investigate and examine this claim.

Before you call me (or anyone else) a ‘climate denier’ please be aware of the following points.

Lastly, if you have time, please read about the ClimateGate scandal. James Delingpole’s book, WaterMelons, provides clear insight in to this; and there is no shortage of other information about the scandal available online.

The other aspect of the housing crisis which I want to discuss is landlordism. While many people are pointing the finger at immigrants and blaming the housing crisis on mass immigration, this deflects attention away from landlords. This suits the landlords, no doubt, who are all too happy to be excused from public scrutiny and for people to ignore that they have significant culpability for the widespread suffering in our country due to a dearth of affordable homes.

I want to be careful with words here and qualify the above statement. As I stated in one of my leaflets on the housing crisis, I don’t want to tarnish all landlords with the same brush, and I’m not implying that all landlords bear culpability for the current crisis. I’m not implying that owning more than one home or building and renting out the spare space is automatically immoral. Landlords may come in to possession of their properties by a variety of means — some of which involve no harm (direct or indirect) to other people — and, e.g., ask for rent only to help them recoup their initial outlay and the costs of repair and maintenance. These people (especially when we are only talking 2-3 properties in total — including their own home) are hardly responsible for the housing crisis.

There are another class of landlords, however, who have a different mindset. These are the people who view homes purely as a source of income and acquire them not to live in but solely for the purpose of renting them to others. These people do share culpability for the current housing crisis. These people don’t deserve our admiration or esteem, and we shouldn’t exonerate them from the suffering they cause by saying that the housing shortage is all due to immigrants.

In the land agitations in Ireland in the 19th century people had a different attitude to land and housing than most people do in the present day — in a sense that I will try to explain. Preeminent in those struggles — as led by Michael Davitt of the Land League, for example — was access to land. Although there are similarities in the campaigns of certain groups today who work on behalf of tenants, the homeless, and people in precarious housing situations and the Land League and other land activists in the 1800s, there is a vital difference as well.

Present-day activists for housing often (perhaps not always but typically) claim that housing is a ‘right’; and that the Government has a responsibility to provide it for everyone who needs it. Land activists in the 19th century, on the other hand, made no such claim. They (at least to my knowledge) never asserted that people have a ‘right to housing’; and certainly didn’t propose (or perhaps even imagine) that it was the responsibility of others to ‘provide’ them with houses. What people had a ‘right’ to — what was sacrosanct — was land. And, just as every able-bodied individual has the wherewithal to place one brick on top of another and haul a tarpaulin over their heads to protect themselves from the elements, access to land (in their minds) more-or-less implied access to shelter, since — settings aside present-day planning regulations — anyone with access to land and a modicum of intelligence who needs shelter will waste no time in building it. (The fact that some readers might find this idea ‘odd’ or even outlandish indicates just how emasculated and dependent on the state the present-day generation is.)

I realize the above remarks might seem obnoxious, or even callous. Emphasising access to land as paramount is all well and good, one might say, but what about people such as the disabled and elderly who are unable to build their own homes and shelter? What about them? My answer — in two words — is mutual aid. Insisting that people have a ‘right’ to our assistance does not improve matters one iota; it only makes them worse. Inventing such ‘rights’ only allows bureaucrats and ideologues (many or most of whom have only a vague comprehension of what is required to actually fulfill such imaginary rights — because they have never done an honest day’s work in their life) to insinuate themselves within and interfere in other people’s lives — and never to good effect.

Going back to the Land League …​

In his later life, Michael Davitt (one of the League’s founders) expressed support for Henry George’s ideas on land use. Henry George (an American) — who proposed a Land Value Tax or ‘Single Tax’ — himself followed the struggles for land justice in Ireland with keen interest. To offer a crude summary of George’s ideas, he (rightly) condemned the grossly unequal access to land which was (and still is) a more-or-less universal feature of Western ‘civilized’ nations, and identified it as the primary cause of economic recessions and even societal ills more generally. He proposed taxation — a ‘single tax’ (on land) — as the solution. He explained his ideas at length and in detail in his book Progress and Poverty. Personally, I am skeptical that this — or, indeed, anything involving taxation — is a long-term solution to the land problem. I mention it because a lot of people who consider it (including Davitt himself) seem to be seduced by George’s ideas.

The sanctioning, encouragement and support of mass immigration in to Ireland by the Irish political powers and NGOs over the past two decades was clearly instigated — at least in part — to undermine native Irish culture and stir up racial and ethnic tensions. The inevitable response — of concerned natives taking to the streets bearing placards stating ‘Ireland for the Irish’ and ‘Irish lives matter’ — fuels the narrative of ‘far-right racists and extremists’ at large and unchecked.

As an anarchist, I have no problem (at all) with natural immigration. But what’s happening in Ireland (indeed, throughout Europe) currently is clearly not ‘natural’; it is the opposite.

Contrary to the opinion of many people, I do not accept that the proper or moral solution to the housing crisis — long-term — is more Government spending on social housing. As I have taken pains to try to explain here (and in previous articles) the acute shortage of affordable homes and the associated contention for land is a direct and inevitable consequence of land-use and ‘environmental’ policies that this same Government signed off on and put in to effect.

Why would you petition the same people who caused a problem and are largely responsible for the ongoing suffering of thousands of people to fix it for you — especially when they steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge the problem or their role in it? People who question the logic and sanity of ‘climate action’ plans and the ensuant land-use policies, for example, are branded as ‘climate deniers’ and ‘anti-science’. (If you still don’t understand how this issue ties in and relates to local development plans and zoning and housing availability then please go back and read the sections above on the SDGs and (real vs. imaginary) environmental threats.)

The Government’s relationship with its electorate — with the people of our country as a whole — is that of a narcissistic abuser; of an intelligent bully who convinces his victim that his blows and insults are actually ‘in his (the victim’s) best interest’ — all while the ritual abuse continues. Asking the Government to ‘solve the housing crisis’ for us is like asking a violent perpetrator to supply you with bandages to treat the very wounds they’ve inflicted — and all while they are continuing to beat and assault you.

We don’t — in the medium and long term — need the Government to ‘help’ us. We need to protect ourselves from it — and alleviate the enormous damage that its policies and regulations have caused to our way of life and living standards.

Lastly, as I mentioned in passing above: I am basically an anarchist. Most people don’t understand what that term means. I use it simply to mean ‘against all forms of domination’ — which includes Government as that term is commonly understood. So please don’t send me emails or try to convince me that we just need to get the right political party in to the Dáil, or that some new-found nationalist party are a different breed and will turn things around. Such new political candidates might be a sight better than the current occupants of Leinster House (which wouldn’t be hard); they might even do a lot to partially alleviate the housing shortage. But in other respects they might be even worse than our current Government; and in any case I haven’t come across a single public figure involved in Irish politics who fully understands the scope of the housing problem. And even if they did, why should we place our faith solely in them and wait for them to wrestle with the issue single-handedly?

It is more expedient, from my view, to consider what we can do ourselves. I think, as one of the first priorities, we need to examine the justification for the land-use policies put forth in local development plans — namely:

If, on examining the relevant evidence (e.g. regarding climate change), we learn that these policies are not justified, then we should repudiate them. That, of course, risks placing us directly at loggerheads with policymakers, planners and even law enforcement, so we should acknowledge that possibility and to the extent possible be prepared for it.

As unattractive and uncomfortable as that prospect might seem, bear in mind the reality of the current housing crisis and the possible alternatives:

Even if you are content with these options, maybe spare a thought for the next generation: they might not be. And they might frown at your complacency and inaction.