Well, for starters, there is no unclaimed land left on this Earth, or land that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of some existing treaties. So it's a fantasy document then, or is this for the Moon, Mars or perhaps Ganymede?
Interestingly, the author, who was a legal expert, used this for his work 'Law of the Somalis', which at the time did have land under no jurisdiction.
If on the other hand, we wish to assume that it could somehow work on Earth, I then can only assume that you then advocate those that are ignorant to be allowed to mess it up for others. Is that so?
Not at all. I would advocate that someone is free to use their property as they wish, but will be held responsible and liable for any damages to others' life, liberty, or property.
Of course, I'm assuming you're completely cognizant of the relationship between wolves, riparian zones and the water supply. Are you?
Also, I'm assuming you're fully cognizant of the relationship between old growth forests and the material sciences, computer sciences, biological sciences, and soil sustainability, among other relationships? Are you?
I am not a person who is an ecologist; however, full cognizance is a myth. There are many disciplines of sciences, and they have varying degrees of knowledge and understanding. People who specialize in such things have an important place in presenting information, affecting our view of the world, and informing our decisions on cause and effect. I hold that they must use facts and persuasion instead of the political means to better the world.
To summarize, you're fully aware of the ramifications of what you believe? Correct?
You're clearly trying to hint at something. Please, educate me. What ecological fact, by glaring omission from Michael Van Notten's Bill of Law, requires violent enforcement? And for what ends?