Kiwi Polemicist

January 13, 2010

• Bar owner’s property rights wrecked by human rights

In my earlier post titled There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act (you have to love a snappy title like that) I said

I am a classical liberalist and you’re probably thinking that I’m strong on human rights, but that is not true: I believe that there is no such thing as “human rights”.
[...]
The present definition of “human rights” is subjective and invites such evils as the EFA, the anti-smacking law and hate-speech laws. Only when “human rights” are redefined as property rights and personal rights in accordance with the non-aggression axiom can we have a consistent, logical and objective set of rights.

Let’s have a look at another injustice inflicted in the name of human rights:

The Human Rights Commission has warned a newly-opened Kapiti Coast bar over its ban on admitting under 20-year-olds, after young drinkers ruined the drinking establishment’s opening night with bad behaviour.

The commission told Jamie Williams, owner of the $2 million Monteith’s Brewery Bar’ at Paraparaumu, he could not discriminate against which customers he chose to let into his bar based on their age, the Dominion Post reported.

“While bars have the right to refuse entry they should be careful not to do so on the grounds of age, sex or ethnicity,” commission spokesman Gilbert Wong said. (source)

Can you see what is happening here? That bar is private property, but the state is forcing the owner to allow people aged under 20 to enter, even if he doesn’t want them on his property.

The Human Rights Commission website has a prominent piece of fiction:

The Commission works for a fair, safe and just society, where diversity is valued and human rights are respected.

What is ‘fair’ and ‘just’ about using legislation to take away this bar owner’s property rights? Diversity is valued by the state, but only that diversity which is considered acceptable by the state: banning bar patrons under 20 is a form of diversity, but it is not considered acceptable by the state and therefore it is illegal. How is society ‘safe’ when bar owners are forced to admit people that they know are likely to turn violent?

In my earlier post titled I am Pakeha and I am oppressed I said

Socialism/Marxism creates two groups in society: the victims, who are “oppressed”, [in this case, people under 20] and the “oppressors” [the bar owner]. The Socialists then set about righting these (usually imaginary) wrongs by oppressing the “oppressors”, thereby doing just what they accused the “oppressors” of doing [the bar owner is being oppressed by the socialist state].

Laws prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination, as well as other types of discrimination, are nonsensical because everyone discriminates. No one objects if a black American man is a looking for a black wife, but he is discriminating against white women*. He wants a female partner, so he is discriminating against men. He wants a good looking wife, so he is discriminating against people who aren’t good looking. He wants a young woman, so he is discriminating against older people. He wants a wife who can bear children, so he is discriminating against infertile women: the list goes on and on.

Homosexual men discriminate against women by wanting only male sexual partners. Lesbians discriminate against men by only wanting female sexual partners. All heterosexuals discriminate against half of the population, the half that shares their gender.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against sexual orientation, and if this is taken to its logical conclusion homosexuality and heterosexuality are illegal; only bisexual people are in compliance with the law, so bisexuality should be made compulsory. Either that or we can get rid of ridiculous laws which deny the reality of the fact that everyone discriminates.

If you take away the politically correct terminology, “discrimination” is in fact “choice”.

My position is simple: that bar is private property and, as part of his property rights, the owner should be free to make a choice about who can and cannot enter his property. The route to a fair and just society is not a complicated one: just restore everyone’s freedom to do whatever they want, and punish them if they violate the personal and property rights of others.

What do you think about the bar owner being forced to allow people under 20 into his bar?

Related post:

Property rights are a part of human nature

~~~~~~~~~~

January 9, 2010

• The myth of public property

Is it “your” rail network? The Auckland rail tracks and stations are being upgraded at present and, due to disruptions, a special timetable has been issued. On the front of this is written “Buses replacing trains while we improve your rail network”. That’s the socialist lie, here comes the libertarian truth…

If a piece of land belongs to you then you should be able to do whatever you like on that land, if that activity does not violate the personal and/or property rights of another person (that’s the ideal, but we live in a socialist state so your property rights are annihilated by the government). If the rail network – the tracks and the associated land – was “your[s]” then you would be free to walk over it, just as you are free to walk over land that you own. But you are not free to walk over the rail network, and if you do you will be fined up to $10,000 plus any amount of compensation that the judge decides you should pay [1]. This shows that it is not “your” rail network, for no sane person would fine you for walking across land that is yours.

If the rail network is not yours then who does it belong to? It belongs to the state, which controls every detail of what happens on that land. Section 50 of the Railways Act proves my point: it says that the Minister responsible may

(a) set out standards and requirements relating to the behaviour of individuals on railways or railway premises, including, without limitation, standards and requirements concerning the conduct of rail personnel, passengers, or other individuals working on or using railways or railway premises:

(b) regulate all traffic and all classes of traffic, and prohibit traffic or a class of traffic, either absolutely or conditionally, on railways:

(c) set out standards and requirements concerning the use of safety equipment by rail personnel, passengers, or other individuals working on or using railways or railway premises. [emphasis added]

This law means that the Minister may, without consulting anyone else, make a rule requiring you to hop on one foot and wear a pink gorilla suit when in a train station or riding in a train. “Your” rail network? I think not. The state has all the powers that only a landowner should have [2], therefore I conclude that the state is the de facto owner.

Here’s another example: in Australia the state requires people to pay for a permit if they’re going to take photographs in a National Park and may use those photographs commercially [3]. Do you still think that National Parks are public property, owned by all?

What’s the agenda behind this?

The agenda is the Socialist/Communist desire to disempower you by taking away your property/property rights. In the Communist Manifest Marx and Engels laid out ten steps for the transition from communism to socialism. Here’s four of those steps:

1) Abolition of property in land [outlawing private ownership of land] and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance [when you die your property is stolen by the state: death taxes are a partial step towards this].

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels [presumably this blog makes me a rebel in the eyes of the state, and you're reading it so you're a rebel by association].

6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

The Communist Manifest is alive and well today, and it’s policies are enacted all around us.

What’s a better way?

Don’t allow the state to own anything. Make the government your servant, not your master. Only then will you be free, and only then will the state stop lying about it being “your” rail network.

~~~~~~~~~~

1. Railways Act S73 & S92

2. If I visit your house you are perfectly entitled to set down conditions of entry, including a requirement that I wear a pink gorilla suit and hop on one foot. That’s part of your property rights; it’s also a great way to avoid having unwelcome guests. Every landowner has conditions of entry: do you willingly let gun-toting burglars enter your home?

3. Source

~~~~~~~~~~

August 31, 2009

• Property rights are a part of human nature

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Yesterday I witnessed an 18 month old child squawk when her big brother tried to take a piece of her food. Clearly she has a basic understanding of property rights, i.e. “That food is mine”. You don’t have to teach children the concept of property rights, and from this I conclude that property rights are a part of human nature, i.e. it’s a “built in feature” added by our designer.

The bedrock of libertarianism is property rights¹, and I believe that libertarianism is consistent with human nature. This belief is supported by the fact that sociopolitical systems that try to remove all personal property rights do not flourish and last, whether they be involuntary (e.g. Socialism/Communism/Marxism), or voluntary (e.g. hippie-type communes). These systems fail because they are contrary to and hostile to the way we are made.

The girl that I witnessed defending her property rights is living in a Socialist country and as soon as she starts earning money the state will begin to violate those property rights on a daily basis². The sad thing is that so many adults accept this situation without so much as a squawk, despite the fact that even a toddler recognises theft when she sees it.

~~~~~~~~~~

Related posts:

There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act

What is a “social contract”?

1. Property rights are summed up by the non-aggression axiom, which says “It is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property”.

2. The only things certain in life are death and taxes, but at least death doesn’t get any worse :)

~~~~~~~~~~

July 11, 2009

• Update: sitting on your roof is illegal

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

This is an update to my earlier post Sitting on your roof is illegal.

The NZ Herald is reporting that Hamilton City Council will not be fining those property owners who let people go onto their roof and watch the Hamilton 400 car race. That’s good, but the situation still stinks. Why so?

1-> Sitting on your roof and watching a car race is still illegal. As I said in my earlier post, that’s a violation of property rights by the nanny state.

2-> The agents of the nanny state still intend to go around before future races and warn them that sitting on the roof is illegal. This is a form of coercion.

3-> Have a look at why the council issued the fines and why it plans to warn people in the future:

Hamilton Mayor Bob Simcock said yesterday that the council had sought legal advice and decided to cancel the fines.

He said staff had issued the notices because “it was unsafe use of the buildings for a purpose they weren’t designed for and that if we didn’t take action then we would be creating a liability for the council and the ratepayers”.

But lawyers told him yesterday that if the council clearly informed residents they were acting in an unsafe way, it would not then be liable if anyone was hurt while watching the event from a roof.

“If somebody fell off the roof and was killed and a government agency or the affected party’s family was looking for someone to take action against, to hold responsible, the advice we’ve had is that with having warned the property owner then we’ve shifted that obligation fully on to them and we’ve taken reasonable steps,” Mr Simcock said.

“If we’d done nothing, then we’d probably have some liability ourselves.”

So the council started a police action in order to cover it’s own butt. The world has gone stark raving bonkers when it is possible for the following sequence of events to occur:

  1. a city council does not warn people that standing on a roof and watching a car race is unsafe
  2. people, of their own free will and on their own property, climb onto roofs and watch a car race
  3. people are hurt after a fall or a roof collapse
  4. the council is held legally liable because it didn’t give warnings

What is the underlying assumption behind all this? The underlying assumption is that the city council is responsible for the safety of those who live in the city and that it has a duty to warn people when they are doing something unsafe. This is a nanny state notion: a parent is responsible for the safety of his child and has a duty to warn that child when he is doing something unsafe. Clearly the nanny state people think that the the city council has a parental role.

The state is not a parent and it should not attempt to adopt a parental role. Like everything else, climbing onto a roof and watching a car race is a matter of personal responsibility.

What do you think about the legal system that makes it possible for a city council to be liable because it didn’t warn people that standing on a roof was unsafe?

~~~~~~~~~~

July 10, 2009

• Sitting on your roof is illegal

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Stuff is reporting that property owners have been fined $1500 for allowing people to sit on their roof and watch car races. According to Stuff

The infringement notice cited a clause of the Building Act that refers to using or permitting the “use of a building for a use for which it is not safe”.

The Hamilton City Council’s building safety manager says

..he and his staff went to great lengths before the V8s [car races] to warn people what they could and couldn’t do under the Building Act.

[...]

“Our role is the health and safety of people [in the opinion of the nanny state] and we take that quite seriously. We gave everyone the information, but there were people who didn’t listen.”

[...]

…council staff spotted the alleged infringements during the racing and even took photographic evidence.

[...]

“These set-ups put people at risk, we don’t have much choice. It’s rather good luck than good judgment that something didn’t happen.

“Someone could have easily fallen from one of those roofs.”

Yes, someone could have easily fallen from a roof. So what? They chose to go onto the roof, and they chose to take the risk of falling: some would say that if a person fell and died due to a lack of precautions then it’s a case of natural selection :) .

Personal choice and risk-taking is a terrible thing in the eyes of the Nanny State, which, like a parent dealing with a child, tells everyone “That’s too dangerous, you’re not allowed to do that”. So the council staff – agents of the nanny state – go around before the race telling people what it is permissible to do on and with their private property, then during the race they take photos to use as evidence when they punish the naughty children.

In summary, the state controls your bodily movements on your private property in order to protect you from harm. That’s a violation of personal and property rights, and only an immoral and totalitarian nanny state government would do such a thing.

What do you think about laws that prevent you from sitting on your roof and enjoying the view?

Click here for an update to this post.

Click here for a biblical perspective on this situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Older Posts »

The Shocking Blue Green Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.