Kiwi Polemicist

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 🙂


May 29, 2009

• Would you like a goat with that, sir? Mitsubishi offers free goats

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


Your new back seat driver

Mitsubishi is offering a free goat with its Triton utes (trucks in the USA). This gives them a great line:

Goats, like our Tritons, are hardy, versatile units, which will integrate directly into existing farm operations.

Hallelujah! An original, clever and (presumably) truthful marketing spiel. This offer is also generating great publicity (i.e. free advertising) for Mitsubishi, because umpteen news outlets are covering the story, and I’m sure that the publicity value alone will far exceed the cost of the goats.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, because the profit motive encourages people to do creative, zany things in order to make more money. Compare the Mitsubishi scheme with Soviet Russia, where people would park their cars and remove the wiper blades to prevent theft. That’s right, wiper blades were so scarce that they were a valuable commodity. Capitalism leads to free goats, and communism leads to scarce wiper blades. Presumably Lada never offered a free goat with its cars: they had no need to, because it was so hard to get a car that people were grateful to get any piece of junk that Lada made, and Lada made junk because the state told them to make cars, not profit. To put it another way, Lada stayed in “business” no matter what they did, so they did whatever was easiest.

When did you last meet someone who was lusting after a Lada? Mitsubishi vehicles are far superior to Lada vehicles because if Mitsubishi vehicles were as bad as Ladas Mitsubishi would go broke: the profit motive keeps Mitsubishi honest and the customers happy.

Lada or Mitsubishi? Communism or capitalism? Take your pick.

Don’t forget that socialism is communism attained via democracy.

Feel free to share your favourite Lada jokes and/or personal experiences.

mitsubishi tritonlada saloon car russia ussr

January 21, 2009

Barack Obama’s inauguration: the communists have won the cold war

In my previous post I spoke about Barack Obama being a communist and a terrorist.

Is is deeply ironic that after about 45 years of “cold war” between the USA and the USSR the communists have finally conquered America without firing a shot. Heck, the “land of the free and the brave” (yeah, right) invited the commie conquest.

Tell me, why were the commies Enemy Number One for so long, then good enough to invite into the Oval Office?

Also, are any US veterans of Korea and Vietnam ticked off about a commie being president?


Click here for a biblical perspective on Obama.

Blog at