Comments on: Can State Expropriation of Minerals be Justified? Part II http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/03/can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Theology and Jurisprudence Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:46:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Madeleine http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/03/can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii.html#comment-79417 Madeleine Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:41:27 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=2924#comment-79417 Yes I always take a stance in an opinion (though it was hard to resist the temptation to use terms like theft). Yes I always take a stance in an opinion (though it was hard to resist the temptation to use terms like theft).

]]> By: Paul Leark http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/03/can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii.html#comment-79237 Paul Leark Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:36:27 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=2924#comment-79237 It's definitely an opinion, alright. But it's a damn good one. It's not every day you come across an opinion on such a topic with so much justification -Some people don't like Obama but if you asked them why they might just hesitate and come back with a quick "I don't know. I just don't." These are definitely not my kinds of people, haha. Ultimately, I agree with you. Property owners are just that... Owners. They own. And to take their property/possessions without compensation is definitely not right. (And it almost sounds like that one thing... What do you call it? Oh, yeah. Theft.) It’s definitely an opinion, alright. But it’s a damn good one. It’s not every day you come across an opinion on such a topic with so much justification

-Some people don’t like Obama but if you asked them why they might just hesitate and come back with a quick “I don’t know. I just don’t.” These are definitely not my kinds of people, haha.

Ultimately, I agree with you. Property owners are just that… Owners. They own. And to take their property/possessions without compensation is definitely not right. (And it almost sounds like that one thing… What do you call it? Oh, yeah. Theft.)

]]> By: Madeleine http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/03/can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii.html#comment-70056 Madeleine Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:08:11 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=2924#comment-70056 It probably seems one sided because it was an opinion, the style of writing required me to take a stand. It probably seems one sided because it was an opinion, the style of writing required me to take a stand.

]]> By: Daniel Werden http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/03/can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii.html#comment-70022 Daniel Werden Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:59:08 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=2924#comment-70022 This seems... very one sided, none the less an interesting read. This seems… very one sided, none the less an interesting read.

]]> By: Not PC http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/03/can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii.html#comment-69700 Not PC Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:03:51 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=2924#comment-69700 <strong>Mine, mines, mining...</strong> Madeleine sets out some of the purported justifications for expropriation of property, using the examples of petroleum, gold and silver, which are then analysed, critiqued & dismissed.... Mine, mines, mining…

Madeleine sets out some of the purported justifications for expropriation of property, using the examples of petroleum, gold and silver, which are then analysed, critiqued & dismissed….

]]> By: Tim Wikiriwhi http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/03/can-state-expropriation-of-minerals-be-justified-part-ii.html#comment-26707 Tim Wikiriwhi Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:16:12 +0000 http://www.mandm.org.nz/?p=2924#comment-26707 This is a brilliant piece Madeleine and valuable to guys like me who care about property rights and keeping the state from violating the very things they are instituted to protect. It is a Libertarian gem! I think you have accidentally put the taker and takee around the wrong way in the paragraph on compensation that ends (40). According to the notion that it is ok for the state to forcibly appropriate property in the national interest as long as it makes just compensation The taker should compensate the takee (though this is a common law principle I don’t agree with it…I think its still theft and a violation, and an all too common excuse that the Public works act uses.) Enlightenment thinkers would disapprove of the idea of the state having the gold and mineral reserves because an important check on over-government and tyranny was that the people hold the purse strings and ration out funds to the state only sufficient for the duties the people dictate to the state and no more. As we see from the dates you give to the various legislations that these encroachments on property rights happened in a post-enlightenment age of socialism with its Sovereign state and anti private property ideas, so too the idea that we hold the purse strings has been completely undermined and reversed with the state now dictating to us how much of our money they will choose to take from us by force (Taxation). Enlightenment thinkers would be horrified by the state having such a vast independent resource and if we look at how Saddam Hussein used the oil wealth of Iraq to go to war and to suppress his own people we can see their fears are well grounded. Socialists may say such a fund and forceful appropriation is great because it could be used for welfare, for health, for education etc without the need of Taxation, yet enlightenment thinkers would be horrified at this too! They (and me too) say that none of these things are the proper duties of government and that this would simply encourage totalitarianism and grievously affect the self reliance of the people. Such politicalisation monopolizes, cripples, and corrupts some of the most important enterprises of our society. The Petroleum act instead of guaranteeing a good supply of oil for military purposes may have actually hoppled it ie it is quite plausible that if private property rights were respected and free enterprise allowed to act that a far greater and cheaper supply of oil would be available. Wars have historically lead to bigger government, less rights and liberties and rarely does this reverse after the supposed treat has disappeared. Because of WW2 Milton Freidman said the idea of centralization and the government being involved in industry jumped and never subsided. He says this was the greatest move towards over-government in western civilization. Finally I would like to congratulate you for recognizing that theft in the name of a public benefit is still theft…even if the victim is supposed to benefit from it. Socialism is founded upon such false Ideas that are supposed to justify the use of force and the violation of individual rights. They think the end justifies the means….Corrupt!!!! You have done a great thing here Madeleine. I will file this for future reference and go and check out your other common law property rights article (Part 2) which I have not had time to read. Cheers! P.S I might try and get to Auckland tomorrow nite for Matts discussion. This is a brilliant piece Madeleine and valuable to guys like me who care about property rights and keeping the state from violating the very things they are instituted to protect.
It is a Libertarian gem!
I think you have accidentally put the taker and takee around the wrong way in the paragraph on compensation that ends (40).
According to the notion that it is ok for the state to forcibly appropriate property in the national interest as long as it makes just compensation The taker should compensate the takee (though this is a common law principle I don’t agree with it…I think its still theft and a violation, and an all too common excuse that the Public works act uses.)
Enlightenment thinkers would disapprove of the idea of the state having the gold and mineral reserves because an important check on over-government and tyranny was that the people hold the purse strings and ration out funds to the state only sufficient for the duties the people dictate to the state and no more.
As we see from the dates you give to the various legislations that these encroachments on property rights happened in a post-enlightenment age of socialism with its Sovereign state and anti private property ideas, so too the idea that we hold the purse strings has been completely undermined and reversed with the state now dictating to us how much of our money they will choose to take from us by force (Taxation).
Enlightenment thinkers would be horrified by the state having such a vast independent resource and if we look at how Saddam Hussein used the oil wealth of Iraq to go to war and to suppress his own people we can see their fears are well grounded.
Socialists may say such a fund and forceful appropriation is great because it could be used for welfare, for health, for education etc without the need of Taxation, yet enlightenment thinkers would be horrified at this too! They (and me too) say that none of these things are the proper duties of government and that this would simply encourage totalitarianism and grievously affect the self reliance of the people. Such politicalisation monopolizes, cripples, and corrupts some of the most important enterprises of our society.
The Petroleum act instead of guaranteeing a good supply of oil for military purposes may have actually hoppled it ie it is quite plausible that if private property rights were respected and free enterprise allowed to act that a far greater and cheaper supply of oil would be available.

Wars have historically lead to bigger government, less rights and liberties and rarely does this reverse after the supposed treat has disappeared. Because of WW2 Milton Freidman said the idea of centralization and the government being involved in industry jumped and never subsided. He says this was the greatest move towards over-government in western civilization.

Finally I would like to congratulate you for recognizing that theft in the name of a public benefit is still theft…even if the victim is supposed to benefit from it. Socialism is founded upon such false Ideas that are supposed to justify the use of force and the violation of individual rights. They think the end justifies the means….Corrupt!!!!

You have done a great thing here Madeleine. I will file this for future reference and go and check out your other common law property rights article (Part 2) which I have not had time to read.
Cheers!
P.S I might try and get to Auckland tomorrow nite for Matts discussion.

]]>