Saturday, 15 July 2006

Nik Haden - Property rights: When governments attack!

The party's treasurer ona subject dear to most libertarian hearts, and the violations of them so dear to Government hearts.

Most grievous recent violation worldwide is Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe. Confiscation used as a political tool. The kind of blatant confiscation now the exception around the world, rather than the rule. [Telecom, anyone?]

The dire consequences ar obvious even to idiots. So now governments prefer partial confiscation, eg, Morales's partial confiscation of oil fields. Voluntarily. "Agree," he said, "or we'll throw you out anyway." [Telecom, anyone?]

Venezuela, Ecuador have followed suit. Sending troops to the oil fields was argued as "Bolivians taking back their own fields." Morales argued full nationalisation woudl hoever deprive Blivians of the necessary expertise in oil exraction and production.

Closer to home, Telecom has had about $3 billion wiped off its value in recent weeks by government attack. 'Unbundling.' 'Voluntary' separation. Oversight by govt of all commercial contracts.

Vodaphone too is being told it has been "too successful," and is being readied for attack by government. Woosh is having it radio spectrum threatened (by govt) to be sold from under its feet.

Why is this happening?

Socialists are becoming smarter. Post-Berlin Wall collapse, even socialists have realised socialism doesn't work. So they wish to keep the facade of private property, while controlling the production.

Too, the government can take a 'hands-off' all-care-and-no-responsibility approach if they don't completely nationalise.

So why are businesses accepting this? Why don't they rear up in response? Or shrug?

They can't.

Only shareholders can do that. CEO's are obliged [says Nik] to keep producing in whatever regime they find themselves in. It is up to the shareholders to rear up and take action. And it is here that Libertarianz and libertarian arguments can perhaps have their greatest success. Both economic and moral arguments.


  1. Socialists have learned that ownership brings unpleasant side-effects, which is why nationalism is now practiced by only the truly stupid. It's far easier, and cheaper, to seize CONTROL (as distinct from ownership). That way, when it goes t***-up, the private sector owner is left to pay the piper.

    But this is nothing new; Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" tells this story.


  2. Yes...thats called facisism isn't it? ;-)


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.