Its nice knowing that both National and Labour are against including the right to property as a fundamental human right. I'd have expected it from Labour, after all they are dirty lefties .. but the National party's website explicitly mentions the importance of property rights. So the Nats are:Fair question.
- against enshrining the importance of property rights in the BORA
- for sending you to jail for putting a substance less harmfull than booze into your body
Why should people support the Nats again?
UPDATE: Here's an interesting exchange between Copeland and Cullen on the proposed legislation back in October.
19 comments:
Only problem is I fucked up and pressed the delete button ratehr than edit and lost the post!
Oh shit. I wondered where the post went. :-/
Can you get it back using WayBack? At least I posted the best bit.
So disappointing. Esp when you get how powerful - and simple - property rights are to successful social co-operation, prosperity, justice, creativity & the sense of life that goes with that all - let alone their hard won status & results in history.
Guess we're in a time where they're a nice optional extra. So that means each of us are.
"Property rights"? Don't you mean property entitlements?
Why should it be a government role to protect the wealth of a few?
Anonymous, it is the role of government to protect the wealth of all; to protect the right of people to have quiet enjoyment of that.
If you see some people as being ripe for plunder, you must therefore see all people as such. It's just a question of degree.
Get off your arse and earn your own wealth, don't eye others. That is called covetousness and jealousy.
George, why do you assume that someone who supports recompense based upon effort and sacrifice as lazy? I would think the opposite.
People living off return on investment are a liability since they produce nothing, but still consume. Would a society not be more productive if more actually produced?
I would wager that you actually work less than I.
Anon, I'd wager that you think the most productive work involves muscles and sweat.
It doesn't.
The most productive work uses the mind, and entrepreneurial ability. Protecting property rights -- which gives the long time horizons necessary to plan long range -- protects intelligent effort, and protects values created by entrepreneurial ability.
Property rights are the creator's friend.
People living off return on investment are a liability since they produce nothing, but still consume. Would a society not be more productive if more actually produced?
This comment shows an astonishing level of ignorance. Investors are not a liability. They are fundamental to business. Maybe you need to consider investing in an education.
I am an engineer by profession so not quite muscle and sweat.
PC, you are mixing terms. It is labour and capital that produce, not entrepreneurs.
Brian, I don't deny that labour can utilise capital to become more productive, but your comment implies there is only one way to achieve this. Perhaps you are in need of an education?
A little background. We want goods and services, and most of us are happy to contribute to the production of goods and services. But since resources are scarce (meaning finite), economics is the study of how society utilises its scarce resources.
There certainly isn't only one solution either. If you'd like to learn more, try reading "Parecon" by Michael Albert.
To get an idea of the issues with contemporary economic thought, try reading "ABCs of Political Economy: A Modern Primer" by Robin Hahnel.
"PC, you are mixing terms. It is labour and capital that produce, not entrepreneurs."
Anonymous, you are ignoring the obvious. Try doing either without your brain turned on. You won't be producing for very long.
Both labour and capital require direction by some mind that seeks to create new value. It's the creation of the new value by entrepreneurial activity that's the crucial factor, without which you can easily chew up any amount of both labour and capital as you like without achieving anything very much at all.
If you'd like to learn more about the crucial role of the mind in human production, try reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
I commend it to your attention. ;^)
If it is economics one wants to understand then "Capitalism" by Reisman and "Human Action" by Von Mises one must read.
LGM
Anon,
You claim resources are scarce. Bullshit. They have never been more plentiful. We in the 21st century have more resources at our disposal than any people that has gone before. Things are not running out.
A modern PC has more computational power than a 1980s supercomputer and more computational power than existed in the entire world in the 1950s.
The reason things are not running out is because our knowledge is expanding exponentially. We learn how to do things better and more efficiently and we create things that were never there before. This is the age of kilometre tall buildings, of incredible carbon fibre airliners, of i-phones, and YouTube. Truly an age of wonder.
What lies ahead in the next 20 or 30 years is not some global catastrophe brought on by climate change or declining resources.
What lies ahead is a knowledge supernova.
BTW, Parecon is just another name for socialism. And like all brands of socialism, it is not a solution for anything, just a recipe for misery.
Brian S: I love you. :)
I think you're in there, Brian. ;^)
He should be so lucky. I'm hot.
:)
Let me say Sus, I'm appreciating all the lovin' :)
pc, I may read that Ayn Rand book because libertarian policies lead to plutocracy, and I am interested to see if she has a solution, or is okay with that.
Brian, scarcity, used how I used it, is an economics term. Such ignorance is pretty funny from someone who suggested I am in need of an education.
If resources (typically means labour and capital in economics) weren't scarce (finite) everyone could have every material good they ever wanted, yet, worldwide, thousands of children die daily because of lack of food and medicine.
"I may read that Ayn Rand book because libertarian policies lead to plutocracy, and I am interested to see if she has a solution, or is okay with that."
Excellent. I wont spoil the ending by telling you the answer. :-)
Instead, I'll look forward to hearing you reaction when you finish.
"If resources (typically means labour and capital in economics) weren't scarce (finite) everyone could have every material good they ever wanted, yet, worldwide, thousands of children die daily because of lack of food and medicine."
Tragically they do, Anon. And the countries in which those travesties occur are third-world horror stories, exploited by despots who don't give a damn for the economic and social miseries they inflict upon the poor populace.
No property rights, thanks. We're third-world dictators.
Post a Comment