Nationalise Air New Zealand ... nationalise The Warehouse ... hell, the Labour Party's semi-official 'trial balloon' blog doesn't care what happens to private property as long as there's either heavy-handed regulation of it or some good old-fashioned thoroughgoing confiscation going on -- just as long as private property owners get a good kicking, it seems.
No problem, no "principle" -- except to keep the red flag flying if they can.
7 comments:
Tane's post is not about confiscation, it is about purchasing the remaining share of a strategic asset so it can be run on SOE lines, with things like national interest taken into account.
The Government buying out the other shareholders in Air NZ is not an abuse of property rights.
What is a "strategic asset"? And what is the "national interest"?
"What's a truck?" http://www.tv.com/episode/1324/summary.html
You are not wanting to nationalise trucks ... I hope. You are wanting to nationalise a "strategic asset". So what is it about a "strategic asset" that means it has to be nationalised? You are wanting to take into account the "national interest", so what is it?
Peter, your baffling misrepresentaions aside, I find it hard to see how advocating for a strategic asset to be brought into full public ownership is unprincipled.
Or are you defining 'unprincipled' as anything not approved by Ayn Rand's fantasy novels?
Again what is a "strategic asset" strategic to who, what happens if it isn't owned by whoever thinks it is strategic?
The question is really "what is the problem"? That is never defined. What is the problem if the government doesn't own an airline? Germany, the USA, UK, Japan, Australia all don't have state owned airlines. Switzerland's largest airline isn't even Swiss owned.
The government buying anything is an abuse of property rights.
Whose money did it use to make the purchase in the first place?
Steve,
Nations don't have interests. Only people do.
It is an abuse of my property rights to confiscate my wealth and use it to buy Air NZ.
Post a Comment