A man has been fined $80,000 and looks likely to lose his house for the crime of cutting a path down to the beach on what appears to be his own land. I say "appears" because the bloody journalist who covered this outrage didn't see fit to clearly establish whether or not the land on which the path was cut was the "offender's" property or not -- such things being considered irrelevant in these days in which obeisance must be paid to entire communities for the sin of cutting down one's own trees on one's own property, and thereby offending the Great Earth God Gaia.
The journalist did however see fit to tell us that this is considered "high end offending"; that the area's mayor called it "severe offending and the worst [our] Council has seen"; and to report the judge's comment that it "looked as though a large slice had been cut out of a living organism and its entrails spilled out on the foreshore."
Good to see that District Court judges have retained their objectivity despite administering a nasty non-objective law -- ie., the Resource Management Act, under which the prosecution and fine were taken.
The RMA, by the way, was introduced by the National Party. Just so you know. And the beach in question, just so you know, is Glenbrook Beach on the Manukau Harbour -- a muddy sort of a beach just up the road from that notable environmental destination the Glenbrook Steel Mill -- and as the report concedes "the esplanade [itself] was inaccessible to anyone because it was covered in gorse and tree stumps, and the coast was already compromised with accessways for boat ramps." This is the "living organism" whose "entrails" have been so so "recklessly" spilled.
"We have three kids, and they want to get down to the beach," says the poor sap who's about to lose his house. "It was just for access from the property." He'll know better then to offend Gaia next time he saves up enough to buy his own property, won't he.
37 comments:
PC: I was wondering how long it would take you to comment. I assume you saw the pictures? "Cutting a path" = bulldozing a big fuck-off road. The dude has totally fucked up a large area of land that was not his to dig, and the defence that he was making a path to allow his kids access to the beach is laughable, assuming of course that his children aren't four-ton lard-monsters.
The judge found that this idiot 'damaged public land' - what happened to the libertarian principle of non-initiation of force? What if it wasn't public land that was undermined, but your house that bordered his?
It is not explicitly spelled out within the article, but how could this guy have been found to have 'damaged public land' if in fact the land he bulldozed was his own?
DenMT
BTW - respect on the Yeats inference. One of my favourite poems...
DenMT
Yes, the Judge did say it was public land, and even if it was not, the beach was, and it was damaged. Can't say I have huge sympathy for the guy, though losing your house over it seems a high price to pay.
Of course, even if it was his land, it seems like some bureaucrat would stop him from exercising his right to make a mess of it. Which is of course the greater disgrace.
The man was obviously preparing his own boat ramp. What on earth is so wrong with that (except okay, if it is public land he is bound to make an application), which would have no doubt been turned down by a blackboard monitor who probably has never been to a Glenbrook beach and who would have thrown a spanner into the works purely because he too was a boatie with a huge amount of disproportionate envy.
It is such a pity that he got spotted and dobbed in by a prefect.
Who on earth is going to be affected by this and for goodness sakes, its Glenbrook, not exactly Takapuna beach.
The government is always bulldozing straight through someone's backyard in order to provide access to a motorway?
As for the judge's melodramatic statement that "it looked as though a large slice had been cut out of a living organism and its entrails spilled out on the foreshore," his honour should have been sent off to his chambers for a cup of tea and a lie down.
Lucky for him that he was only bulldozing through the back of HIS farm and not pocketing a few bits of greenstone, else he would have been locked up by the same judge who would have fallen off his bench whilst lamenting the theft of vital body organs from the buxom Aoteroa!
This disspicable man his wife AND his children should be put in stocks in the town square and STONED (with Stones - not dope!)
Then their house should be confiscated and given to somebody who deserves it.
People can't just go around cutting tracks wherever they want - especially if its on their OWN property - or even on un-used public wasteland.
Punnish him severelly
Where are all the usual rude libertarian fuckwits (another plug for the swear-o-meter) calling den a socialist? Could it be that PC has not reacted to this 'objectively'?
Craig
Fuck you, cum-rag! Your mother shames you and spits at your privates!
Happy now?
---
DenMT
"Public" land means that no-one owns it. In which case, he has the right to do as he pleases with it. It's his to homestead so long as he does not committ IOF against another person. Note there is no victim here; no-one was injured, attacked, robbed or coerced by his action. No IOF.
Unfortunately the article did not state definatively whether the land was unowned "public" land or his land.
If it was his land then the assault on his property right is explicit and severe.
LGM
LGM: Interestingly, New Zealand has no 'homesteading' laws as you may be aware. I know that the practice is vaunted by libertarians as a fix for The Tragedy of the Commons (TM), however this idiot has no more right to plow a boat ramp through public land than I do to dig myself a pleasant spa pool in the middle of the Routeburn Valley.
DenMT
LGM
I am a complete supporter of libertarianism and peoples right to actualy OWN what they own. However I disagree with your description of public property.
Public property is not unowned property, but property that belongs to the government (and please do not remind me that this runs contrary to meaning of the word "public", many phrases these days have irelavent words in them).
Personaly, I do not believe the goverment should own any more land than what is necessary to defend us, (jails, army bases). However until we have a govenment that does privatise land, I believe that the goverment should have a right to do with their own property as they wish (even if that meens nothing).
PC is correct in that the reporting is unclear about ownership.
I first interpreted it to mean that the cut was on his own land but that he had dropped the spoil onto the public beach below.
But then I read it again and was not sure.
PC is correct in that the reporting is unclear about ownership.
I first interpreted it to mean that the cut was on his own land but that he had dropped the spoil onto the public beach below.
But then I read it again and was not sure.
DenMT
No Homesteading Laws, true enough. No recognition of an individual Right to Property either. That does not make the Law correct.
---
Hanso
You are attempting to justify a government ownership of an abandoned piece of land, useless and unused by anybody, on the basis that governments should own jails. Fantastic.
On the other hand you do not want to be reminded that the notion of "public" property runs contrary to the notion of government ownership. Well, I'm here to remind you of it.
...and so you have a problem with your logic.
If you would like to challenge my statement you'll need to do better than that.
LGM
Ah, that's much fucking better! I was starting to wonder if you had all gone muthafucking gay on me.
I think that LGM is a horsefucker. Perhaps he silently frequents farms in our neighbourhood here in Kumeu to breed (mating) horses at night. No wonder that he attitude to other people is so fucked up.
"You are attempting to justify a government ownership of an abandoned piece of land, useless and unused by anybody, on the basis that governments should own jails."
If you look at my post you will see that I do not justify goverment ownership of anything OTHER jails ( and army bases, police stations, courts, etc).
What's more, you know as well as I do that so called "public property" cannot exist for long (PC has previously addressed why) .
My argument is that before the goverment can privatise property (whether through selling it, or just gifting it away) they must have been recognised as having owned it in the first place.
Craig
You're welcome.
---
Martin
Yes, yes, we know you're talking about your own old father. How your provenance must embarass you greatly. But how about moving out of the barn and start trying to walk upright? That might help.
--
Hanso
You write, "My argument is that before the goverment can privatise property (whether through selling it, or just gifting it away) they must have been recognised as having owned it in the first place."
They have no valid right to it in the first instance. Hence no valid ownership to be recognised.
It isn't theirs to gift, give away or sell.
LGM
LGM, I grew up with no father (solo mother). Perhaps horsefucking is something that your old man taught you.
"It isn't theirs to gift, give away or sell"
Whose is it then ?
How is land intialy aquired?
Awnser: Land belongs to the first to claim it.
The man did not buy the rights to that particular piece of land when he bought his house.
Things work better when they are privatised, we both agree on that (I assume). Furthermore the rightfull owner of intellectual property, and of a persons free time, naturaly belong to the inventor/author and said person.
However the most efficient privatiser of land is a government trying to get rid of it as soon as possible.
Under a libertarian state, I would imagine that in the case of beach areas, the government might very well hand over the appropriate divisions of land to the owners of the houses closest to them.
Of course there is nothing wrong with just selling it to an entrepeneur who would be more than willing to sell an easement back to the home owner.
Ah LGM, nothing brings more levity to my Sunday morning than reading your ridiculous assertions about property rights. I think we should set aside some land somewhere and populate it with libertarian nut jobs like LGM and watch them assert their 'property rights' over each other, now that would be pure comedy gold! PC can build a daft castle then LGM can plow a boat ramp across the 'unowned property' at the bottom of his drive, we will see how long that harmony lasts. We could even televise it 'libertarian island'!
Hanso
Such land is unowned. It is available to homestead. That means the first person to occupy it and start improving it, owns it.
There is nothing efficient in having govt as prime owner. Also there is no govt right to property. Hence it is not a matter of govt giving it away. There is no vlid govt claim to it in the first place.
---
Interesting to listen to some of the discussion amongst Maori land claimants. For all their vexatious behaviour and socialist sympathies, several grasp the point regarding who owns land and HOW they own it quite clearly. The issue of property ownership is a serious one for N Zers and one that is going to get a lot more serious as time passes. It is an issue that is yet to be properly addressed.
LGM
Martin
Yes, yes. Not surprising your old man shot through. Who'd want to admit to progeny such as you? You'd do well to learn to walk up-right damn quick. That way, should he return, he'll not confuse you for your mother.
BTW, have you anything of value to contribute to the debate or does your mind only go as far as bestiality?
LGM
Craig
There is not much to you. When it comes down to dealing with the topic at hand, discussing principles, premise, ideas etc. you just fall apart with nothing substantial to contribute. Happens each and every time you show up here. You're not even as interesting as Mrtin.
One of the things to be appreciate about people like you is lack of intellect; your shallowness and utter banality. You're not original. Good to see that the opposition is so weak!
LGM
Perhaps everyone could calm down a bit.
By all means stick to 'issues' you feel strongly about but there is no need for constant vituperative, especially on Peter's weblog.
Oh dear LGM, you take yourself so very seriously, only having a bit of fun, maybe you should go have a little lie down, smoke some more crack maybe?
DenMT, you say "The dude has totally fucked up a large area of land that was not his to dig..."
I wonder whether your opininion would be the same if it were to be established that the land was his to dig? In what way is cutting a track to the beach "fuck[ing] up a large area of land"? In what sense wouldn't his new track be a value rather than a disvalue?
And by the way, what exactly would be wrong with a spa pool in the middle of the Routeburn Valley? Sounds extremely pleasant.
PC: As pointed out by both you and Owen, we still don't know if he owned the land he put his personal boat ramp through.
My response is predicated on this guy having dug through and altered public land - land he didn't own - on his way to the beach. I think this is a reasonable guess, as it is borne out by the judgement ("damage to public land").
If in fact he did own the land right up to the beach, and altered only this land in the construction of his boat access, that puts a different complexion on things. He is still an idiot for not seeking the correct permissions to undertake the work. As a bare minimum he MUST have been aware that a resource consent would be required for the vast amount of earthworks he did, and I wonder who actually did the earthmoving, as I have never dealt with an earthmoving/demo outfit who have done a skerrick of work without the correct consents - and I have dealt with plenty.
I agree absolutely with the concluding line of your original post:
"He'll know better [...] next time he saves up enough to buy his own property, won't he.
Regardless of what you believe a just and fair way to dispose of your property might be, when you actually buy property, if you are not totally stupid, you will obtain a plan or similar indicating what (if any) easements, covenants, or other restrictions exist on said property. And if you intend to undertake major works on said property - especially works which might have an impact on surrounding properties - you do the homework as to what permissions you require for it.
This is certainly not the way things would work in a libertarian paradigm. But it's the way they work in the real world. There's no excuse for this guy.
DenMT
PS: The enjoyment I would get from relaxing in a spa in the middle of the Routeburn valley would obviously be outweighed by the displeasure I'd experience having the unspoiled view buggered up by a spa pool. That's a whole other can of worms that we don't need to delve into - the comment was a bit of reductio ad absurdum to LGM's dogged insistence on the validity of homesteading.
That tourists cannot have spa pools on the Routeburn is another reason we need to sell both the Fiordland and Mt Aspiring National Parks..(indeed, ALL National Parks).
Far better having businessmen own the track and make it more profitable by giving tourists what they want, rather than the Socialist State deciding what people want.
another reason we need to sell
Who's we?
[Off-topic so apologies]
Elijah, I think that comment betrays a total misunderstanding of what the tourist draw to areas like the Routeburn and Greenstone valleys actually is. As a vastly well-off and important capitalist gentleman-about-town, I'm sure you've done loads of international travel. Perhaps you've noticed how New Zealand is marketed overseas.
Would the mainstay of high-spending European, Asian, and American tourists be stoked to see the famous wild places of '100% Pure' New Zealand marred by man-made creature comforts? I don't reckon.
DenMT
DenMT
The approach to property you support relies on individuals of necessity seeking permissions and the expropriation of tributes from said individuals. Individuals are not soverign, let alone free. In your system government controls all property and the occupier/tenant/subject has a permission to reside there according to that specific permission only. Should she want to alter or amend the property, then she must seek another permission (and pay dearly for the priviledge of asking). Should she wish to undertake a different activity from what the govt normally allows, she must again seek a permission and pay for asking. That system in practice, results in the elimination of the Individual Right to private property*. All there is left are arbitrary permissions which can be changed at any time for any (or no) reason.
In short, you may think you own "your" property but the "ownership" is but a legal fiction existing in name but not in reality. All you have is a permission to use that property according to what the government says you can use it for, as long as they allow you to use it- for now.
Ever heard of fascism (as in the political system, not the ad hominem)? Look it up and consider carefully what the position is regarding property. It is very similar to what you have disclosed and, indeed, shares exactly the same premise. There it is, the system you are supporting.
Von Mises describes the notion of property as "that which can legally be owned" as false and explains why. The valid source of ownership is not government, church, state, god, race, etc. Go take a look at what he wrote (it's in Human Action which is available on the web free of charge).
Individual Rights (including the property right) derive from the nature of the individual. More formally stated, Individual Rights are based upon a recognition of the Nature of Man. From this perspective, there can be no collective rights. That includes governments claiming ownership over "public land" for the great collective- "the public."
What you need to do in order to try to validate the view you related is derive and prove the notion of collective rights. That's a first step. Then you need show that collective rights abide within or are vested in the government and how that comes about. From there you need to show why the Individual Right to property is invalid and inapplicable. Hence why it is trumped by the ideal of government control in the name of collective ownership. Perhaps you can, but it's doubtful. Many of the best minds in history have attempted that feat. All failed. One day I might tell you the reasons, but you'd be better off making the attempt on your own first.
LGM
*Prof Hans Herman Hoppe has written some interesting essays on the derivation and nature of the Individual Right to Private Property. He shows that IR can be seen to be underpinned by the individual's ownership of him or herself. Well worth checkin him out.
Elijah
Well, I was working with the material they provided. If they actually had something of substance to contribute, then we could debate that. Trouble appears to be that there just isn't anything to the two of them... (and no, I am not referring to DenMT).
LGM
huzzah, the obnoxious commenter LGM does his usual sociopathic party-trick and everyone else just leaves.
wonder if that explains recent posts with unusually few commenters (0-3).
The quality of PC's posts haven't waned but the behaviour of LGM is suggests an ulterior motive to poison comment threads.
Anononon
And you haven't left have you... You read every post.
Hypocrit!
LGM
LGM is using Peter's site as his blog. That is the problem.
LGM has a purpose in showing us the difference between life-affirming libertarianism, and anti-life anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.
Rand heartily disliked anarchists, for good reason. Don't mistake LGM for a libertarian.
LGM, if I bring a bulldozer and start digging on the road side right in front of your driveway thus blocking your access to the public road (an unowned property as you claim), which I will temporary claim that specific area for myself during my trial in trying to see how far you can tolerate my activities, I suspect that you would be the first to ring the police or city authorities to alert them about my activities? Am I right here?
This is what you're arguing for? Are you keen to tell me your address?
wzzqdnMartin
You make two assuptions in the scenario you describe.
1/. the roadway outside the house remains a "public roadway"
2/. that I would not homestead the land between the house and the roadway prior to your arrival
In the scenario you outline, applying those assumptions, it is not difficult to see that the un-owned immediately sets the scene for conflict. You demonstrate this most eloquently with your intention to block access, simply to create a violent disagreement.
BTW why would you bother going to all that effort? How does a violent conflict advance your interests? What would be the likely result?
Returning to Individual Rights being the basis for the ownership of private property, assumption one is immediately removed. The roadway would be in private ownership and access would be according to agreement between the parties owning the roadway and those who wanted to use it. A workable system is easily and conveniently arrived at. Various property owners trade, in an exchange of rights, to ensure that their best interests are attained and maintained. It is most likely that I would own a portion of the roadway outside the house or have a share in it. There is no violence problem between me and the neighbours.
I've lived in a private suburb in Colorado where we had exactly this set up. House owners were private equity holders in a company that owned the roadway (or portions thereof). Also the security gate was operated and staffed by the company. We decided who was allowed in and who was not. Pretty simple stuff. It was all set in place by negotiation and voluntary contract. The main issue to grasp is that all the property was in private ownership including the roadway and the gate-house.
Item two is trivial. There is no un-owned land outside the house anyway. You'd be a trespasser.
A new point for consideration is this. Always check premise. In this case your premise was that some property remained unowned while other property did not. You are certainly correct in the view that this is unsatisfactory and can degenerate into disagreement and violence.
My position is that ownership is generated by a particular recognition of an Individual Right which in turn presupposes an understanding of the Nature of Man.
LGM
Post a Comment