• Bar owner’s property rights wrecked by human rights

In my earlier post titled There is no such thing as “human rights”: a classical liberal perspective on the Electoral Finance Act (you have to love a snappy title like that) I said

I am a classical liberalist and you’re probably thinking that I’m strong on human rights, but that is not true: I believe that there is no such thing as “human rights”.
[…]
The present definition of “human rights” is subjective and invites such evils as the EFA, the anti-smacking law and hate-speech laws. Only when “human rights” are redefined as property rights and personal rights in accordance with the non-aggression axiom can we have a consistent, logical and objective set of rights.

Let’s have a look at another injustice inflicted in the name of human rights:

The Human Rights Commission has warned a newly-opened Kapiti Coast bar over its ban on admitting under 20-year-olds, after young drinkers ruined the drinking establishment’s opening night with bad behaviour.

The commission told Jamie Williams, owner of the $2 million Monteith’s Brewery Bar’ at Paraparaumu, he could not discriminate against which customers he chose to let into his bar based on their age, the Dominion Post reported.

“While bars have the right to refuse entry they should be careful not to do so on the grounds of age, sex or ethnicity,” commission spokesman Gilbert Wong said. (source)

Can you see what is happening here? That bar is private property, but the state is forcing the owner to allow people aged under 20 to enter, even if he doesn’t want them on his property.

The Human Rights Commission website has a prominent piece of fiction:

The Commission works for a fair, safe and just society, where diversity is valued and human rights are respected.

What is ‘fair’ and ‘just’ about using legislation to take away this bar owner’s property rights? Diversity is valued by the state, but only that diversity which is considered acceptable by the state: banning bar patrons under 20 is a form of diversity, but it is not considered acceptable by the state and therefore it is illegal. How is society ‘safe’ when bar owners are forced to admit people that they know are likely to turn violent?

In my earlier post titled I am Pakeha and I am oppressed I said

Socialism/Marxism creates two groups in society: the victims, who are “oppressed”, [in this case, people under 20] and the “oppressors” [the bar owner]. The Socialists then set about righting these (usually imaginary) wrongs by oppressing the “oppressors”, thereby doing just what they accused the “oppressors” of doing [the bar owner is being oppressed by the socialist state].

Laws prohibiting sexual and racial discrimination, as well as other types of discrimination, are nonsensical because everyone discriminates. No one objects if a black American man is a looking for a black wife, but he is discriminating against white women*. He wants a female partner, so he is discriminating against men. He wants a good looking wife, so he is discriminating against people who aren’t good looking. He wants a young woman, so he is discriminating against older people. He wants a wife who can bear children, so he is discriminating against infertile women: the list goes on and on.

Homosexual men discriminate against women by wanting only male sexual partners. Lesbians discriminate against men by only wanting female sexual partners. All heterosexuals discriminate against half of the population, the half that shares their gender.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against sexual orientation, and if this is taken to its logical conclusion homosexuality and heterosexuality are illegal; only bisexual people are in compliance with the law, so bisexuality should be made compulsory. Either that or we can get rid of ridiculous laws which deny the reality of the fact that everyone discriminates.

If you take away the politically correct terminology, “discrimination” is in fact “choice”.

My position is simple: that bar is private property and, as part of his property rights, the owner should be free to make a choice about who can and cannot enter his property. The route to a fair and just society is not a complicated one: just restore everyone’s freedom to do whatever they want, and punish them if they violate the personal and property rights of others.

What do you think about the bar owner being forced to allow people under 20 into his bar?

Related post:

Property rights are a part of human nature

~~~~~~~~~~

• The myth of public property

Is it “your” rail network? The Auckland rail tracks and stations are being upgraded at present and, due to disruptions, a special timetable has been issued. On the front of this is written “Buses replacing trains while we improve your rail network”. That’s the socialist lie, here comes the libertarian truth…

If a piece of land belongs to you then you should be able to do whatever you like on that land, if that activity does not violate the personal and/or property rights of another person (that’s the ideal, but we live in a socialist state so your property rights are annihilated by the government). If the rail network – the tracks and the associated land – was “your[s]” then you would be free to walk over it, just as you are free to walk over land that you own. But you are not free to walk over the rail network, and if you do you will be fined up to $10,000 plus any amount of compensation that the judge decides you should pay [1]. This shows that it is not “your” rail network, for no sane person would fine you for walking across land that is yours.

If the rail network is not yours then who does it belong to? It belongs to the state, which controls every detail of what happens on that land. Section 50 of the Railways Act proves my point: it says that the Minister responsible may

(a) set out standards and requirements relating to the behaviour of individuals on railways or railway premises, including, without limitation, standards and requirements concerning the conduct of rail personnel, passengers, or other individuals working on or using railways or railway premises:

(b) regulate all traffic and all classes of traffic, and prohibit traffic or a class of traffic, either absolutely or conditionally, on railways:

(c) set out standards and requirements concerning the use of safety equipment by rail personnel, passengers, or other individuals working on or using railways or railway premises. [emphasis added]

This law means that the Minister may, without consulting anyone else, make a rule requiring you to hop on one foot and wear a pink gorilla suit when in a train station or riding in a train. “Your” rail network? I think not. The state has all the powers that only a landowner should have [2], therefore I conclude that the state is the de facto owner.

Here’s another example: in Australia the state requires people to pay for a permit if they’re going to take photographs in a National Park and may use those photographs commercially [3]. Do you still think that National Parks are public property, owned by all?

What’s the agenda behind this?

The agenda is the Socialist/Communist desire to disempower you by taking away your property/property rights. In the Communist Manifest Marx and Engels laid out ten steps for the transition from communism to socialism. Here’s four of those steps:

1) Abolition of property in land [outlawing private ownership of land] and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance [when you die your property is stolen by the state: death taxes are a partial step towards this].

4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels [presumably this blog makes me a rebel in the eyes of the state, and you’re reading it so you’re a rebel by association].

6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

The Communist Manifest is alive and well today, and it’s policies are enacted all around us.

What’s a better way?

Don’t allow the state to own anything. Make the government your servant, not your master. Only then will you be free, and only then will the state stop lying about it being “your” rail network.

~~~~~~~~~~

1. Railways Act S73 & S92

2. If I visit your house you are perfectly entitled to set down conditions of entry, including a requirement that I wear a pink gorilla suit and hop on one foot. That’s part of your property rights; it’s also a great way to avoid having unwelcome guests. Every landowner has conditions of entry: do you willingly let gun-toting burglars enter your home?

3. Source

~~~~~~~~~~

• Haircuts justify illegal behaviour by politicians

Police car blocking parking for disabled people

This is from Stuff:

Wellington City Council will not issue parking tickets to drivers of Bill English’s convoy for parking on yellow lines and across a mobility area while he was getting a trim [haircut].

The council initially said it would issue tickets to Mr English’s security detail but, after discussions with its lawyers and the diplomatic protection squad, it concluded that Mr English’s drivers were within the law.
[…]
Council chief executive Garry Poole said police could park anywhere, as long as it was in the course of their duties. And a haircut for the acting PM is a valid excuse.

“While we do have the legal right to issue infringement notices to any vehicle parked unlawfully, police vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions if they are used by officers in the course of their duties.

“We have examined the circumstances of this particular case and I am satisfied that the exemption applies.”

Mr English had his haircut at the upmarket Haight Ashbury salon in Johnston St, in the city centre, on November 26. His BMW Crown limo was parked on yellow lines and a Holden Commodore used by members of the DPS [police Diplomatic Protection Squad] was parked partially across a mobility zone.
[…]
The cars were parked for about 45 minutes, until a freshly trimmed Mr English emerged from the salon.

“In this case, I am satisfied that the diplomatic protection squad were using their judgment and that no road user was inconvenienced,” Mr Poole said. “They are aware of the need to stay clear of mobility parks unless strictly necessary for operational reasons.”

Despite the fact that a cop car was blocking a space reserved for disabled people Poole the council man is “satisfied…that no road user was inconvenienced”. How exactly does he know that not one disabled person wanted to park there during those 45 minutes?

From this episode we can conclude that…

1. Haircuts for politicians are “strictly necessary for operational reasons” and a “valid excuse” for illegal behaviour (style before substance is their motto, which is a good thing because if politicians had any substance you and I would be completely stuffed).
2. Politicians can’t be bothered with parking legally and walking to a salon.
3. Those who write the laws are above the laws.

What do you think about blocking mobility parking and parking on yellow lines for the sake of a haircut?

~~~~~~~~~~

• No need to make cellphone use while driving illegal

In my earlier post titled Cellphones aren’t allowed while driving, you naughty children I slammed the recent law which made driving while using a cellphone illegal and proposed a better alternative. Now, there’s an article in the NZ Herald which supports my contention that there is no need for yet another law in this police state which tries to drown us in a stinking swamp of legislation.

Here’s the article in its entirety:

A Dunedin woman who was too busy texting her friends to notice the patrol car following her has been charged with dangerous driving.

The 25-year-old, who was returning from a trip to Naseby, was spotted by members of the public crossing the centre line on State Highway 1 between Waikouaiti and Dunedin, Senior Sergeant Mel Aitken said.

She was also alleged to have reached speeds up to 140km/h, Ms Aitken said. A marked patrol car followed the woman, with the officer observing her car crossing the centre line and exceeding the speed limit.

The driver was pulled over before Pine Hill where she admitted she had been texting a friend. She is to appear in the Dunedin District Court this month on the dangerous driving charge.

I simply cannot see any need for a ban on using a cellphone whilst driving when there are already laws that cover the results of doing such a thing in a dangerous manner.

Can you see what is happening here? Instead of merely wanting to punish wrongdoing (as in the case of the woman above [1]), the state is wanting to prevent wrongdoing, by making the use of cellphones whilst driving illegal. The only way to prevent wrongdoing is to take away the freedom of people by putting up fences around them and that, in my humble opinion, is unadulterated evil. When Big Brother and Nanny State start copulating we get cops controlling what you and I do in the course of our daily lives.

I believe that talking and texting while driving is dangerous and inconsiderate of others, but I do object to making it illegal.

Please read my earlier post in order to see a better way of dealing with people who use cellphones whilst driving.

~~~~~~~~~~

1. I would not classify what this woman did as wrongdoing because she did not breach the non-aggression axiom. I would classify what she did as stupid and inconsiderate of others in the extreme (I’m not saying that she’s stupid – I’m saying that she did a stupid thing).

~~~~~~~~~~

• Unbelievable: sex for kids

Here’s an entire article from the NZ Herald:

A free Christmas play for Wellington children in Child Youth and Family care contained swear words and sexual references.

Together with their foster parents, the 140 children, the youngest of whom was six, watched the entire opening night of ‘An Adagio Christmas’ at Wellington’s Downstage Theatre.

The play contains the use of the “f” word and one character spoke of losing her virginity and mimed a slapstick orgasm.

However, Ray Smith from Child Youth and Family says despite the suggestive themes, the children loved the show.

“I watched some of the little faces during the course of the show and the little kids were on the edge of their seats wondering if the wonderful acrobats were going to fall off their chairs and poles,” Mr Smith said.

Mr Smith hopes the children will look back and remember how much they enjoyed the outing.

So, this is what happens when children are taken into state ‘care’, including those children who are taken from good parents on nothing more than a suspicion of smacking.

Let’s imagine that a family came under scrutiny from Child Youth and Family, and CYF found out that the parents had sent their children to such a play. Would CYF say “Well done, good parents”, or would CYF say “Highly inappropriate, you bad parents”, take the children from the family home, and send them for sexual abuse counselling?

It’s always the same with the government: do what we say, not what we do.

~~~~~~~~~~