Nats say: land owned collectively

Written By: - Date published: 12:31 pm, September 20th, 2012 - 30 comments
Categories: treaty settlements, water - Tags:

Anyone notice that the Right’s arguments against ownership of water – apart from being a willful confusion of ownership in rights to water, which is what iwi are actually inserting and which are clearly enjoyed by a range of people under our law at present, and ownership of water itself (something, apparently, limited to bottled water sellers) – would apply equally to land?

For example, today’s Dom editorial says iwi can’t own water because it was here before Maori and will be here long after we’re all gone. I look forward to their next editorial on how all land should be held communally by the same logic.

Then, there was Key on Q+A last weekend:

I think you have to accept that elements like water and wind and the sun and air and fire and all these things, and the sea, along with natural resources like oil and gas, are there for the national interest of everyone. They’re there for the benefit of all New Zealanders, not one particular group over another.

Apart from the fact that I don’t think my neighbour would be happy if I came over and told him to make space by the hearth because all fire is for the benefit of all New Zealanders, isn’t Key also saying that all land ought to be owned collectively for the good of all of us?

Forget the water, Key’s radical agenda is to nationalise all the land.

Or is it, maybe, just maybe, that the Right will pull out whatever bullshit arguments they like to defend existing privileges and avoid honouring the Treaty, and they have no attention of applying those principles at all?

30 comments on “Nats say: land owned collectively ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Roy 1
    20 September 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Their rural supporters would not like that. Not one little bit!

  2. BernyD 2
    20 September 2012 at 12:57 pm

    Crazy thing is it’s the same argument …
    In a real time Quantum Science sense “Everyone is standing on the ground therefore they own it”
    We exist, Thanks National.

  3. CnrJoe 3
    20 September 2012 at 1:32 pm

    who owns the cow piss?

  4. deemac 4
    20 September 2012 at 1:32 pm

    seriously though, ownership of water is not much use without the means to distribute it. A test case in England (on whose law the NZ system is of course based) decided that water rates are not paid for the water (which is free) but for the cost of cleaning and delivering it and removing waste water.
    Not to mention upkeep of waterways…

  5. Matthew 5
    20 September 2012 at 1:37 pm

    I cant wait to get my allocation of Oil, Gas, Coal, Gold, Aluminium, Steel, and any/all other natural resources that we all own.

  6. Uturn 6
    20 September 2012 at 1:42 pm

    What philosophical basis has the sun as an element?

    I’ve heard of earth, fire, sea, sky and wind; or water, earth, air and fire; or fire metal earth water and wood; and believe there was at one time band called Earth Wind and Fire. But no mention of sun. This could be the core problem witholding understanding of good faith talks from Key’s mind.

    • BernyD 6.1
      20 September 2012 at 1:48 pm

      The same as earth and wind, based on current quantum ideology

    • Te Reo Putake 6.2
      20 September 2012 at 1:57 pm

      “What philosophical basis has the sun as an element”
       
      This one?

      • Uturn 6.2.1
        20 September 2012 at 2:23 pm

        Someone check John Key’s shoes. He may be dream sent to us from the Old White People. If he is, who is the message for, anyone that can see him?

    • Roy 6.3
      20 September 2012 at 3:12 pm

      I own the sun, but I am very generous so you can all use it free of charge, provided you hold me not accountable for sunburn, solar flares, droughts or other adverse outcomes of the sun or exposure to it.

  7. vto 7
    20 September 2012 at 1:49 pm

    This is not surprising.

    It has become apparent that pretty much all of the right’s arguments either don’t make sense, or they don’t even follow what they preach.

    Here is another example. Christchurch CBD rebuild. Clean slate. Perfect opportunity to test out the free market approach. Never ever been a better opportunity. But what they do? Intervene in the most massive way possible. Proof clear that even they don’t believe their bullshit (oh, except when it comes to east Chch residents. Then it is “oh no we don;’t want to interfere, the market will sort it out).

    They have no credibility.

  8. paul andersen 8
    20 September 2012 at 2:24 pm

    interesting point about ownership of things you cant hold, water air etc, what about radio frequencies, governments have sold off radio frequencies for millions. if nobody owns water, surely that also applies to radio waves???????

    • Carol 8.2
      20 September 2012 at 2:31 pm

      And ownership of ideas? Concepts? Logos?

      • BernyD 8.2.1
        20 September 2012 at 2:35 pm

        You can expand a thought much more quickly that way,
        It’s the implementation that deserves re imbersement

    • Uturn 8.3
      20 September 2012 at 2:45 pm

      Or possibly if you can own radio waves then you can own water?

      It depends what you’re using to measure the “can” part of the premise. Can or can’t own is the same question.

      Last night I watched a bit of “afternoon tea with old people” on Maori TV. Interesting stuff. Among other things, they got to talking about the nature of horticulture and specifically, their favourite types of maori potatoes. The young interviewer says something to the old guy along the lines of, “Maybe growing and selling peruperu is a good way for our people to get some money.” And the old guy says, “Oh no, no, just give them (pakeha) some.”.

      The idea of a thing being it’s monetary value is a dangerous idea in the minds of modern people. They get to thinking that because something can be bought, it is theirs already, they just haven’t made the monetary exchange. Not only that, but they isolate themselves from the nature of the thing they buy, what it truly is, and the nature of the person from who they buy. To some minds, to buy a peruperu would be to lower the stadning of the person who offered the food and an attempt to shut half the world out of consciousness. There is more to life than what can or can’t be owned.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.3.1
        20 September 2012 at 3:02 pm

        There is more to life than what can or can’t be owned.

        QFT

        Unfortunately, our present system was designed by people who can’t see that because all they want/ed is to have power over others and they get that through ownership.

        • Populuxe1 8.3.1.1
          20 September 2012 at 6:50 pm

          Saying capitalism was “designed” is like believing in intelligent design. It’s a mightily flawed system, but it evolved organically – no secret conspiracy dreamed it up and it’s lineage can be plotted historically. Believing that it’s a conspiracy might make you feel better about basing your entire world view on the theories of a long dead German philosopher the way fundamentalist Christians thump the Bible, but misusing the English language will not make it so.

          • Draco T Bastard 8.3.1.1.1
            20 September 2012 at 7:34 pm

            It’s a mightily flawed system, but it evolved organically – no secret conspiracy dreamed it up and it’s lineage can be plotted historically.

            Yep, and the people who made up the rules about it were the people who benefited from the rules they wrote.

            Believing that it’s a conspiracy…

            I didn’t say that it was a conspiracy. The rules were written well out in the open with full input from the people…

            Oh, wait, no they weren’t. That’s why we have the OIA (which doesn’t go far enough) and why we’re getting pissed that the TPPA is being discussed behind closed doors by the people who will benefit (the corporations have a say, the people don’t).

            • Populuxe1 8.3.1.1.1.1
              20 September 2012 at 8:02 pm

              I didn’t say it was fair. Cancer is natural but no one designed it.

              Oh, wait, no they weren’t. That’s why we have the OIA (which doesn’t go far enough) and why we’re getting pissed that the TPPA is being discussed behind closed doors by the people who will benefit (the corporations have a say, the people don’t).

              That’s globalisation – a largely political agenda, and a completely different kettle of fish altogether.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                20 September 2012 at 10:36 pm

                /facepalm

                The whole of history has been full of political agenda. Instituting capitalism while trying very hard not to allow democracy was the political agenda of the capitalists at the time. The armed serfs had their own agenda as well and that’s why we actually have representative democracy – it was pragmatism on the part of the capitalists who didn’t want to be on the receiving end of those arms that had just defeated the monarchy while also allowing them to maintain control in a hierarchical system.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  20 September 2012 at 10:45 pm

                  That’s the the traditional philosophical apology for why we haven’t wholly embraced Marxism naturally as the great man predicted – it’s someone else’s fault!

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    20 September 2012 at 2:53 pm

    …and they have no intention of applying those principles at all?

    FIFY

    And they have no principles to apply.

  10. XTASY 10
    20 September 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Aqua y solar. Nice that is. So nobodye also has rights resutling of use of such? Electricity ofr a chance? I pay it every month, so is also water, power all that “free”? BSS distraction.

    Revolucion:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CvRSZxqk_I

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEM9bYidyEU&feature=related

    Viva!