Public Property

The relationship between public property, government and the public is the same as the relationships of a trust.

The public are the beneficiaries and the government officials should act as trustees by managing the public assets according to the interests of the public.

The rights and wrongs of government property management are similar to the rights and wrongs of personal property management. In the case of property management the mandate of the majority is as legitimate as the will of an individual property owner.

This means that it is not wrong for government officials to manage fishing quotas, forests, Boobs on Bikes, littering and much more.

Freedom is not an overriding principle.

16 thoughts on “Public Property”

  1. No. No. No.
    The only property the government ought to manage is that which is required for the police, the military, the justice system, and Parliament/diplomatic purposes.
    No other property ought to be deemed ‘Public property’.
    And there is no way that the Mandate of the majority is as legitinmate as the will of an individual property owner! Where did you get that Idea? Given the fact that currently The state does control a huge percentage of property… you therefore justfiy their descrimination against monorities!!!! You allow the state to escape it’s propper bounds … the defence of individual rights and grant it powers to dictate religious values and meddle in Commerce! You have failed to understand what The State proper duties are, and why it needs to be severly restricted to its minimal functions.

  2. Is it unjust for a group of people to own property?
    Is it unjust if that group of people is all citizens of a specific area?
    Is it unjust for government to manage that property on behalf of all people?
    No. No. No.

    The oughts expressed here opposing public ownership and government management are desires – i.e. they do not reflect right and wrong.

  3. Fishing quotas are a form of private property.

    Yes, fishing quotas are private property once they have been sold or allocated to private organisations or individuals.

    And Boobs on Bikes? Hands off! Private property!

    Yes, boobs and bikes are private property but the road is public property – the boobs’ and bikes’ owners are part owners of the road but they don’t have a controlling share. It would be wrong for them to have their parade against the wishes of the property owners.

  4. A person could gift property to the public knowing that a majority elected government could set rules.

    This would justly establish a mandate of the majority over the gifted property.

  5. The Mandate of the majority may be used to select who governs, yet it does not vindicate that they *rule* according to the will of the majority.
    The Democratically elect ought to rule according to the principles laid down in the constitution, which defend the rights and Liberties of individuals, not impose the will of the mob upon minorities.
    Thus the mandate of the majority is merely a pragmatic tool the moral value of which is limited to issues which don’t involve questions of rights and liberties. (We can agree that the Majorities choice for government is acceptable only on the condition that they respect the constitution and are therefore no threat to the rights and liberties of the individual.)
    And of course Groups of private individuals can form associations and collective ownership of properties, and it is upon this basis that trusts may be set up to establish parks etc which are open to everyone. These will be subject to common law, and the trust may also impose it’s own conditions upon those whom wish to use it…eg banning smoking, fires, Nudity, etc… and these conditions are within the scope of their property rights, and thus do not impinge upon the rights of individuals at all.
    Yet this is a completely different kettle of fish to Government controlling parks and squares, etc and imposing the will/ religious values of the majority!
    And these problems demonstrates why the State spheres of operations must be limited to upholding the rights of individuals and bared from such matters as administering pubic property… like parks.
    In the current situation where the state owns the city streets, they must revert to the constitution and uphold the rights of individuals, and that means they must allow Boobs on Bikes, Hero parades, etc because these Liberties do not impose upon the legitimate rights of the wowzers whom wish to ban them… ie they don’t have to look at the titties, or kiss any Homos… they can simply go inside and watch TV, or stand on the sidewalk with their Anti-titty, Anti-Homo signs… This is what freedom looks like…

  6. This is what freedom looks like…
    Rubbish
    Humour me… while there is public property managed by the government which of the following do you think government can justly prohibit…
    1. defecating in public places
    2. littering in public places
    3. nudity in public places
    4. sex in public places
    5. the flying of a flag in a public place (e.g. the Auckland Harbour Bridge)
    6. religious education in public schools

  7. Reed, I think “public property” is an oxymoron. And I think the state should sell any assets it does own if it can do so without compromising its core (i.e. legitimate) functions. But while there is state owned and operated property I think government can justly prohibit …

    Hmm, Reed. You do ask some good questions. 🙂

  8. I’m tempted to say that the government can justly prohibit whatever it has a democratic mandate to prohibit … but think of the likely (or actual) consequences and you have yet further demonstrations of

    why the State spheres of operations must be limited to upholding the rights of individuals and bared from such matters as administering pubic property

    Do you want Boobs on Bikes parades and a ban on religious education in public schools?

  9. The relationship between Maori tribal property, the tribe’s leaders and the tribe members is the same as the relationships of a trust.

    The tribe members are the beneficiaries and the tribe’s leaders should act as trustees by managing the tribal assets according to the interests of the tribe.

    The rights and wrongs of tribal property management are similar to the rights and wrongs of personal property management. In the case of property management the mandate of the majority is as legitimate as the will of an individual property owner.

    This means that it is not wrong for a tribe’s leaders to manage fishing quotas, forests, Boobs on Bikes, littering and much more.

    Freedom is not an overriding principle.

    If Tuhoe were to become an independent nation that wouldn’t change the rights and wrongs of how the tribe manages its property.

  10. It is wrong to disregard the will of the property owners – even if you are a part owner.

    I don’t have any park benches but I’d like some. I know where I can get some that are public property. I am a member of the public and I have park bench rights, don’t I?

    Should I go and pick up my benches?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *