This is unfortunately true with beaches in Croatia, before season they are starting with cleaning, when they need to pick up money from tourists. We live here all year, it should be clean environment all the time … and not just in the season.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

I am also from Croatia and what was writen up about our beaches is corect and that is not looking so nice but the problem is that nobody didn t care about that

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

I think jh is totally right here, we have several natinal parks where everything looks more than perfect, and rest of the country like garbage place. Amazing!

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

National parks are starting to p me off; we should look at the whole country as a national park and do more to maintain a rich, bountiful environment for everyone. The Greens are a pro immigration party because it’s the nice way to be but it ignores the massive growth of humanity over the last century.

Like or Dislike: 2  2 (0)

Kevin says he is not against progress and Tapprofit says, “Isn’t it like they say, You can’t stop progress?”
Actually nobody is against progress the question that is not considered or asked often enough is, ‘In what direction is this progress heading?’

The Cathedral Cove stall is headed in the direction of commercialization of as yet unspoilt nature. It appears harmless but maybe it will not be in the long term.
We can and do stop progress when it becomes obvious it is harmful to what we value. Maybe it will be time to stop the progress of this blog when it progresses completely off the subject.
E

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

I am from Croatia and on lots of our beaches there is concession, they are selling food, ice creams, drinks…it started to look more like market place. There is lots of them who are not cleaning beach after day is over…..they are destroying nature

Like or Dislike: 6  0 (+6)

the last article since th 31st???? -; ay you Grinning Greens – you are down the beach with your kids, grinning….
The perfect moment to strike !
“Climb Mt Dubbledipton”
PS; i’ve neen surrounded by spies all my life
this lot ought be hilarious!!!

Like or Dislike: 0  3 (-3)

The rights you claim we have by virtue of being human are not real. By virtue of being human we have thought and thus the ability to desire rights, but that does not make rights a given simply because we desire them.

Never a truer word spoken sapient.

I detest the modern day concept of “rights”.

Whether it is rich peoples version of their “rights”, or poor peoples version of their “rights” it is a detestable concept that is used to excuse human greed.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

But collectives do exist. Wherever peopel come together for a common aim they form a collective of people. Collectives are but conglomerations of people and it is the combined force of those people, working as a collective, that allows them to declare rights and protect that which they declare.

Every time a human is killed does ‘nature’ step in and give out punishment? Does ‘nature’ protect against theft? Does ‘nature’ protect against rape? No, nature lacks a force directed toward the protection of supposed human rights outside of the actual organization of humans.

The rights you claim we have by virtue of being human are not real. By virtue of being human we have thought and thus the ability to desire rights, but that does not make rights a given simply because we desire them. Likewise we don’t have rights by virtue of Rand declaring we do unless rand has the force to protect the supposed rights. Rights may only be realised through force and likewise they may be taken by force.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Aaahh, James, now you’ve destroyed any merit your arguments may have had by revealing that a) you like cricket, and b) you regard the Tamaki Brothers as worthy of adulation.

The beach at Cathedral Cove is there for the enjoyment of all and sundry, including those who don’t own land at all. And long may it remain so.

The concept of using one’s desire for private ownership as a good reason to despoil wilderness with commerce is irrelevant.

It is a very good thing that our government is enlightened enough to allow collective ownership.

It would be hard to imagine a private owner letting me visit Cathedral Cove.

Do you remember Spencers’ efforts at Stoney Batter on Waiheke?

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

“We have collectives, among other reasons, to protect rights that those collectives have declared.”

How can non existent abstractions create rights?Only individuals exists therefore only they have rights and it is ONLY nature that can betow them…because only nature exists as their source…unless you posit a supernatural source….? .If individuals work together in collective action there are still only the rights of those individuals…no new rights can be or are created.

“The collectives declare the rights and then create them through protecting them. Nature can not grant rights as it has not directed force.”

Nature certainly has directed force…the laws of cause and effect,non contradiction and the law of identity.The absolutes of life and death.

“Governments are but a form of collective.”

The State is supposed to be the objective holder of everyones right to self defence of their person and property.It is a creation derived from the fact that mans has rights and they require objective protection from those who would violate them.

Now….cricket!

;-0

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Cricket eh! Privately owned grounds then?

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

We have collectives, among other reasons, to protect rights that those collectives have declared. The collectives declare the rights and then create them through protecting them. Nature can not grant rights as it has not directed force.

Governments are but a form of collective.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

“I know this. I was hoping that I could get James and Wat to say it though for the instant they admit it they loose all basis for all of their arguements. ”

Hardly…..I just can’t be bothered rehashing the same old argument with you again re natural rights….of which property (in ones person) is the basic one.We then will end up at the silly, debunked “is/ought” dicotomy and whats the point? RSI for no gain?

One point.Owen said “The story of civilisation is largely a story of Governments providing a legal system that guarantees rights to property – including rights to property in goods, chattels, and of course land and buildings.”

But governments only arose to protect pre-existing rights….ones that nature confers on us by virtue of being human….and the fact that if humans are to live and prosper we must have a system that is non contradictory and intune with our nature as man and the requirements of that nature.We don’t have rights because we have governemnt…we have Government (small,limited and focused on rights protection only if we get it right)to protect all ready existing rights.

Anyway….off to watch the cricket…..babble amoungst yourselves…

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Owen,

I know this. I was hoping that I could get James and Wat to say it though for the instant they admit it they loose all basis for all of their arguements.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

PRe-industrial societies establish “ownership” by simple possession. And lose ownership if some neighbouring tribe simply takes it off them.

The story of civilisation is largely a story of Governments providing a legal system that guarantees rights to property – including rights to property in goods, chattels, and of course land and buildings.

The more secure those rights in property generally the more prosperous the nation and the more satisfied the people.

Rights in property also referred to your property in your thoughts and beliefs. It was recognised that a citizen was hardly free if the citizen could not protect himself from trespass or arbitrary entry and arrest.

New Zealand and Australia developed and instituted the Torenz system of registration of title which gives us an efficient system of title registration and transfer.
There is a good reason why in most countries people have to “search the title” before the can buy or sell it or raise a mortgage. It really does require a search.

The history of the US is very much a history of the differences between the Federal and State Government about the creation of legal title to land.
We give up our right to rape pillage and steal in exchange for a legal system of property rights and we transfer the right to use force to our police forces for protection from internal raiders and to our armed forces for protection from external invaders.

REad Hernando de Santo for the contribution of secure property rights to economic development and human welfare.

Like or Dislike: 1  4 (-3)

“James! You accidentally slipped into a faux German accent part way through your post – do you have faux-German ancestry?”

Just poking fun at your faux-concern for human rights…

“I’m trying, for the sake of discussion, to imagine how a beach’s well-being rides roughshod over peoples rights and lives but it’s not clear how that might happen.”

If some peoples ideas of what the wellbeing of a beach entails imposes unchosen obligations(rates,taxation) on unconsenting others to have to contribte funds towards said beachs upkeep then those unconsenting others have had their rights to liberty and their own property ridden over roughshod….no? Not hard to grasp is it? If I was able to get the State to demand money from you to help upkeep my place would you not feel violated and annoyed?

“I imagine that if the beach was privately owned and someone who had always enjoyed access to that beach and was now excluded at the whim of the owner might feel ‘ridden over’ – is that what you mean?”

No.My friends and I used to use empty sections around here to play on when we were young.We stopped when people bought these sections and aquired the right to excluded us from them….did we have a “right” by virtue of previous free use to continue playing there?No….same goes for a beach.The price for living in a civilsed society is the fact that others,who have paid for the right, can determine what happens on property that is theirs…and their view outweighs yours….sorry…get over it.For the security of knowing that your person and property are yours and will not be taken from you or violated is the knowledge that you may not take and violate the property of others.When this balance is gone then don’t grizzle when others muster more force than you possess and start to practice what you socialists preach…Do unto others as you want to be treated fly…..an old law but a goodie.

Like or Dislike: 0  4 (-4)

James and Wat,

A question for you enlightened persons:
How is it that one comes to own land?

It is easy enough to say that a person owns that which they have produced but, for the most part, a person can only ever create improvements to land rather than the land itself. Because of this another mechanism is required to explain ones ownership of land. One can say that one owns it because they have purchased or inherited title from a previous title holder but that does not say how the land became owned in the first place.

If a boat of settlers is to land on an uncharted and uninhabited land how is it that ownership is established? Whom owns what and where? Is it the first person to touch the soil that owns the entire land or the first person to see it? Is it the amount of land that one can work? Is it the total land divided by the total voyagers? Is it that a person owns only the land they can protect from the intrusion of others?

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

James! You accidentally slipped into a faux German accent part way through your post – do you have faux-German ancestry?
I’m trying, for the sake of discussion, to imagine how a beach’s well-being rides roughshod over peoples rights and lives but it’s not clear how that might happen. I imagine that if the beach was privately owned and someone who had always enjoyed access to that beach and was now excluded at the whim of the owner might feel ‘ridden over’ – is that what you mean?

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)