Umm, not just 'bigot' but bigot with a penchant for genocide.

Yes, I said exactly that of Sandi, and stand by it. She has deliberately left open the inference that she believes genocide is an acceptable solution to some world problems: any rational, sane human being would not do that, and I find it troubling that she does. I am assured this is because Sandi is stubborn, but I would call that sort of stubbornness, childishly stupid, which reminds me, following the ladies from Absolutely Fabulous, perhaps the single tax I could have some sympathy with, is a tax on stupidity ...

But note this does not make her 'Hitler loving': I never said that. Stalin had a 'penchant for genocide', but was certainly not 'Hitler loving'.

Some far better exactitude from you would be appreciated please. 

Umm, not just 'bigot' but bigot with a penchant for genocide.

I never once said 'Hitler loving' Commander, just bigot. Sloppy: read again.

You're writing the book, not me. At least your book's more amusing than the Koran, so you've got one thing going for it.

What ever happened to the Koran?

While you insanely hound Sandi as a Hitler loving bigot ...

I never once said 'Hitler loving' Commander, just bigot. Sloppy: read again.

 a real supporter of fascism, Tariq Ramadan, slips in and out of New Zealand under your nose. He was here to talk to the Ummah in the ongoing quest to Islamise the world, and in this case, New Zealand. You'd do better to focus on what the Ummah are doing than on your unwarranted imaginings.

On the one hand, note that my mind is so near perfection I can both keep the focus of the eye on Sandi, and ...

... on the other hand, I well knew of this hatchling Big Mojo from the Clan Kluck Qu'ran, coming from the East  in the shadow of the Giant Eye of the Great UmMummy. I have already sent out my minions to do verbiage with him. Send me the coordinates of your forces so I may come to your aid when this unspeakable evil of which we speak moves against you.

What ever happened to the Koran?

While you insanely hound Sandi as a Hitler loving bigot, a real supporter of fascism, Tariq Ramadan, slips in and out of New Zealand under your nose. He was here to talk to the Ummah in the ongoing quest to Islamise the world, and in this case, New Zealand. You'd do better to focus on what the Ummah are doing than on your unwarranted imaginings.

Exactly! That's my point! Those who own a point of entry *do not* get to decide who goes through it!

In other words then, they don't actually own it. The Government does, but private entiies can pay to use it on government terms.

It seems fairly clear-cut to me, just a "division of labour", and in a time of war the government could nationalise or freeze enemy assets at the drop of a hat.

Yes, that is true, if they have the will and inclination.

 I don't have blind faith in government, and I'm not saying they'll always protect us. I'm only saying that the quality of service they provide with regards to border control will not be affected whether they own the point of entry infrastructure or not.

I don't agree with your assessment. In abstract terms, sure, you can say it won't be affected. The law is the law, and if the law says the government sets the terms, so that's how it is. In practical terms though, it's a whole other matter. If the enemy has physical possession of the point of entry, then they're in a great position to smuggle people or goods through that point of entry regardless of any law. It puts them in a very good position, and that's a position we should never allow them to have.

I don't have blind faith in government, and I'm not saying they'll always protect us. I'm only saying that the quality of service they provide with regards to border control will not be affected whether they own the point of entry infrastructure or not.

So in other words, those who own the airport wouldn't really own the airport. The government would have to own it to a degree. And not just the airport, but any point of entry into the country.

Exactly! That's my point! Those who own a point of entry *do not* get to decide who goes through it!

It seems fairly clear-cut to me, just a "division of labour", and in a time of war the government could nationalise or freeze enemy assets at the drop of a hat.

... just answer to the contradiction. That's the substantive part.

(Well done on working in the shit/toilet motif from below though. Excellent.)

Addendum: I think it is possible to justify both sides of the contradiction, that is, it's not a contradiction, I just don't get the impression from your posts that your viewpoint, philosophy, is coherent enough to do so, which is the weakness that constantly has you championing the more insane of Sandi's ideas ... ahem, such as the Canadian Pension fund is a jihadist organisation.

They're wondering if their commander is on the piss, or just taking it.

Again, you're not discussing the principles involved, you're just tossing shit around.

Cape out of the undies again Richard.

Commander Wiig said below:

  it would be legitimate, to my mind, for the government to stop the sale as a matter of national security.

And then also said below:

 I don't understand your blind faith in government, Hayden.

The troops are armed with their petards, and ready to go forth to battle, but need some clear commands please. They're wondering if their commander is on the piss, or just taking it.

Thanks.

No, most emphatically not.

That's good. And it would be wrong to sell it to them?

On your other stance: I don't understand your blind faith in government, Hayden. You say they'll always protect us (with a rational screening policy?) even though we're living under a government that has  dismantled our airforce and has the worlds first Disarmament Minister.

That is exactly my contention. I can't point to the law exactly but to me it seems the most obvious thing in the world that the existence and independence of government run border control would be mandated by law.

So in other words, those who own the airport wouldn't really own the airport. The government would have to own it to a degree. And not just the airport, but any point of entry into the country. 

Basically, The landowner "owns" the property but as for border control the government sets the rules and cannot be touched.

I think it is fraught with problems and not such a clear cut issue, particularly if the people buying it have links with an enemy of war.

And I would like a serious answer. If the context of today was exactly
the same as 1 year into WWII would you be happy to sell the airport to
the Nazis? Or even a year or two prior to WWII?

 No, most emphatically not.

How much jurisdiction do you think the Government can legitimately have
over that private point of entry? Can they have 100% reign? 80%? 50%?
Can the extent of their control alter from context to context? If so,
what's the determining principle or law? What security measures can
they put in place on someone else property? What if the owner resists
any particular measure to screen his, private paying, customers? Does
his private property get treated the same as everyone elses private
property, or is his situation somehow different and special, meaning he
has less control over his own property?

 That is exactly my contention.  I can't point to the law exactly but to me it seems the most obvious thing in the world that the existence and independence of government run border control would be mandated by law.

Basically, The landowner "owns" the property but as for border control the government sets the rules and cannot be touched.

I haven't shifted any goal posts, and I definitely haven't objected to any sale. Please read carefully what I write, Hayden. My position has been one of an open mind on what Sandi has to say, that is all.

I apologise if I have misrepresented you. In my haste it seems I have lumped you both together.

So you'll be heading off into the sunset now with a giant 'D' emblazoned on your cape?

It's not because the subjects not worth it. It's because you're not worth it.

This fascist thread proposing unfettered State regulation of free economies to stop the Allah worshipping evil of Canadian Pension Funds getting their geriatric way, has finally ground down to the level of drivel.

My work is done.

Mark, I think you have a problem. You should go and see a shrink about it. You could put on your cape and tights before you go so that when you walk in the door he can see what the problem is, because nothing that comes out of your mouth will enlighten him much.

Wrong answer. But I'm getting under your skin

There is one way to stop my bullshit Richard W. One sure fire way to shut me up.

Stop the bullshit posts.

An example of a bullshit post? EVERY post equating a Canadian Pension Fund with the Muslim hordes, and then inanely continuing to perpetrate this, unlearning. Every post constantly confusing national borders with property rights.

Look at your last one hundred posts, Richard: probably every one of those!

My campaign is unceasing, unless at some stage poor old Linz has to stop me dead - and I couldn't blame him. (I have simply changed tactics - why? Because I'm sick of this rot.)

Yes, Islam is evil, but get some perspective in your life, please, and stop listening to my fiance - never, never use any word like 'open' in reference to her. Inferences, damn it. There's people watching. Otherwise it will have to be pistols at dawn.

Do you understand the wisdom with which I speak now Commander Wiig?

The only thing I undersand is that you are an irritating prick.

Has his head down the toilet at the moment, trying to read the entrails as to how his life has devolved to the stage where he has to answer this silly question. So, as heroic shit stirrer, complete with cape, dum da da dum da dum da da dah, I shall answer on his behalf.

If the context of today was exactly the same as 1 year into WWII would you be happy to sell the airport to the Nazis?

The answer is in the form of a piece of wisdom, and its explication.

The Wisdom.

Never, during an Internet debate, answer an absurd question that could not have in reality been framed, on the balance of all possibilities, because the answer will always be, similarly, absurd, and both participants would have achieved nothing.

The Explication

YES, of course during WW II we should have sold Auckland Airport to the Nazis. Think about it. We had about one quarter of the US air-force, navy, and ground forces stationed here to ensure that if a single Nazi got within Australia close to being in the Auckland Airport, they would be shot dead. So the Nazis would have given the NZ Government several billion dollars to put toward the war effort against them, for an airport they could never use, and that the allies retained control of for the duration of the entire war.

Do you understand the wisdom with which I speak now Commander Wiig?

And I would like a serious answer. If the context of today was exactly the same as 1 year into WWII would you be happy to sell the airport to the Nazis? Or even a year or two prior to WWII?

The borders WILL NOT BE IN THE HANDS OF THE JIHADISTS. The Borders are, and always will be IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

First off, I understand exactly what you are saying about the separation of property(the point of entry), and security over that point of entry. How much jurisdiction do you think the Government can legitimately have over that private point of entry? Can they have 100% reign? 80%? 50%? Can the extent of their control alter from context to context? If so, what's the determining principle or law? What security measures can they put in place on someone else property? What if the owner resists any particular measure to screen his, private paying, customers? Does his private property get treated the same as everyone elses private property, or is his situation somehow different and special, meaning he has less control over his own property?

My position has been one of an open mind on what Sandi has to say ...

Commander R. Wiig - Border Patrol. 

You're shifting the goalposts like Sandi does here Richard, Your, and Sandi's objection

I haven't shifted any goal posts, and I definitely haven't objected to any sale. Please read carefully what I write, Hayden. My position has been one of an open mind on what Sandi has to say, that is all.

UAE - Canada business on the upswing

"Bilateral ties between the U.A.E. and Canada is poised to receive a greater boost following a recent flurry of strategic alliances between the business communities of the two countries - especially in the sustainable energy, construction and telecommunications sectors."

Hows the Arab name "SS Lootah" and spot the pun.

"S.S. Lootah is proving to be a committed partner to Canada while setting an example for other companies to follow suit and take bilateral relations between the two countries to a higher plane of success"

I can't understand why people have such difficulty comprehending the two concepts. There is the border, run by the government, and there is the airport or docks or whatever, owned by whoever owns it. Both operationally completely unrelated to each other.

but if the borders are in the hands of Jihadists, then what chance is there that they'll follow the rules?

 The borders WILL NOT BE IN THE HANDS OF THE JIHADISTS.  The Borders are, and always will be IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

The Border is, and always will be, protected by Customs and Immigration departments

Will it?

 Yes it will.

 Do you really think the customs and immigration departments will always
have your best interests at heart? Do you think they have your best
interest at heart right now?

 You're shifting the goalposts like Sandi does here Richard, Your, and Sandi's objection to the sale was that if the airport was owned by someone else then the security of our borders would be affected.  As I have pointed out the security of our borders is run by the government - not the airport landlord - and so whether border security is being run well or poorly, with my best interests or without them, is completely independent of who owns the buildings.

 Therefore, since neither you nor Sandi have managed to refute (or even really accept or even grasp) this fact your objection to the airport sale fails.

Why have a door to your house and a fence around your yard?
Or do you prefer to live in a perpetual "open home" environment?

Sandi, dearest, if we two are going to live in conjugal bliss, then you are going to have to start listening to me.

The fence around my house is my property, that is a property right which, matters of cowardice aside, I hope I would defend with my life, or certainly when we are wed, my wife, but this has nothing, I'll repeat that sweetie, nothing, to do, whatsoever, with a debate on national borders.

That's the fourth time I've had to say that.

Have more imagination, Sandi. Anythings possible, if only have the imagination.

Why live in such a small rotten little world behind borders of your making.?

Why have a door to your house and a fence around your yard?
Or do you prefer to live in a perpetual "open home" environment?

Oh, and over the course of just one post to have my hopes cruelly dashed.

Richard, you want to live in little nation boxes, you are defined only by the Muslim hordes you hate ... ya gotta bust out. Do something to free your mind from its self imposed imprisonment (and exile, if I might be so bold). Why live in such a small rotten little world behind borders of your making.

'While there are men there will be nations' nah ne nah ne nah. Defeatist, unimaginative bullshit.

Just an opinion, mind.

Right, putting the clothes back on and off, again, for the night ...

[Addendum: I don't much care for the Muslim hordes either, once correctly identified, but to build a life around the hatred of them is a waste.] 

Mr Wiig, mate, after this break through, I've chucked in the work and inspired by Mr Newberry have been running around my office naked (ahem, except for some socks), in celebration of a new rugged individual little brother.

Borderless brothers be bound in blood forever. 

Please, grant me this, will you be my Best Man?

I'm not getting to your way of thinking at all. I think you're rebelling against reality. There's nothing wrong with the concept of nation, and as long as there are men, there will be nations. It's in mans nature to form them. I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, like people who throw morality out because they've been stifled by one particular code of ethics.

It seems to me that you want to do away with the concept of 'nation', altogether?

Worth keeping an eye open for.

YES.   PLEASE DEAR GOD  Y E S   

Go to the next level Richard, you're getting to my way of thinking now.  

It seems to me that you want to do away with the concept of 'nation', altogether?

Even Galts Gulch had a national border. Are you saying it wasn't connected to property rights?

Last answer for tonight, I'm 'supposed' to be working, and I see Mr G is online, and will be checking my billable hours again.

If Galts Gulch is a country, then it is a national border, no one owns a border so it is not a property right issue. If it is the edge of Mr Galt's property then it is a private property right issue, and not one of national borders.

Goodnight ... oh, can you do drinks at the wedding? Linz is only bringing water.

I'm talking about your neighbours fence, not an unjust law.

I don't know what you mean by the last part of your sentence. Re the first, your neighbours fence is a property right issue, as I have said, three times, that has nothing to do with national borders. Because the rest of this thread, and your posts, were about national borders, I sort of assumed ...

Regarding your neighbours fence, I missed it completely. What are you doing at it? Not peeping I hope (just remembering that cape comment, that is all )

Even Galts Gulch had a national border. Are you saying it wasn't connected to property rights?

I'm talking about your neighbours fence, not an unjust law.

You are living in a nation of borders, but that doesn't make you unfree does it?

It most definitely does. I am not free. The State that controls that border, controls me. I could show you my bank statement this Friday, the third provisional tax date in NZ, and you'll see a huge chunk of money being stolen from it, which will prove my point most ably. If I don't pay that, it will ultimately end up on the Customs computer system, and I will not be allowed to leave the country.

I have said, national borders are not connected to property rights, you are confusing them completely.

No, property rights are a different issue altogether.

Not really. There is nothing to defend other than what is legitimately yours.

Questions. How can I be free if I am bound by a national border? 

The question should be, how can I be free if I am oppressed. The answer is, you can't be, but that has nothing to do with national borders. Even Galts Gulch had a border. A national border doesn't make you free or unfree, it's the nature of the nation you live under that does that, and whether or not it allows you to cross it and why. 

 By, therefore, some type of national group-think? Or if a State, or number of States, can control my movements in and out of them, and track all of those movements? (Note I realise that this notion and then national security cannot fit into the same box. That is the dilemma, when I want to be free. What is the solution?)

I don't see any dilemma. It depends on the reason for the tracking. Is it legitimate and necessary, or is simply sheer oppression? If they are not stopping you living, and whole purpose of the security is to catch those who do aim to stop you living, then I don't see a problem or a dilemma. 

How is Libertarianism all about borders?

Because it's all about property rights. It's because your rights end where my nose begins, and because that doesn't mean my nose literally. It means the full extent of my property however far that might reach. 

I think is should be the opposite: so long as we recognise non initiation of force, then how can individual freedom be bordered in, limited?.

You are living in a nation of borders, but that doesn't make you unfree does it?

Borders (thinking) might also = property rights thinking. Libertarianism is all about borders. In fact it is very border orientated and has nothing in common with international communism whatsoever, which is all about breaking down borders.

No, property rights are a different issue altogether. We're talking nations and nationalism here. And that word that has excused probably more repression than any other; culture.

Questions. How can I be free if I am bound by a national border? By, therefore, some type of national group-think? Or if a State, or number of States, can control my movements in and out of them, and track all of those movements?

(Note I realise that this notion and then national security cannot fit into the same box. That is the dilemma, when I want to be free. What is the solution?)

How is Libertarianism all about borders? I think is should be the opposite: so long as we recognise non initiation of force, then how can individual freedom be bordered and thus limited? So long as I don't hurt you, then I can go where I want, do what I want, think what I want. That's what I mean by freedom. A 'border' represents everything I hate, and that destroys life.

[Clarification: I said the one and only commonality between a freedom movement and international communism was the concept of a borderless society. Otherwise they are chalk and cheese, particularly because the communist borderless society was simply about creating  a much bigger Gulag, whereas, per my statements above, a freedom movement is traversing in exactly the opposite direction.]

The borders will be just as secure as they are now because the law of the land regarding customs and immigration override everything.

...but if the borders are in the hands of Jihadists, then what chance is there that they'll follow the rules? It's going to be pretty easy, in fact I'd say, extremely easy, for them to bypass those rules. We are in a war, and it's real. Putting the border infrastructure into the hands of Islamists, even twice removed (when gang members want to rent houses they send a pretty girl in dressed nicely, then one day the landlord finds the gang there) would be akin to allowing the nazis to have ownership of the ports when fighting them during WWII. Is this not something that should be considered and assessments made? Is it not a good idea to make sure that we are not played for suckers? Never forget that millions died unnecessarily in WWII because the nazis were not taken seriously enough.

The Border is, and always will be, protected by Customs and Immigration departments

 Will it? Do you really think the customs and immigration departments will always have your best interests at heart? Do you think they have your best interest at heart right now? Sandi is right to be concerned about the security of our borders in the context of the war we are in. She may be off track in this instance, but if she is, she is probably less off track than you. At least she isn't all trusting of those whose job it is to defend us. She takes the enemy seriously enough to examine them closely, which is more than can be said for a lot of other people.

And there seem to be several degrees of separation in this instance between the purchasers and Islamofascists.

If the separation were not enough, it would be legitimate, to my mind, for the government to stop the sale as a matter of national security. But that's the only context in which they have any right to intervene.

Borders (thinking) = nations = rah rah Nationalism

Borders (thinking) might also = property rights thinking. Libertarianism is all about borders. In fact it is very border orientated and has nothing in common with international communism whatsoever, which is all about breaking down borders.

"Thank you for providing some sanity. Although I'll take you to task on one point: the NZ Government shouldn't be buying any private company shares, period."

Thank you, too.

I do agree that the government should not use tax money, expropriated by force, should buy shares purely for its own profit, (except in situations such as war when that might be necessary). However, I'd prefer the govt to put aside some investment money now to use to fund tax cuts in the future, than taxing me all around. Investing is a legitimate way for the government to get money. Taxation isn't.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

It's not "who pays" but "who sets the rules"

And the government sets the rules, trumping anything a landlord wants. The borders will be just as secure as they are now because the law of the land regarding customs and immigration override everything.

The Government does not become a tenant.
The landlord owns the buildings and runway etc.

Yes, the government is a tenant. It has on airport, a police station, immigration hall, cctv network, MAF, Quarantine, AV Sec, etc.

Either the landlord absorbs all of the costs of accommodating these agencies rent free or the NZ government pays rent to the foreign landlord.

... against this sale is that it would help keep Canadians alive into old age.

That said, all things being equal, owning airports is not a government function.

And there seem to be several degrees of separation in this instance between the purchasers and Islamofascists.

Finally, a good idea:

Investing heavily into Islamic companies some of who, ..

We should be welcoming this buy out with open arms. Think of the possibilites: NZ will have a pipeline directly into the Muslim hordes, via these shareholdings, that we can lob bomb suited pensioners through. Hit'em right where it hurts, and save welfare costs back at home.

Oh Sandi, this is genius, and befitting my consort.

... Looking around, yep, boring day at the office. But busy, off ...

[Disclaimer: I do have MacQuarie investments - I may be a Jihadist.]

The Government does not become a tenant.

The landlord owns the buildings and runway etc.

The government runs the border controls independently, guarded by laws that override whatever the landlord might wish for - because it is the government.

Check out their associations.

Investing heavily into Islamic companies some of who, dictate Sharia compliance within the USA.

Check out their alliances, OSPREY for example.
The other members are all Islamic; Colonial First State, 31 Group for example.

Colonial First State is now (Macquarie) Goodman Property Trust

MacQuarie tried to get the airport after DPW withdrew.
MacQuarie owns banks, global water companies, toll roads - especially in the states, where it actually bought 80 newspapers just to spin the spin, it has a media portfolio that would make Emelda Marcos shoe wardrobe look like a lunch box and it has an Islamic Fund.

CPP is just a Trojan Horse.

All islamic companies work together with the sole agenda of working with and promoting other islamic companies. They will pull each other dicks for favours.

Furthermore, if there was no money to be made from the airport, why are 3 major contenders busting their arses to buy it? If there is potentially lots of money to be made from the airport, why is it not being made now?

What is the one thing that all 3 businesses who have attempted to buy Auckland airport all have in common?

HEAVY islamic investment.

To a landlord that is not necessarily a NZ citizen.

The Border is, and always will be, protected by Customs and Immigration departments - run (hopefully) competently and independently of whoever owns the buildings and runway.

You needn't fear those nefarious Canadian pensioners setting up a third immigration line consisting of a revolving door for Al Qaeda operatives.

I did like Mark's remark about whether rabies has infected this thread. It does seem apt.

To repeat myself from another thread:

Borders (thinking) = nations = rah rah Nationalism = tribalism = individual will subsumed to the 'good of the nation' = (oh) mob mentality = fascism = communism = opposite of a free society.

Ironically, I believe the concept of the 'borderless society' is the one and only commonality between a freedom movement and international communism.

I am talking of the ideal. 

It is New Zealand's major border, it is the government's responsibility to secure it and defend it. By all means the government can rent it out the buildings that surround it.
But the government can not sell our border.

The government must be landlord of its own border.

If our government is not responsible for NZ borders then why does NZ have a government? If NZ borders are owned by foreigners who are not NZ citizens. NZ citizens are bound to the dictatorship of her foreign owners. NZ has lost her sovereignty.

Apart from being New Zealand's major border, it is a monopoly and New Zealand citizens are potentially bound to the values of foreign dictatorship, which can be bought and sold at whim.

At least I can rest knowing I've not lost as much money as the defrauded individuals who sold out of AIA yesterday morning for over 20% losses after Commissar Cullen made his announcement

Did anyone catch Bruce Sheppard (sp?), chairman of the NZ Shareholders Council, on 'Breakfast' this morning? I've never seen, on air, any statement so scathing of our Finance Minister. As is should be.

Billable hours, Mark, billable hours!

Let us be plain what this thread supports: the Soviet styled absolute control and regulation of economies, societies, by central administrations, on the behest of keeping out 'the foreigner', or saving the population in some way from some type of 'evil'. This is where irrational mob mentality, the absolute hatred of a group based on identity, always leads.

George Orwell writes about dysutopias such as this, not Objectivists, not individuals who want to live a life free from the State.

Stay tuned, I'm taking time out from my wedding to give a full report regarding all my current gripes, over the coming weekend.

It's a Canadian pension plan for Christ's sake.

Has rabies infected this thread or something? 

Although note, there is no negotiation over laissez-faire capitalism: if the Canadian Pension Fund is owned by the Big Daddy of Dubai, it does not matter.

In the context of a war against an enemy who has every intention of doing us in by whatever means possible, it does matter. It matters, because security matters. If there was no war, then it wouldn't matter one iota, but that's not the world we live in.

Callum did provide some sanity, especially in addressing Sandy in a rational and civil manner, something that is absent from your posts.

To promote Government regulation, such as on this insane thread

Government does actually have a legitimate purpose, and there are some contexts where it's legitimate for government to regulate. Sandy isn't advocating socialism across the board here, ala Michael Cullen, she's advocating a defensive response to a specific threat. If she's not seeing that threat correctly, or is mistaken in the type of response that's needed to defend against that threat, then debate that with her.

Lance, the link is spurious, muck raking paranoid bullshit.

Although note, there is no negotiation over laissez-faire capitalism: if the Canadian Pension Fund is owned by the Big Daddy of Dubai, it does not matter.

We are individuals for whom freedom is reliant on a laissez-faire capitalist system, (which is also a very good further answer against the racist rot being peddled here.)

This is just so obvious to me ... I don't get it. Any thread like this. I do not understand how this is happening. And it defeats me.

But hey, big boy, just in case you haven't heard, you better make the most of the capitalist system, because you're paying for the wedding.

"Macquarie is partnered with the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board"

For all I know the "link" may be tenuous and illusory or quite real and significant. All of that data means bupkiss to me I'm afraid. In any case, I hardly think it's a reason to seal off the borders and in effect nationalise "strategic infrastructure" on "sensitive land", especially when those terms are loosely defined to suit the "gummint" of the day.

Thank you for providing some sanity. Although I'll take you to task on one point: the NZ Government shouldn't be buying any private company shares, period.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the pre-condition of freedom for the individual: it is not negotiable in any way. To promote Government regulation, such as on this insane thread, 'to save the people', should only have come from the pen of George Orwell, Karl Marx, et al. Mark this well, the minute we let the individual fall from our focus, and replace him and her with a mob mentality, this thread is what happens, the advocacy for regulation, legislation, and ultimately dictatorship - every damned time.

For your common sense and nose for freedom, you now graduate from page boy to best man at my wedding.

Goodness Sandi, what on earth is wrong with a Canadian investment group buying Auckland International? I'm sure Canada is intent on blowing us to pieces.

And surely, even though Canada is sissier than the US, it's still far better than the goings-on in Europe.

So if the Canadians are acting rationally and getting in on something that's beneficial to them, very well. If the NZ Government really wanted to leave the Airport in NZ hands, they should have got off their butts and BOUGHT THE SHARES.

Christ, they're Canadians!

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

A hugely important announcement.

Yep, speechless, utterly.

No discussion of the facts.

Sorry Richard, I could have such a field day on your preposterous post it would have to be classed as cruelty. So I'll desist.

then do you seriously propose not trading with the richest capitalists on the Earth?

Islamic countries must be some of the unfreest, most corrupt countries on earth. Those who have  their hands on the trillions of petro-dollars that pour in, and who are using that money to build mosques all over the planet, along with buying up western businesses, can hardly be called capitalists. Are the Saudi Royal family, capitalists? Is the nepotism and favouritism that goes on, capitalist? I'm not saying that Sandi is right or wrong on this issue, because I don't know enough to make a decision, but once again, from you Mark, there is no discussion of the facts. There's a rush to pounce and use loaded terms such as "Gulag" and "SS Officer". Sandi might agree with Michael Cullen, but for entirely different reasons. All that matters here, Mark, is what are those reasons, and are those reasons valid. Context is extremely important, but you haven't paused to find the context, you've simply leapt in on your crusade to root out evil. It's hardly constructive.

Let's continue the joke.

When we hand over the reigns of Sandistan to Mr Anderton and the inner circle, Sandi can be promoted to the new Commissar of Company Purity. If any dirty foreign company wants to trade with us, (I don't know why they would, but let say they do), then Sandi can first investigate its shareholdings and cross shareholdings to ensure its blood is pure and of sound ethnic stock.

Well I've had lunch and time to re-consider, and realise I've been as gullible as our American friends.

This was, of course, a joke. Right Sandi?

Good one. Ya'got me. 

Yes, nuts.

Let us be plain what this thread supports: the absolute control of economies by central administrations (on the behest of keeping out 'the foreigner', or saving the population in some way). This is where mob mentality, the absolute hatred of a group based on identity, always leads.

Thank you for so ably, albeit insanely, proving my point, Sandi.

This thread is straight from the Communist handbook, it's aim would make (NZ's) Jim Anderton look like Adam Smith.

But I'm stalking ... well I'm angry. This is 'our' face to the world!

Anyway, weekend. (Has to be this time, I've got to do some work).

This is just nuts!

I don't see where the connection is to the Canadian pension fund

It's starts with 'C' Lance. C is the first letter in Caliph. Caliph sounds like an Arab name. The Canadian Pension Fund must be managed by Arabs = black men = Muslims = Jihadists.

I know, I know. Stalking. But provoked.

Weekend.

I don't see where the connection is to the Canadian pension fund...

This is not an anti-capitalism issue.

If you recognise that capitalism is the economic structure for freedom, you will not have a 'free society' without it, that you do not have a correctly functioning capitalist system without free flow of capital across borders, then do you seriously propose not trading with the richest capitalists on the Earth?

Have you heard of the tail wagging the dog: vis a vis Hong Kong?

Jesus. I've agreed not to stalk, even it it means ending up in one of Sandi's Gulags, so I'm going to go and stick my head in a big fucking bucket of iced water. Back in the weekend.

Bloody hell.

Would someone please like to raise a defence of capitalism to SS Officer Sandi, albeit she will not be able to read it through her blinkers. Sandi agrees with Cullen: alarm bells? Yes?