Image courtesy of Sheik Yer’mami

Somewhat on this subject:
This has just come up on slashdot.

"Adam Liptak of the New York Times reports today about the plight of a Spanish tour operator whose domain names have been embargoed by his domain name registrar (eNom). They pulled his domains after they discovered the tour operator's name on a US Treasury blacklist. It turns out he packages tours to Cuba largely for European tourists who can legally travel there, unlike Americans. The article cites 'a press release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted. It said Mr. Marshall's company had helped Americans evade restrictions on travel to Cuba and was 'a generator of resources that the Cuban regime uses to oppress its people.' It added that American companies must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to do.' The only part of the operator's business in the United States is his domain name registration; all other aspects of his business lie outside the United States."

Lest we forget the lovely, loyal Suma, answers to your questions are here and here .

As this is an interesting topic in it's own right, might I suggest, Sandi (without romantic jest), that we take the border topic to the sideshow thread.

I would love to see what others think on this topic ...

It is not bloody immoral Sandi!

The government pays rent in buildings the length and breadth of the land to all sorts of landlords and the quality, protocols, and laws, governing the provision of government services are provided and set independent of whoever owns the fudging buildings.

The borders would have been just as secure as they are now.

IT is the ONLY point of entry to the North Island.

(Wellington is not capable as an alt, Ohakea is but with a total lack of facilities)

What the hell? I give up! I'm going for a walk.
Sandi, you may not realise it, but you're agreeing with Cullen for all the same absurd, xenophobic, nationalist reasons.

Airports are NOT borders in the same sense as geographical borders - i.e. the outline of a country. They are a point of entry, that can potentially be located on any piece of private property and facilitated by anyone - given certain provisions regarding immigration and biosecurity. Soooooo any bastard can own one as far as I'm concerned!

And since we're being absurd - does this mean "forriners" can't own coastal property?

The NZ government must pay rental for the offices of its border officials to landlords that are not NZ citiziens.

The NZ Government is a mere tenant of its own border?

That is immoral.

NZ's autonomy is abstract? That is an alarming thought.

"How can biosecurity and immigration operate within an abstract border of which the government does not own? Do they have autonomy within this abstract?"

Yes! They Do!

Now, can we please put down the Socialism and get back to being rational?

This is a bit like a thread I put up some while ago about depleting fisheries brought about by private companies.

Note that Linz put that issue nicely into context for me with the single sentence: You can't extol freedom when it suits and eschew it when it doesn't.

I think there is a certain amount of linkage between our two questions.

A question I sometimes wrestle with, although it's actually got a simple answer, but I just don't like the implications of it all the time.

The directors of the company are responsible only to their shareholders. Period.

[Obviously, though, actions of the corporate, as with the individual, must not breach the non initiation of force principle, which a free state's criminal code would ideally enforce.] 

Do we ban the private building of international airports and seaports?

Not at all. However, the borders must be clearly defined and the government must hold sovereignty over them.

Our borders are the responsibility of our government.

The airport is not a border by virtue of geography, it is a border because it is an international airport right? So by that rationale - that the gov must own our borders - any seaport or land used for building an international airport becomes eminent domain to be rented back to the original owners. Or do we ban the private building of international airports and seaports?

Absurd and unacceptable.

I'll give my answer to your question in the next post Suma.

And I'm not arguing the other topic here, other than stating my position.

Ahem.

Borders (thinking) = nations = rah rah Nationalism = tribalism = individual will subsumed to the 'good of the nation' = 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.

But that's all I'll be drawn on that. I don't want to get into another lovers tiff with this close to our nuptials.

Now, back to Suma's actual topic ... my next post.

No they can't, on account of they don't own it. It is a border, not because of geography, but by virtue of being New Zealand's major international airport. Whoever owns that airport, "owns" our border. The gov is still responsible for the abstract border (biosecurity and immigration),

How can biosecurity and immigration operate within an abstract border of which the government does not own? Do they have autonomy within this abstract? If the government does not own this abstract then there is no legal jurisdiction within this geography.

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.

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.

Huh? The land where the airport is located is not an intrinsic "border".

But the government can not sell our border.
No they can't, on account of they don't own it. It is a border, not because of geography, but by virtue of being New Zealand's major international airport. Whoever owns that airport, "owns" our border. The gov is still responsible for the abstract border (biosecurity and immigration), and anyone running an international airport is still going to be subject to those constraints be they Arabic, Canadian, Kiwi, American, or Australian

Auckland is the major city of NZ Lance, do Aucklander's have to make the 1 hour flight to Christchurch before they fly to LAX of SYD?

None of my damn business. I'm not the one who builds or owns these "strategic assets" or "vital infrastructures". What exactly are you afraid of Sandi? That unless the gov blocks this sale to the Canadian Pension Fund, some Islamists, going back through a long list of links, are going to blackmail NZ into implementing Sharia law by shutting down "our" airport?

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.

It's not mine to sell or forbid from sale...

"But it's private property."

Its our major border, you are happy that we have sold New Zealand?

We're potentially "bound" to the values of a local "dictatorship". I'm not sure what you mean by monopoly either. Technically, it is not NZ's only international airport.

Auckland is the major city of NZ Lance, do Aucklander's have to make the 1 hour flight to Christchurch before they fly to LAX or SYD?

The case of Auckland Airport is totally different. 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.

But it's private property. We're potentially "bound" to the values of a local "dictatorship". I'm not sure what you mean by monopoly either. Technically, it is not NZ's only international airport.

Customers values and ethics should ideally be held very seriously by business's who wish to promote patronage.

However, if customers have no morals, values, or indeed ethics, then this is reflected upon their choice of custom and those that supply it.

Business's are totally aware of values and ethics of customers and are very clever at mis-leading customers with product information/source and trading under various names and guises.

A business with integrity & pride for its name & products would insist that its name be displayed prominently on its products. It would stand by its products and be forth right in its labelling.

Supermarkets for example are very keen to mass produce products with no reference of who made them and the product sources. Home Brand, Signature, Pams etc. These products are made from producers who have zero pride or respect in what they produce which is reflected in the fact that they
are not concerned that their name is represented anywhere in the final product.

The case of Auckland Airport is totally different. 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.

They can trade with who they will, but they can reap the damn consequences when their PR plummets .

Google should know better anyway.