Resentment Against Luxury? Goverrnment Can’t Fix This Problem Either

1 jeff bennett says...

You can consider my statements as dismissive and bombastic.

They're not. They're directly to the point. You just don't want to admit it. You think you have a better use for the land and you're willing to use the force of government. You're willing to gather a big group of people, people that have no money invested in these properties, and demand that those that control the weapons (government) do your bidding.

If your group is big enough, you win. Or do you? You've just become no better than a thief. Worse in my opinion, because your'e hiding behind a voting both. No risk to you! At least the thief runs the risk of being caught.

It's too late here for me to check back tonight. Will do so tommorrow.

Posted at 9:38 p.m. on May 2, 2007

2 Yeago says...

Firstly, let's keep in perspective: there is no land. This is a hypothetical argument we are having.

Now, my point is not that Yeago Knows Best Always (you say "[I] think [I] have a better use for the land..."), my point is that those who say Market Knows Best Always are shortsighted, in my opinion. I think that, as citizens, the design of our cities should be dictated not only by property rights and the choices of the land owning class (this connects to the larger issue of Gentrification). Obviously you fall to the right of this issue. I call it democracy, you call it "thievery" "hiding behind a voting booth". =)

Connecting back to the original point: the people who have to live with those choices should, in my opinion, be involved. Obviously, in Rockwell's article there is some public dissent for the development of luxury condos in this area (people are printing shirts, after all). He dismisses their dissent by saying that they could live in those luxury condos if they wanted to, they're just being wasteful and its just a matter of giving up their cell phones, laptops, and binge drinking. I think this is an unfair generalization--many college students do not fit this mold at all (including me). Rockwell is making good points, but the rhetoric he uses to arrive at these points are ignorant, IMHO.

He also dismisses them and champions the wealthy luxury-condo buyers as the saviors of this situation by saying that they have more to contribute to the University than the students do. I disagree--I see these "binge-drinking" tuition paying students as the economic engine for the University--not the second-wave gentrifiers.

If you think Rockwell is right, and that the University really has these people to thank for its well-being, and that these students are 'choosing' not to live in luxury apartments, you are definitely entitled. However, if you do justify these claims then there really isn't much further we can speak about this usefully. =) You're going to tell me I'm wrong, I'm going to tell you that's unjust and from there its just cyclical.

Posted at 12:03 a.m. on May 3, 2007

3 jeff bennett says...

First, there's a difference between "solution" and "system". No one, and no system, can ever claim to predict the best "solution" to any specific problem. The best they can do is use experience and eliminate "stupid" decisions ( but even stupid decisions work on occasion - people to win lotteries). So I do NOT say "Market Knows Best Always". I say the market is the best SYSTEM. Both from an economic and a moral point.

"I think that, as citizens, the design of our cities should be dictated not only by property rights"

And my point is that you either fail to understand, or are unwilling to admit, that your opinion advocates the use of violence. That is the alternative to the "market".

I advocate non-violence. You advocate violence.

If you can agree to those two sentences, or are willing to learn why they are true, then maybe we can continue.

Posted at 6:01 a.m. on May 3, 2007

4 Yeago says...

You're speaking much too generally. The market is the best system for what? If indeed the market is the best system, do you believe in "market failure"?

Obviously you don't believe a market is right if it includes humans as its products (slavery). But do you believe in social security? Anti-monopoly legislation? Production of nuclear facilities? Taxes for public services such as police and fire? The market does not produce these, in fact the market is so far a very bad system for achieving either of these.

You're absolutely right I do fail to understand how city-planning is an act of violence on the part of the government. Could you please elaborate? Link me to further reading? Give me examples? Violence is a rather strong characterization of the act of placing some restrictions on property rights. Are there some examples of people being injured or killed by this 'violence'?

Also, you didn't answer me. Do you agree that poor students who fail to live in luxury condos are 'choosing'? And, do you believe that tuition paying students are a relatively small contributer to Universities than local condo owners?

Posted at 4:07 p.m. on May 3, 2007

5 jeff bennett says...

The market is the best system for what?

For economics. And for that one I am intentionally vague since it includes anything people value, from food to entertainment.

here's a good basic lecture from an economics professor. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0503g.asp

do you believe in “market failure”? Not really. It often works more slowly than people would like, but it will almost always succeed. There are only two failures I know of, both trivial. One is movie ticket pricing, the other is Italian soccer. Read James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds". The most successful of course is the airplane. We all know about the Wright brothers. How many know of the governments counter part? http://aerostories.free.fr/precurseurs/langley/page2.html

"Obviously you don’t believe a market is right if it includes humans as its products (slavery)." Of course not - that's not free market, it involves violence.

"But do you believe in social security? Anti-monopoly legislation? " NO "Production of nuclear facilities?" YES - privately "Taxes for public services such as police and fire? " Strictly speaking - no. But I'm pragmatic and willing to overlook those. At least as long as police are only enforcing laws against violence.

"The market does not produce these" You're not only getting vague, you're mixing topics. At the very least, nuclear power plants have been privately (at least as private as utilites get) built. But just because the others haven't been produced doesn't mean they can't be. It only means that government solution occured first and crowded out the market. What about private police? Large area - no. Malls, colleges, and many businesses have private security. Homes are serviced by monitoring systems. Who responds to a burglar faster? The police or the company you pay?

"You’re absolutely right I do fail to understand how city-planning is an act of violence on the part of the government. "

Think of everything, anything that you own. How would you react to being told what you can and can't do with it? What would it take to stop you? This is intentionally vague, think of math - the variable X. It can be anything at all - from where you can wear your jeans on up to what you can build on your property. Now here's where the mistake comes in. Violence INCLUDES a palpable threat. Example - a armed bank robbery in which no one is shot at, or injured. It's considered a violent crime. Why? Because the thief is armed and willing to use those weapons.

How does government enforce its laws? Violently. You either obey or they will eventually use their weapons. Of course, they are so overwhelming that no citizen, just like no bank teller, will challenge them. The subtle part is that it is not an "all or nothing" situation. They will begin enforcement with fines. If that works, they stop. Provided you stop. If you don't they keep fining you until you run out of money. Then it escalates. Eventually, citizens surrender. On rare occasions people resist to the death. And that's my point - government will, without a doubt, escalate to the point of death.

"Give me examples?" How many do you want? A good one is the Kelo case. You can google that one easily enough. Those people owned their homes and where thrown out for a commercial developement!! Why? The government thought it was an improvement ( in otherwords they would get more tax money ). Is that obvious enough to call VIOLENT?

Democracy is a tool. Nothing more nothing less. It can, and does, have legitimate uses. But when one group of people vote to take something from another group it becomes a weapon and that's why I call it theft.

"Do you agree that poor students who fail to live in luxury condos are ‘choosing’? And, do you believe that tuition paying students are a relatively small contributer to Universities than local condo owners?"

I thought this was a hypothetical situtation. But here's my answer: It's none of my business. The proper ones to decide are those involved. Not me and not you. Let everyone lead their own life.

Posted at 8:18 p.m. on May 3, 2007

6 Yeago says...

Anyone who thinks they are being 'pragmatic' when they concede that police/fire services are neccessary is quite far to the right indeed. I suppose I think the same thing you do about the Democracy that I do about the market. Its a tool, it has legitimate uses, and people routinely use it as a weapon.

You can still answer my question and be hypothetical. Do you or do you not think that, in general, students contribute less to a college than alumni? Do you think that people who do not live in luxury condos do so because they choose not to?

Hmm.... writing off market regulation because of a few obscure acts of eminent domain is a large jump indeed. Market regulation simply lays out a framework for what one can and can't do. Your stance reminds of a Gary Larsen comic where there is a dingo farm next to a nursery. What you're saying is the equivalent of, 'who are you to tell the dingo-farmer he can't set up shop next to a nursery?'. Ideologically, its noble. Practically, you can't really be any more boneheaded. =)

I think your ideology is interesting, but not nearly as pragmatic as you believe. Under ideal conditions, and guaranteed social mobility, your stance works perfectly fine. I think in general it promotes a positive, motivated stance. But this assumes everyone is born with the same resources, and has the same capabilities. This is something history tells me is just not so. If you were to remove the Social Security Act from history you would create a large amount of human suffering and poverty; thankfully, modern governments have been moving away from the neoliberal model for decades.

I am wondering, however. What is your stance on inheriting wealth? What do you personally intend to do with your fortune when you die?

Posted at 5:56 a.m. on May 4, 2007

7 jeff bennett says...

"quite far to the right indeed." Go here: http://www.theadvocates.org/

Try the little test. Left-Right is inadequate to describe people. That's caused much confusion in the past. In case you haven't guessed, I'm at the top.

A true free market scenario can NOT be used as a weapon. By definition all transactions are voluntary. No such market exists today. Large aspects of many fields are voluntary and we can examine their benefits. Take food for example. Not fully free, there are government subsidies for the farmers, tariffs, and regulations. But free enough to see the benefits. Full supermarkets, bountiful food. At least in countries that are mostly free market. Not so in other places in the world.

"writing off market regulation because of a few obscure acts of eminent domain is a large jump indeed. "

Wait til you've owned a home for decades and the government comes along and says "get out". I think your opinion will change. Hopefully it won't, you'll just have to develope your sense of empathy. Put yourself in the other persons shoes and imagine what it felt like. After all, isn't the purpose of government to protect citizens? Or is it to protect all but a few? And it's far from obscure, there are literally thousands across the country. Try starting your search here: http://www.ij.org/private_property/index.html

"‘who are you to tell the dingo-farmer he can’t set up shop next to a nursery?’." Actually, there's a good old-fashioned way to handle this. As I said, I don't believe in violence. Therefor, if the farmer does no harm, there's no foul. If he does, he owes restitution. The tricky part is how to collect it non-violently. It can be done, but I don't see it becoming commonplace in my lifetime. But at least enforcing that restitution would be a response, not an initiation. That's the moderate libertarian attitude.

"guaranteed social mobility," What else could there be but guaranteed social mobility? Notice that the borders are around countries?

"I think in general it promotes a positive, motivated stance. " Thank you.

"But this assumes everyone is born with the same resources, and has the same capabilities."

Not at all. No matter what the system is, some people will fare better than others. It can be based on political favors, or merit, but there will never be equality of results. The best that can be achieved is equality of opportunity. Then why not chose the system with the best overall performance. Then, even the lesser performers are better off.

"Social Security Act " You've got a lot of reading to do. Without it, a different set of people might suffer, but the Social Security Act is creating plenty of suffering for people that don't deserve it. And wasting a lot of money in the process.

Inheritance: IF I have a fortune. Hopefully, I won't have to take Social Security, I really don't want other peoples money. Any left over goes to my son, possibly some charities, I'm not sure. However, it definitely should not be taxed! I've already paid taxes on it. It's mine, I earned it. I can give it away today, what's the difference if I write down instructions for someone else to carry out my wishes when I die?

Posted at 6:16 p.m. on May 4, 2007

8 Yeago says...

<em>"A true free market scenario can NOT be used as a weapon. By definition all transactions are voluntary. No such market exists today."</em>

Right. And until such time decisive action will need to be created to account for market imperfections/failures. Free markets, at the very least, do not account for pollution. The fishing industry is a perfect example of a market that, with no restrictions, was allowed to swallow itself. It has largely been saved as a result of ITQ (Individual Total Quota) systems (gov't regulated). Moreover, I'm not sure how you get around but the free market never produced a single highway in America. These things must be taken care of by central control. This does not equate to socialist dreamland.

<em>"Wait til you’ve owned a home for decades and the government comes along and says “get out”."</em>

You continue to latch on to this extreme situation of Eminent Domain. I never argued for E.D. Land-use policy is not E.D. But even E.D. isn't as extreme as you say--its not as if there is no compensation.

<em>“Social Security Act ” You’ve got a lot of reading to do. Without it, a different set of people might suffer, but the Social Security Act is creating plenty of suffering for people that don’t deserve it. And wasting a lot of money in the process.</em>

I obviously do have a lot of reading to do. Please list for me the suffering victims of the SSA. I'd love to read about them. <em>IF I have a fortune. Hopefully, I won’t have to take Social Security, I really don’t want other peoples money. Any left over goes to my son, possibly some charities, I’m not sure. However, it definitely should not be taxed! I’ve already paid taxes on it. It’s mine, I earned it. I can give it away today, what’s the difference if I write down instructions for someone else to carry out my wishes when I die? </em>

Taxes are debatable but why should your son get a handout? Did he do something while unborn to earn it? Moreover, aren't you taking from him the personal character and aptitude it would take to amass that wealth for himself? How can he possibly become the rags-to-riches hero of the market if he's given an inheritance? -S

PS: Thank you for the additional reading. I didn't realize you're a fan of harry brown. I think he's got a lot of very good policies. Still, that whole top-down-left-right-center political/economics table has yet to catch on outside "the top" . That was no mistake. =).

Posted at 6:52 p.m. on May 4, 2007

9 jeff bennett says...

"The fishing industry is a perfect example of a market that, with no restrictions, was allowed to swallow itself. It has largely been saved as a result of ITQ (Individual Total Quota) systems (gov’t regulated)."

Ah yes, that old commons "thing". Always used as a support for government intervention. Before ITQ, the government was clearly in charge of fishing. DURING their control, the waters were over-fished. Now let's examine ITQ's. They are a form of private property, they can be bought and sold, the government protects that right. Libertarian philosophy holds that protecting property rights is a legitimate function of government, which is exaclty what ITQ's do!!!!

"Moreover, I’m not sure how you get around but the free market never produced a single highway in America."

Sure about that? All I did was google "private toll roads united states" and found these: http://www.reason.org/ps140.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_roads_in_the_United_States

At any rate, once something is done (intentionally vague because it applies to anything not just roads), why do it again? The need has been satisfied! Taking away the original act (this time a road) does not mean that it will never be built! Do you honestly believe the airplane would never have been invented if it weren't for the Wright brothers? Same logic.

"Land-use policy is not E.D. "

Really? Think of a bundle of sticks. Does it become right to take just one instead of the whole bundle?

gotta go

Posted at 6:51 a.m. on May 10, 2007

10 Yeago says...

I'm glad we agree on the benefits of ITQs to the fishing industry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the gov't was in charge before their institution. Can you justify this claim? I've studied the North Atlantic fishing industry and I've never come across any source with this stance.

I do agree they are a useful form of government regulation because they are a market device but you don't seem totally understand ITQs, the way that you cheer about them. I wouldn't necessarily call them ideally libertarian. The gov't distributes them and is free to revoke them--they are a privilege and not a right. They aren't freely tradeable (you usually can't own more than a certain amount of them). There are a number of other restrictions. They mimic market mechanisms but are clearly a hybrid.

You ought to read that Wikipedia article more carefully. While roadbuilding was a private company venture initially (and we're talking horsecart era), the highway network as we know it has its origins in 40s era war-time gov't directed infrastructure development. Moreover, many of today's 'private' firms are hybrid boards of local government and road-building companies--overwhelmingly the road builders are mere contractors and not directors although there are fledgling projects which deviate from this, often because the government leases it to the private company. Speaking of Eminent Domain, it is routinely necessary for the development of these roads.

I think you're right that things may be built eventually, however, government organizes some things more quicker/efficiently than the market can. This includes development of nuclear facilities, supporting the airline industry, developing and maintaining the highway transportation network, and developing and enforcing pollution controls.

Does it become right to take just one instead of the whole bundle. This indeed is the crux of the problem. My short answer is: I think claiming it is wrong to take a single stick from anyone is just as philosophically extreme and useless as believing the gov't can care for the whole pile of sticks. Government is incompetent and people are short-sighted and selfish. I do respect your view of the market as being inherently efficient, stable, and just. But, like all things, I think it occasionally lapses from these generally good traits. I want to ask you whether you think the gov't bailout of the airline industry post-september 11th was generally a good thing but it would just be opening up another loose end, as you have not responded to several of my other questions. But anyway, I thank you for bringing your perspective here and for the further reading.

Posted at 5:25 p.m. on May 14, 2007