3 ms·

> They could collectively own a given area -- form a corporation and buy a neighborhood. They do, it's called a municipal corporation, and it makes it decisio

> They could collectively own a given area -- form a corporation and buy a neighborhood. They do, it's called a municipal corporation, and it makes it decisions through voting. Even better, you don't even need to be a homeowner to influence the decision of this corporation -- anyone living there is allowed to vote. This cuts both ways -- people who 'didn't invest' also have a voice in property development, precisely through that same democratic process that you seem to consider so illegitimate. > it's exercising naked political power to take property rights from people that bought them simply because they want to and they have the votes. I mean -- if you really want to live in a free-market paradise, there are plenty of places that don't practice much zoning, like Houston. Anyone who buys real estate in the Bay Area ought to research exactly what the local laws in the area are first, and if they don't that's on them.

bradleyjg 9y ago
> precisely through that same democratic process that you seem to consider so illegitimate. In ancient Athens a plebiscite could exile any citizen. Do you consider that a legitimate exercise of democratic power? > I mean -- if you really want to live in a free-market paradise Is it fun to beat up strawmen? Believing the public policy ought to be driven by appeals to public reason and not naked special pleading is more Rawls than Rand.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  > In ancient Athens a plebiscite could exile any citizen. Do you consider that a legitimate exercise of democratic power? Absolutely, it was part of the social contract and certainly understood by any citizen that their continued membership in the body public rests at the pleasure of the the public will. Even today, it's the right of sovereign nations to claim or revoke citizenship as they please > Believing the public policy ought to be driven by appeals to public reason I agree that public policy ought to be driven by reason, but presuming that you have reason on your side, when 'reason' just so happens to also be nakedly self-serving, doesn't seem very honest. Either it's ok to vote and agitate for your self-interest (including yourself), or it's not. You can't say 'it's evil for homeowners to want what's good for themselves', but then not apply that same standard to yourself.

bradleyjg 9y ago

> precisely through that same democratic process that you seem to consider so illegitimate. In ancient Athens a plebiscite could exile any citizen. Do you consider that a legitimate exercise of democratic power? > I mean -- if you really want to live in a free-market paradise Is it fun to beat up strawmen? Believing the public policy ought to be driven by appeals to public reason and not naked special pleading is more Rawls than Rand.

smallnamespace 9y ago
> In ancient Athens a plebiscite could exile any citizen. Do you consider that a legitimate exercise of democratic power? Absolutely, it was part of the social contract and certainly understood by any citizen that their continued membership in the body public rests at the pleasure of the the public will. Even today, it's the right of sovereign nations to claim or revoke citizenship as they please > Believing the public policy ought to be driven by appeals to public reason I agree that public policy ought to be driven by reason, but presuming that you have reason on your side, when 'reason' just so happens to also be nakedly self-serving, doesn't seem very honest. Either it's ok to vote and agitate for your self-interest (including yourself), or it's not. You can't say 'it's evil for homeowners to want what's good for themselves', but then not apply that same standard to yourself.