3 ms·

My argument is for stronger private property rights, the elimination of state-enforced zoning, fewer regulations, and the right to build whatever kind of housin

My argument is for stronger private property rights, the elimination of state-enforced zoning, fewer regulations, and the right to build whatever kind of housing you want on property you own, which can be characterized as "communist" to the extent that words have no meaning. Your position is that the state should use central planning to determine which kinds of economic activity are allowed on which parcels and then restrict property rights accordingly. The call is coming from inside the house.

foobarian 4y ago
There are plenty of suburbs* formed thanks to strong property rights where individuals came together and set up zoning rules of their own. Take this far enough and you end up way on the other side, with the state forbidding any zoning rules at all. * Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk
- dionidium 4y ago
  > Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk Yeah, it's an awful term, because it refers to hundred-year-old densely-populated urbanized areas that directly abut core cities whose borders were artificially locked into place in the 19th Century, and to greenfield interstate-offramp developments, and just about everything in between. But, just to address your "way on the other side" scenario: forbidding zoning is exactly what the state should do. You don't get to have democracy for core rights. It doesn't matter if everybody in the neighborhood votes to restrict property rights. They're not up to a vote, just like you can't vote to restrict freedom of speech. It's not subject to a vote. The right to build housing on my own private property is very clearly, in my view, protected by the U.S. Constitution and restricting that right is plainly a taking. I don't care what Euclid says. It was wrongly decided.

foobarian 4y ago

There are plenty of suburbs* formed thanks to strong property rights where individuals came together and set up zoning rules of their own. Take this far enough and you end up way on the other side, with the state forbidding any zoning rules at all. * Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk

dionidium 4y ago
> Note that the way we are using this word is pretty vague and may be contributing extra crosstalk Yeah, it's an awful term, because it refers to hundred-year-old densely-populated urbanized areas that directly abut core cities whose borders were artificially locked into place in the 19th Century, and to greenfield interstate-offramp developments, and just about everything in between. But, just to address your "way on the other side" scenario: forbidding zoning is exactly what the state should do. You don't get to have democracy for core rights. It doesn't matter if everybody in the neighborhood votes to restrict property rights. They're not up to a vote, just like you can't vote to restrict freedom of speech. It's not subject to a vote. The right to build housing on my own private property is very clearly, in my view, protected by the U.S. Constitution and restricting that right is plainly a taking. I don't care what Euclid says. It was wrongly decided.