2 ms·

> means that property rights do not exist. As property rights are the basis of free markets, it's important that we understand there is no free market Surpris

> means that property rights do not exist. As property rights are the basis of free markets, it's important that we understand there is no free market Surprise! The libertarian dream of free market property rights and doing whatever you want doesn't really exist in many ways, such as, randomly chosen: a) you need a drivers license to operate a car on public roads b) if you build a new house or office building, its electrical wiring needs to be done by a licensed/bonded contractor and meets standards of your local city or county electrical inspection and the NEC c) if you build gas lines in the same place it also gets inspected and needs to meet certain standards d) that new toyota you bought from the local dealer is subject to a whole host of federal vehicle safety regulations before its manufacturer is allowed to sell in the the usa e) the entire electrical grid in your area is likely regulated by some state and federal level entities that have an interest in it not falling over on its face, like the texas-regulated energy grid during their major winter storm event a while back. f) the burger you ate for lunch came from a local food-health/safety inspected restaurant and the beef from a supplier that's also subject to regulations and inspection g) no, just because you own the land doesn't mean you can start a leather tannery or fat rendering/reduction industrial operation on a small scale in your suburban house's back yard, stinking up the neighbors. I could go on...

int_19h 4y ago
OP is not presenting a libertarian dream of unregulated markets, though. They're merely saying that whatever restrictions on the acquisition and use of property exist, they must be predictable, and they must apply to everyone equally, which is impossible when there are rather arbitrary subjective factors such as "compatibility with the neighborhood" in the process.
function_seven 4y ago
a) Getting one is a routine process that requires objective standards be met, and costs nearly nothing. b) Again, these are statewide and nationwide standards that are not subject to local administrative bodies' whims. If your wiring meets standard, you're allowed to do it. You don't have to apply to the county and have them decide that the rest of the neighborhood uses Romex, so your MC armored cable won't "fit". c) Again, these are uniform standards. No subjectivity or rigourous meetings required for each installatino d) See my responses above. All manufacturers are playing on the same field, and don't have to get permission for every single aesthetic change. If Toyota decides they're offering fuchsia as a color option next year, then can just do that. So long as the clearly-defined standards are met. e) See my responses above f) But the county doesn't get to dictate which ingredients can be paired together. If my local hipster burger joint wants to offer a peanut butter and sardines burger, they can just do that. No government review required on how tasty it will be. g) Agreed! Free market ideologies are not the same as anarchism, but many people on seem to conflate the two. For a market to be free, there needs to be a minimum of information asymmetry and a minimum of uncertainty. All participants should ideally know the rules of the game as they enter. If I buy a property, I should have full confidence that I can build A or B or C, and also be clear that X, Y, or Z will be prohibited. A free market doesn't mean an unfettered one. It just means that pricing is transparent, rules are objective (and known!), and the so called "playing field" is level. There are a minimum of case-by-case decisions, or rules that favor one class over another.

int_19h 4y ago

OP is not presenting a libertarian dream of unregulated markets, though. They're merely saying that whatever restrictions on the acquisition and use of property exist, they must be predictable, and they must apply to everyone equally, which is impossible when there are rather arbitrary subjective factors such as "compatibility with the neighborhood" in the process.

function_seven 4y ago

a) Getting one is a routine process that requires objective standards be met, and costs nearly nothing. b) Again, these are statewide and nationwide standards that are not subject to local administrative bodies' whims. If your wiring meets standard, you're allowed to do it. You don't have to apply to the county and have them decide that the rest of the neighborhood uses Romex, so your MC armored cable won't "fit". c) Again, these are uniform standards. No subjectivity or rigourous meetings required for each installatino d) See my responses above. All manufacturers are playing on the same field, and don't have to get permission for every single aesthetic change. If Toyota decides they're offering fuchsia as a color option next year, then can just do that. So long as the clearly-defined standards are met. e) See my responses above f) But the county doesn't get to dictate which ingredients can be paired together. If my local hipster burger joint wants to offer a peanut butter and sardines burger, they can just do that. No government review required on how tasty it will be. g) Agreed! Free market ideologies are not the same as anarchism, but many people on seem to conflate the two. For a market to be free, there needs to be a minimum of information asymmetry and a minimum of uncertainty. All participants should ideally know the rules of the game as they enter. If I buy a property, I should have full confidence that I can build A or B or C, and also be clear that X, Y, or Z will be prohibited. A free market doesn't mean an unfettered one. It just means that pricing is transparent, rules are objective (and known!), and the so called "playing field" is level. There are a minimum of case-by-case decisions, or rules that favor one class over another.