4 ms·

This is stupid on so many levels. There's the obvious idea that governments shouldn't be involved in telling people what they can do on private property (I can

This is stupid on so many levels. There's the obvious idea that governments shouldn't be involved in telling people what they can do on private property (I can see the argument that community associations or designated areas could have special regulations, and I expect they already do, there are no billboards on the pyramids). Almost worse (as it is always for dumb ideas of this kind) is the enforcement. Are we going to have a whole system of definitions of what is billboard (when is it just a poster), jurisprudence, inspectors, etc. The kind of 0th order thinking of '"they" should ban X' has no relationship with reality, even if it sounds like a good thing if you dont think about it (personally I hate advertising) This is the same class of stupid idea that makes no practical sense that we see in various populist political campaigns Edit: I have to admit, I didn't anticipate so many seemingly angry (and condescending - the guy talking about animal cruelty laws and "we encode complex things...", lol) replies. Anyway, the above is just my perspective, I guess if you want your tax dollars working towards something like this, there is a pathway to a billboard free future

tayistay 4y ago
Hmm if it’s so unenforceable, why have some cities managed to get rid of the billboards?
sha256sum 4y ago
I come from a place that bans billboards. Arguably it’s fairly practical, no one seems upset about it and property owners seem to get by. Also there don’t seem to be issues of enforcement because everyone is more or less on the same page about it.
soneca 4y ago
In São Paulo it works. Not many things work around here, so I guess it is pretty practical to regulate and enforce.
cgrealy 4y ago
> There's the obvious idea that governments shouldn't be involved in telling people what they can do on private property The government literally tells people what to do on private property all the time. See zoning rules, smoking bans in restaurants, alcohol sales to minors, food safety laws, animal cruelty... the list is almost endless. I can't even fathom the kind of thinking that suggests that laws end on a property boundary. > Are we going to have a whole system of definitions of what is billboard Yes. It's not that hard. We encode complex things in regulations all the time.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > The government literally tells people what to do on private property all the time. That doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing.
  - cgrealy 4y ago
    Never said it was. History was (and continues to be) littered with terrible law. If you want to argue that government shouldn't regulate billboards, fine, that's a valid argument. But the general principle of governments setting rules over private property is pretty well established, I would have thought.
wpietri 4y ago
> on private property The whole point of billboards is that they are not private. If people want to put up billboards in their houses, godspeed.
aussiesnack 4y ago
> the obvious idea that governments shouldn't be involved in telling people what they can do on private property Officially propagandised ideology is always the very "obvious" sea we swim in. > This is the same class of stupid idea that makes no practical sense Yet it happens, and it works, and it makes life better.
xupybd 4y ago
I'm with you on this one. The less the government messes with freedom the better. I'd rather a bit of visual pollution over a loss of even a small amount of freedom.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  I would agree with you, if - and only if - the government also refrains from messing with my freedom to deface those billboards, so they no longer pollute the commons.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    Can I then deface your house as I don't like the color?
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      In this hypothetical world of maximal freedom, I suppose you could. I couldn't very well stop you, and the government obviously wouldn't be messing with your freedom to paint other people's houses. The less the government messes with your freedom the better, eh? I suppose that if I didn't like the color, perhaps I'd repaint your house in retaliation. What a mess it'd all be.
      - xupybd 4y ago
        Obviously total freedom is not possible or desirable. You'd need to be free to kill others. My position is that visual pollution is not such a great concern that we should restrict how someone paints their building.
        marssaxman 4y ago
        Well, okay: now we can have a reasonable discussion. It's not actually about freedom, it's about how big a deal it is to pollute the commons with advertising. This is a question on which reasonable people may have differing opinions. How are we to sort it out? A majority vote might be one mechanism. Selection of representatives who can research the issue and negotiate compromises might be another.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mikkergp 4y ago
I'm not a total libertarian nor a total communist, but I don't know why an elected government is worse than an unelected corporation at deciding what gets done with private property.

tayistay 4y ago

Hmm if it’s so unenforceable, why have some cities managed to get rid of the billboards?

sha256sum 4y ago

I come from a place that bans billboards. Arguably it’s fairly practical, no one seems upset about it and property owners seem to get by. Also there don’t seem to be issues of enforcement because everyone is more or less on the same page about it.

soneca 4y ago

In São Paulo it works. Not many things work around here, so I guess it is pretty practical to regulate and enforce.

cgrealy 4y ago

> There's the obvious idea that governments shouldn't be involved in telling people what they can do on private property The government literally tells people what to do on private property all the time. See zoning rules, smoking bans in restaurants, alcohol sales to minors, food safety laws, animal cruelty... the list is almost endless. I can't even fathom the kind of thinking that suggests that laws end on a property boundary. > Are we going to have a whole system of definitions of what is billboard Yes. It's not that hard. We encode complex things in regulations all the time.

yellowapple 4y ago
> The government literally tells people what to do on private property all the time. That doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing.
- cgrealy 4y ago
  Never said it was. History was (and continues to be) littered with terrible law. If you want to argue that government shouldn't regulate billboards, fine, that's a valid argument. But the general principle of governments setting rules over private property is pretty well established, I would have thought.

wpietri 4y ago

> on private property The whole point of billboards is that they are not private. If people want to put up billboards in their houses, godspeed.

aussiesnack 4y ago

> the obvious idea that governments shouldn't be involved in telling people what they can do on private property Officially propagandised ideology is always the very "obvious" sea we swim in. > This is the same class of stupid idea that makes no practical sense Yet it happens, and it works, and it makes life better.

xupybd 4y ago

I'm with you on this one. The less the government messes with freedom the better. I'd rather a bit of visual pollution over a loss of even a small amount of freedom.

marssaxman 4y ago
I would agree with you, if - and only if - the government also refrains from messing with my freedom to deface those billboards, so they no longer pollute the commons.
- xupybd 4y ago
  Can I then deface your house as I don't like the color?
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    In this hypothetical world of maximal freedom, I suppose you could. I couldn't very well stop you, and the government obviously wouldn't be messing with your freedom to paint other people's houses. The less the government messes with your freedom the better, eh? I suppose that if I didn't like the color, perhaps I'd repaint your house in retaliation. What a mess it'd all be.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      Obviously total freedom is not possible or desirable. You'd need to be free to kill others. My position is that visual pollution is not such a great concern that we should restrict how someone paints their building.
      - marssaxman 4y ago
        Well, okay: now we can have a reasonable discussion. It's not actually about freedom, it's about how big a deal it is to pollute the commons with advertising. This is a question on which reasonable people may have differing opinions. How are we to sort it out? A majority vote might be one mechanism. Selection of representatives who can research the issue and negotiate compromises might be another.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mikkergp 4y ago

I'm not a total libertarian nor a total communist, but I don't know why an elected government is worse than an unelected corporation at deciding what gets done with private property.