4 ms·

Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. In which case, your comment makes no sense.

Suppafly 2y ago
>Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. The free market sorta means that anyone is going to use any means possible to fuck over their competition, I don't see how this situation is incompatible with that.
- rogerrogerr 2y ago
  “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence. Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence and will arrest you for violating land use restrictions. An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence No, free markets aren’t equivalent to anarchy and every state action isn’t tantamount to violence. This is an ambiguity in the concept of free markets, which is why we’re having a linguistic versus conceptual discussion.
  - ConspiracyFact 2y ago
    Property rights themselves are backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So no, the free market doesn’t exclude violence, it requires it. (I’m not saying that capitalism uniquely requires violence in order to function, but libertarians like to pretend that it’s an exception.)
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    > “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence How can contracts be enforced without coercive force if one party decides not to follow the agreement?
abofh 2y ago
The owner of the land sold it with restrictions that benefitted them. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > owner of the land sold it with restrictions that benefitted them. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell This is an obvious grey area on the abrogation of property rights.
- aliasxneo 2y ago
  I'm not an economist, but the first definition that came up for me was: > an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. And the word unrestricted is underlined. It seems to me that land use restrictions (I mean, it's literally in the name) are directly working against this philosophy.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    Unrestricted in this sense means that both parties are able to deploy their capital as they choose, and specifically without outside requirements. In this case someone took a piece of capital (land), and traded most of the rights, but not all to someone else. The buyer took the deal knowing that they hadn't purchased unrestricted use of that land, but instead a limited use of the land. Both parties agreed to the deal, and no other party restricted their actions, or unfairly restricted competition. No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms.\ An example of a great non-market restriction would be: you can't enforce any land use restriction covenants.
    - aliasxneo 2y ago
      That is interesting; I can see it from that perspective. I suppose when I read "unrestricted competition," I infer it to mean that any contractual agreement created for the purpose of limiting competition would be regulated to maintain the free market. I'm under the impression that this is the reason for most of the anti-monopoly regulation that currently exists. Outside of regulation of anti-monopolistic regulations, I don't think a free market (where competition isn't hindered) could develop? Alas, I could be in over my head, but I guess I don't interpret "free market" to mean anarchy (no regulation).
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
They’re similar to Islamic perpetual trusts, waqfs. I remember read a book that argued that capital being uselessly tied up in them explains part of the downfall of the Islamic golden age. (Also, dividing property among all descendants versus keeping estates intact to a single offspring.)
Terr_ 2y ago
> Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. Depends, should you be "free" to offer terms on land you own, and to "free" to accept those terms when purchasing? Whenever people talk about "free markets", it often embeds a sneaky internal contradiction between (A) the freedom to operate without worrying about secrets and strange restrictions, versus (B) the freedom to create secrets and strange restrictions on others. That pattern is a pet-peeve of mine: People will celebrate a "free market" as being theoretically optimal when everyone has perfect information about prices and deals... Then the next day others will pooh-pooh concerns over cartels, because a "free market" enables defectors to make secret deals with hidden prices. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases they ended up being the same people.
mullingitover 2y ago
The restrictions are contracts between two parties, not the state imposing them, so it's 100% the free market. The state meddling in the market would be if two parties agree to a contract, and then one party gets the state to pass a law that changes the terms of the contract to the benefit of one party. Like 'right to work laws,' for example.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  No, “free market” doesn’t quite mean the same thing as “no state restriction on private contacts”. I mean, those concepts are usually correlated, but not in this case. For a more obvious example: if all the companies that sell smartphones agreed to form a cartel to raise prices, the state preventing them from making that agreement would make the market for smartphones more free, not less.
- mmooss 2y ago
  The free market isn't anarchy, but free competition unrestricted by those with market power. For example, the state meddles with monopolies because monopolies hinder the free market.
- sooheon 2y ago
  Land ownership is state granted monopoly. This is antithetical to free markets.
fzeroracer 2y ago
Land use restrictions are purely in the spirit of the free market. It's an agreement between two individuals or corporations on land usage as part of the sales agreement. Imposing a restriction on this means that the government is saying that these two individuals cannot conduct private business in a certain way. Now do I agree with this? Hell no, land use restrictions should be legislated into oblivion and companies should not be able to make flagrant abuse of monopolistic behavior to destroy essential businesses for towns. But this is as pure of a free market interaction as you can get, with all the downsides.
singleshot_ 2y ago
You were (and are) free to either buy or not buy land encumbered by a restrictive covenant, and of course the price of the parcel is influenced accordingly.

Suppafly 2y ago

>Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. The free market sorta means that anyone is going to use any means possible to fuck over their competition, I don't see how this situation is incompatible with that.

rogerrogerr 2y ago
“Free market” usually excludes the use of violence. Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence and will arrest you for violating land use restrictions. An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence No, free markets aren’t equivalent to anarchy and every state action isn’t tantamount to violence. This is an ambiguity in the concept of free markets, which is why we’re having a linguistic versus conceptual discussion.
- ConspiracyFact 2y ago
  Property rights themselves are backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So no, the free market doesn’t exclude violence, it requires it. (I’m not saying that capitalism uniquely requires violence in order to function, but libertarians like to pretend that it’s an exception.)
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence How can contracts be enforced without coercive force if one party decides not to follow the agreement?

abofh 2y ago

The owner of the land sold it with restrictions that benefitted them. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> owner of the land sold it with restrictions that benefitted them. That's pretty much free market in a nutshell This is an obvious grey area on the abrogation of property rights.
aliasxneo 2y ago
I'm not an economist, but the first definition that came up for me was: > an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. And the word unrestricted is underlined. It seems to me that land use restrictions (I mean, it's literally in the name) are directly working against this philosophy.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Unrestricted in this sense means that both parties are able to deploy their capital as they choose, and specifically without outside requirements. In this case someone took a piece of capital (land), and traded most of the rights, but not all to someone else. The buyer took the deal knowing that they hadn't purchased unrestricted use of that land, but instead a limited use of the land. Both parties agreed to the deal, and no other party restricted their actions, or unfairly restricted competition. No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms.\ An example of a great non-market restriction would be: you can't enforce any land use restriction covenants.
  - aliasxneo 2y ago
    That is interesting; I can see it from that perspective. I suppose when I read "unrestricted competition," I infer it to mean that any contractual agreement created for the purpose of limiting competition would be regulated to maintain the free market. I'm under the impression that this is the reason for most of the anti-monopoly regulation that currently exists. Outside of regulation of anti-monopolistic regulations, I don't think a free market (where competition isn't hindered) could develop? Alas, I could be in over my head, but I guess I don't interpret "free market" to mean anarchy (no regulation).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

They’re similar to Islamic perpetual trusts, waqfs. I remember read a book that argued that capital being uselessly tied up in them explains part of the downfall of the Islamic golden age. (Also, dividing property among all descendants versus keeping estates intact to a single offspring.)

Terr_ 2y ago

> Do you mean free market? Because I feel like land use restrictions are antithetical to a free market. Depends, should you be "free" to offer terms on land you own, and to "free" to accept those terms when purchasing? Whenever people talk about "free markets", it often embeds a sneaky internal contradiction between (A) the freedom to operate without worrying about secrets and strange restrictions, versus (B) the freedom to create secrets and strange restrictions on others. That pattern is a pet-peeve of mine: People will celebrate a "free market" as being theoretically optimal when everyone has perfect information about prices and deals... Then the next day others will pooh-pooh concerns over cartels, because a "free market" enables defectors to make secret deals with hidden prices. I wouldn't be surprised if in some cases they ended up being the same people.

mullingitover 2y ago

The restrictions are contracts between two parties, not the state imposing them, so it's 100% the free market. The state meddling in the market would be if two parties agree to a contract, and then one party gets the state to pass a law that changes the terms of the contract to the benefit of one party. Like 'right to work laws,' for example.

School-Cotton 2y ago
No, “free market” doesn’t quite mean the same thing as “no state restriction on private contacts”. I mean, those concepts are usually correlated, but not in this case. For a more obvious example: if all the companies that sell smartphones agreed to form a cartel to raise prices, the state preventing them from making that agreement would make the market for smartphones more free, not less.
mmooss 2y ago
The free market isn't anarchy, but free competition unrestricted by those with market power. For example, the state meddles with monopolies because monopolies hinder the free market.
sooheon 2y ago
Land ownership is state granted monopoly. This is antithetical to free markets.

fzeroracer 2y ago

Land use restrictions are purely in the spirit of the free market. It's an agreement between two individuals or corporations on land usage as part of the sales agreement. Imposing a restriction on this means that the government is saying that these two individuals cannot conduct private business in a certain way. Now do I agree with this? Hell no, land use restrictions should be legislated into oblivion and companies should not be able to make flagrant abuse of monopolistic behavior to destroy essential businesses for towns. But this is as pure of a free market interaction as you can get, with all the downsides.

singleshot_ 2y ago

You were (and are) free to either buy or not buy land encumbered by a restrictive covenant, and of course the price of the parcel is influenced accordingly.