3 ms·
Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other gove
by falcolas 2y ago
Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation.
Beyond enforcement, the government has no real part in the former. Except perhaps not disallowing it. But we have rights to specific parts of usage excluded from land sales all the time - water rights being a particularly gnarly one.
- gruez 2y ago>Having two opinions on two different forms of land use restriction is not necessarily inconstant. Especially since one is a form of contract law, the other government regulation. Shouldn't he rail harder against the former than the latter? A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. The same can't be said for government regulation, especially for people who want to move into an area but are blocked by NIMBYs.
- falcolas 2y agoPersonally I'd agree. But his having different priorities than us doesn't make him a hypocrite.
- shkkmo 2y ago> A contract is agreed to by two willing parties. That doesn't matter at all, "two willing parties" doesn't make a contract legal. Neither of those willing parties are the ones harmed being harmed by the anti-competitive contracts.