For the past few months I have been engaged in creating the justification for abolishing the current system of cities as socialist corporations to replace them with a free market in urban property. I first responded to some confused soul who wanted to abolish all city planning by pointing out how urbanism could be done as a for-profit enterprise. I then provided empirical evidence of successful outcomes of private management of urban property, as well as evidence of irresponsibility and unaccountability for public, elected management of urban property. Finally I demonstrated how the creation of sprawl and the degeneration of the city was caused by the politicization of urban property.
Important points to note:
- The low incomes of city planners is a result of their inability to convert their expertise into real valuable goods for the consumer, the cause of this powerlessness being political obstruction and bureaucracy.
- The political process of decision-making does not in any way reflect the preferences of individual people, and only their choices expressed through the free market can be assumed as such.
- Deregulation is not what creating a free market for urban property will result in, and in fact deregulation is in part the cause of the degeneration of the city. Property must always be regulated by its owners in order to create the maximum value from it. The political process fails at regulating the city because it is limited to bureaucracy and quantitative laws, while the most important issues in urbanism are essentially qualitative.
Now that I have made my case demonstrating the superiority of the private for-profit system, I want to turn the burden onto you and ask you to outline where your objections to this reform originate. I will then respond to these objections and elucidate the solutions. (BKM this is the thread to call me an ersatz randian feudalist.)