What is the objection to private cities?

[H]

This is not about autocracy versus democracy. It is about liberty versus democracy. A privately-owned business is not autocratic. It is free. It has the freedom to act in order to serve the needs of its clients as best as it can think to do.

What about the employees in that business? Or in this case the citizens in that community? I imagine you will say that they can quit or move… but what if there is not another job, or they can’t afford to move? These employees and citizens are not free at all there is no voice.

[snip]They treat riders like cattle. No private business would ever dare to treat its customers like this. That's what I mean by quality being irrelevant in a bureaucracy.

Why would a private monopoly be any different that a public one? If you live in a private city w/o option and you can't move from for one reason or another that is not a democratic place, then you not only live in a monopoly, but one without voice!

I don't need to pick up a history book. It's in the city planning media itself.

I didn’t say none of them, rather not 'all' of them. Nothing is perfect, but at least there is democracy. What about all the great places that are publicly run? New York, Chicago, Boston to name some big ones, but better yet what about all the wonderful small towns across this land where there are town meetings and all citizens participate in the democracy of planning?

[snip]...most of what they teach at the entry-level are theories that have been debunked by now.

I am aware of current thoughts and theories in economics and planning, as well as other social sciences (with classes in both at the graduate level).

The cities need to know how to run themselves, and they shouldn't be obstructed by politics.

Yes, it is pesky when people have a voice in there gov’t.

It's pointless that cities are run by experts if they can't even keep the streets clean. Even a school-drop-out janitor could run it better than it currently is run.

I am sorry for your city, truly... it sounds pretty well messed up. However, mine runs quite well. Have you considered getting involved or at the extreme, ‘voting with your feet’?

[jaws]

What about the employees in that business? Or in this case the citizens in that community? I imagine you will say that they can quit or move… but what if there is not another job, or they can’t afford to move? These employees and citizens are not free at all there is no voice.

This is the old fallacy of socialism, and it has been demonstrated empirically that government can do nothing about that, and that the problem does not even exist in the first place unless there is government intervention. In the free market there is always something to be done. There is no such thing as "can't afford" to move. "Can't afford" is the same as "don't want" to move. It implies that the costs of moving is greater than the cost of staying, and it implies free choice.

Why would a private monopoly be any different that a public one? If you live in a private city w/o option and you can't move from for one reason or another that is not a democratic place, then you not only live in a monopoly, but one without voice!

There is no such thing as a private monopoly without government force, and regardless cities have never been monopolies. Cities always compete harshly with each other. Look how fast people fled to the suburbs when the central cities began to deteriorate. How much "voice" did people have to stop this deterioration in their city? Absolutely none, so they moved away.

Your claim of voice is empty. People have no voice in politics. Only politicians have a voice. No matter how much people complain that the streets are dirty, full of potholes, there's too much crime, the trains don't run on time, nobody listens to their voice. On the free market, everybody's voice counts. If you want a service someone will provide it for you in exchange for some money. If they fail at providing the service you stop providing them with money. Your voice is absolute. The consumer is sovereign.

I didn’t say none of them, rather not 'all' of them. Nothing is perfect, but at least there is democracy. What about all the great places that are publicly run? New York, Chicago, Boston to name some big ones, but better yet what about all the wonderful small towns across this land where there are town meetings and all citizens participate in the democracy of planning?

New York relies on a subway system built one century ago. When some accident happens, a line that carries millions of people gets shut down for weeks because no one can get the replacement parts anymore. Why haven't they upgraded?

When the system is operational, the extremely privileged workers go on strike, stopping the whole city literally dead in its tracks. Who listens to the voice of New Yorkers? The democracy of planning is a joke. It is the politics of planning, nothing more.

I am sorry for your city, truly... it sounds pretty well messed up. However, mine runs quite well. Have you considered getting involved or at the extreme, ‘voting with your feet’?

People have been voting with their feet and leaving Montreal for Toronto for forty years. The politicians are still running the place into ground. They won't stop until there's nothing left but a ruin, and all the people who invested their lives in this place have lost everything.

You don't think people are involved? You don't think there are citizen groups trying to make changes? Of course there are. They don't succeed because the system is stronger than them. They have no voice. No one listens to them.

There is nothing that gives people a more powerful voice than the free market. It is more democratic than any form of political democracy. Everyone's vote counts on the free market, not just the marginal majority voter.

[H]

I basically see two points that we wont get past here:

1) The issue of democratic voice. You seem to feel that there is not a voice that is heard, I feel there is. You have empirical studies against; I have seen it in action. Time and time again. I have been involved in planning meetings where voices influence the politics of planning you describe (and unfortunately have also seen). Voice and democracy are essential to freedom, if they are taken away, we are no longer free… I don’t want to vote with my feet, I might not want dig up the roots, I want to vote with my vote. I could not do that in the private city I understand you describing.

And this leads to the next point.

2) You state that anybody can and should be able to pick up and move. Moving is expensive. You say that there is no one that cant ‘afford’ to move, only those that don’t ‘want’ to move. By afford I am thinking you mean monetarily as in financial capital, and I disagree and think there are several folks in this position, but assuming for a second you are correct here, what about social (here is the qualitative pest again) capital?

I think we could agree on some of the efficiency issues that need fixing you bring up, but I am sorry, when is comes to private versus public cities, give me a voice, give me representation, give me democracy for all.

I do see some of your points, but still disagree with your stance. I think that we the people should activate and invest in our public system and fix the parts that are broke instead of pulling out and investing elsewhere (what I am hearing you say). There are clearly faults but at least it is free, driven by the people and striving for benevolence, which no, does not always coincide with profit. A private city sounds like a terrible place to me, a cold profit driven place without citizen input or a sense of community. A place where financial capital investments out weigh social capital investments. To me this is worse than all the horrors that you dredge up about public municipal governments.


*this slight change in subject does not retract any of the statements I have previously made concerning planning or what happens when private cities fail, we wont agree there either, but have beat those topics to death.

[jaws]

I basically see two points that we wont get past here:

1) The issue of democratic voice. You seem to feel that there is not a voice that is heard, I feel there is. You have empirical studies against; I have seen it in action. Time and time again. I have been involved in planning meetings where voices influence the politics of planning you describe (and unfortunately have also seen). Voice and democracy are essential to freedom, if they are taken away, we are no longer free… I don’t want to vote with my feet, I might not want dig up the roots, I want to vote with my vote. I could not do that in the private city I understand you describing.

Yes you could. The value of your vote is much greater in a private city than a democratic city, because you carry the full amount of this vote with you. If you leave, the city loses your money. They will do whatever you want them to do to keep this money, so long as your demands are reasonable.

A politician does not care if you stay or leave. All he cares about is taking as much as he can while he is elected. Your vote only has value as long as you are the marginal voter who decides the election for him. That means that most people have no voice at all.

Planning meetings illustrate this point quite well. The only people whose voices are heard in planning meetings are those who can afford to show up to the meeting. Those who have important things to do in their lives, like taking care of their family or going to their jobs, cannot go to a planning meeting, cannot debate the politicians, cannot be heard.

One last voice who isn't heard is that of the potential resident, who would like to move to the city if it was more attractive to him. A private owner would seek out this voice and do everything possible to attract him, but politicians ignore this voice.

2) You state that anybody can and should be able to pick up and move. Moving is expensive. You say that there is no one that cant ‘afford’ to move, only those that don’t ‘want’ to move. By afford I am thinking you mean monetarily as in financial capital, and I disagree and think there are several folks in this position, but assuming for a second you are correct here, what about social (here is the qualitative pest again) capital?

Social capital, even if there is such a thing, is not in any way comparable to government and politics. Social capital can fully exist on the free market, and in fact can only exist on the free market.

I think we could agree on some of the efficiency issues that need fixing you bring up, but I am sorry, when is comes to private versus public cities, give me a voice, give me representation, give me democracy for all.

I want to give you all those things. You do not understand what they are. You believe that politics and government provides these. That is not true. You say you want democracy for all, but government only provides democracy to the victorious majority. It suppresses the voice of the minority. That is not for all, it is for some and not others.

I do see some of your points, but still disagree with your stance. I think that we the people should activate and invest in our public system and fix the parts that are broke instead of pulling out and investing elsewhere (what I am hearing you say). There are clearly faults but at least it is free, driven by the people and striving for benevolence, which no, does not always coincide with profit. A private city sounds like a terrible place to me, a cold profit driven place without citizen input or a sense of community. A place where financial capital investments out weigh social capital investments. To me this is worse than all the horrors that you dredge up about public municipal governments.

A place where the streets are clean and the trains run on time is not a horror, no matter how deluded you are about the outcome of private enterprise. You believe of the current system "at least it is free." That is completely false. It is not free in terms of freedom, and it is not free in terms of costs either. It is massively expensive, and when you say that "we the people" should "activate and invest," you are imposing a cost on these people who do not want to be burdened with this. You are reducing their freedom by imposing a task that they do not want upon them. You are creating costs with a system that is wasteful of scarce resources and produces bad environments.

The end is moot anyway. The system cannot be fixed. The system is wrong. No matter how much effort you demand of the people who you claim should have their voices heard, there is nothing they can do to improve the environment past this system. We need a system where people have what they want delivered to them. They only speak their voice softly and they get their goods. Where citizen input is listened to and responded to immediately. Where the community has the time to live as a community instead of having to attend planning meetings to defend their homes from ridiculous plans. That is the free market.



Let me challenge you with something. You say that a vote is someone's voice. But what if someone feels their voice is not being heard by a vote? Let's give people the right to buy and sell this vote. We will convert the city by issuing to each voter one share worth one vote. Then we will let people sell this share. Those people whose voice is not being heard will be able to sell this share to someone who knows their voice is being heard. Then that voice will be heard even more. That is perfectly fair, isn't it?

[H]

Yes you could. The value of your vote is much greater in a private city than a democratic city, because you carry the full amount of this vote with you. If you leave, the city loses your money. They will do whatever you want them to do to keep this money, so long as your demands are reasonable.

A politician does not care if you stay or leave. All he cares about is taking as much as he can while he is elected. Your vote only has value as long as you are the marginal voter who decides the election for him. That means that most people have no voice at all.

I simply don’t agree. Don’t you believe that every vote counts? Why would a politician not care if you leave, they want to receive your vote again do they not and they want your taxes do they not?

Planning meetings illustrate this point quite well. The only people whose voices are heard in planning meetings are those who can afford to show up to the meeting. Those who have important things to do in their lives, like taking care of their family or going to their jobs, cannot go to a planning meeting, cannot debate the politicians, cannot be heard..?

Who shows up (or the lack of) is a problem, but one that is continually being worked on with new forms of media (tv and internet broadcasts) and email and letter and phone call input. You can take of your family and have input at the same time, from the comfort of your home even.

One last voice who isn't heard is that of the potential resident, who would like to move to the city if it was more attractive to him. A private owner would seek out this voice and do everything possible to attract him, but politicians ignore this voice.

Part of cities business is attracting business and people and market to such, seeking input and visioning from current and potential residents. Something a smart politician (they do exist) does not ignore.

Social capital, even if there is such a thing, is not in any way comparable to government and politics. Social capital can fully exist on the free market, and in fact can only exist on the free market.

Why would it only exist on the free market? Social capital exists when people put down roots...friends, family, co-workers, etc. when you move you shift this capital you have built and have to start over, like a family member baby sitter down the street you trust for example. There are several socials reasons why people can not ‘afford’ to move.

I want to give you all those things. You do not understand what they are. You believe that politics and government provides these. That is not true. You say you want democracy for all, but government only provides democracy to the victorious majority. It suppresses the voice of the minority. That is not for all, it is for some and not others.

I believe it is you that does not understand. You see, democracy is for the people by the people.

The end is moot anyway. The system cannot be fixed. The system is wrong. No matter how much effort you demand of the people who you claim should have their voices heard, there is nothing they can do to improve the environment past this system. We need a system where people have what they want delivered to them. They only speak their voice softly and they get their goods. Where citizen input is listened to and responded to immediately. Where the community has the time to live as a community instead of having to attend planning meetings to defend their homes from ridiculous plans. That is the free market.

That is a sad outlook you have. The system is not as bad as you make it out to be. Why would you want to give up your voice and live in a place were someone else makes the decisions with no public input, no visioning... where your only course of action is to move? A free market, sure, a clean city, probably, but a just city or a fair city I doubt.

Let me challenge you with something. You say that a vote is someone's voice. But what if someone feels their voice is not being heard by a vote? Let's give people the right to buy and sell this vote. We will convert the city by issuing to each voter one share worth one vote. Then we will let people sell this share. Those people whose voice is not being heard will be able to sell this share to someone who knows their voice is being heard. Then that voice will be heard even more. That is perfectly fair, isn't it?

I’ll bite: One man, one vote is fair. If you sell this vote, you shift this dynamic and it is no longer equitable.

[passdoubt]

I don't think Jaws is concerned with equity in the way you and me are, if he believes that people who make mistakes shouldn't be supported by people who make the right decisions.

[jaws]

I simply don’t agree. Don’t you believe that every vote counts? Why would a politician not care if you leave, they want to receive your vote again do they not and they want your taxes do they not?

First of all if they want more taxes they can just raise taxes. They have this power, and they never hesitate to use it. Secondly a politician who I voted against would not only not care if I left, he would be glad of it! It would be one fewer person who opposes him in his search for power, thus making his office more secure.

A private enterprise does not consider its clients that way. Any business is good business.

Who shows up (or the lack of) is a problem, but one that is continually being worked on with new forms of media (tv and internet broadcasts) and email and letter and phone call input. You can take of your family and have input at the same time, from the comfort of your home even.

This is bogus. Even if you make transportation costs zero, you are still imposing time costs, leisure costs and intellectual costs. There's no fixing the system.

Part of cities business is attracting business and people and market to such, seeking input and visioning from current and potential residents. Something a smart politician (they do exist) does not ignore.

Smart politicians are certainly everywhere in politics. Unfortunately they apply their smarts at retaining and improving their positions, not the business. A smart politician can go very far this way. Just look at the political success George W. Bush has experienced compared to his success at actually running things. The smartest politicians will never be as successful for the citizen as a private entrepreneur. Even if he is perfectly good and ethical, his goals are totally different. He must maintain his office. He must maintain public opinion in the present, or he will not be re-elected to complete his goals in the future.

Why would it only exist on the free market? Social capital exists when people put down roots...friends, family, co-workers, etc. when you move you shift this capital you have built and have to start over, like a family member baby sitter down the street you trust for example. There are several socials reasons why people can not ‘afford’ to move.

It can only exist on the free market because government is the use of force, and the use of force destroys social capital and corrupts society.

The social reasons for which you claim people cannot afford are reasons for which people do not want to move. They believe it is more valuable for them to stay than to leave. They make a free choice in this matter. However, they do not have the right to use government in order to force others to support this choice they have made. This destroys social capital. You only focus on what is seen and ignore what his unseen. You believe it is unfortunate that people have to abandon their roots. I do as well. You want others to support these people by the use of force. I believe this is even worse.

I believe it is you that does not understand. You see, democracy is for the people by the people.

I will reference Thomas Jefferson and the founders of the USA who declared that governments must rule with the consent of the people. Democracy is just a decision-making process that works not quite well. It is not for the people by the people. It is the majority's decision imposed upon the minority. That is why the founders made consent important in their declaration. If the majority imposes upon the minority something they do not consent to, the minority's liberty must be respected.

City politics are not even about the majority, since most people do not get involved. There is only rule by specific pluralities. The people have no voice.

That is a sad outlook you have. The system is not as bad as you make it out to be. Why would you want to give up your voice and live in a place were someone else makes the decisions with no public input, no visioning... where your only course of action is to move? A free market, sure, a clean city, probably, but a just city or a fair city I doubt.

This is what you don't understand: in a private city, just as in any private business, someone else makes decisions for your interests. They do so because they want your business. They have to serve your needs and wants. They have to listen to your input. They need a vision of the future that outcompetes their rivals. If I go to a private hotel, they will treat me like a king. I can make any ridiculous demand from room service and they will try to get it for me if they can. If I take the subway, I might sit in a pool of urine. How is this a just or fair city? What exactly is a just and fair city?

I don't want to give up my voice. I have no voice. I want my voice to be heard, and today's system does not accomplish this.

I’ll bite: One man, one vote is fair. If you sell this vote, you shift this dynamic and it is no longer equitable.

But people sell their vote because they know that their vote is useless, so your claim that one man, one vote is fair is erroneous. All votes do not have the same value to every person. Some people find their vote worthless, some find it very useful. It is unequal and unfair. If we allow people to exchange their votes, then the value of every vote will become equalized.

I don't think Jaws is concerned with equity in the way you and me are, if he believes that people who make mistakes shouldn't be supported by people who make the right decisions.

I believe that people who make the right decisions should not be forced to support people who make mistakes. If they want to do so voluntarily, that is perfectly fine.

That is the fallacy of social-democracy, that people can be forced to help each other. It doesn't work. It supports only bureaucracies, generates waste, and creates even more misery.

[H]

First of all if they want more taxes they can just raise taxes. They have this power, and they never hesitate to use it.

Really? Then why don’t all cities just jack up the taxes to the point where there are nor more budget problems? Maybe because it drive business and people away?

A private enterprise does not consider its clients that way. Any business is good business.

You put a lot of faith in the private sector that I have just not see them earn… any business is good business, money more profit is better business. Companies only care about you until you don’t have any more money to be there customer. Most people that go into politics and PLANNING are there to make a difference…. To make the world a better place. Just ask the folks here why we are planners.

This is bogus. Even if you make transportation costs zero, you are still imposing time costs, leisure costs and intellectual costs. There's no fixing the system.

Not with an attitude like that. The offer is on the table for people to participate. If their leisure and intellectual costs are too high, then they have made their choice not to participate. At least the choice is there to make.

Smart politicians are certainly everywhere in politics. Unfortunately they apply their smarts at retaining and improving their positions, not the business. A smart politician can go very far this way. Just look at the political success George W. Bush has experienced compared to his success at actually running things. The smartest politicians will never be as successful for the citizen as a private entrepreneur. Even if he is perfectly good and ethical, his goals are totally different. He must maintain his office. He must maintain public opinion in the present, or he will not be re-elected to complete his goals in the future.

You have a very negative and false view of politicians. There are one’s like who you describe and then there are others that are running cities. (See New York’s mayor Bloomberg). In fact, most of the city mayors I run across are good people with the city’s best interest in mind (even if their opinion is different than mine).

It can only exist on the free market because government is the use of force, and the use of force destroys social capital and corrupts society.

The social reasons for which you claim people cannot afford are reasons for which people do not want to move. They believe it is more valuable for them to stay than to leave. They make a free choice in this matter. However, they do not have the right to use government in order to force others to support this choice they have made. This destroys social capital. You only focus on what is seen and ignore what his unseen. You believe it is unfortunate that people have to abandon their roots. I do as well. You want others to support these people by the use of force. I believe this is even worse.

Again unless force, there is the choice, your right, but it is one that some can not “afford” (socially or economically) to make, even if they "want" to.

Regarding force, I assume you are implying the use of Eminent Domain? Because other than that they are able to stay and activate to change something they dislike (as opposed to in the private city you describe). Let me ask you: How would your utopia private city deal with Eminent Domain? How are public projects in the name of health, safety and the public welfare implemented when private property is involved?

While I am asking, how does your envisioned private city deal with subsidized issues like public transportation, affordable housing and community outreach programs for the lower social-economic class? Because the city I see you describe so far has only been for the middle class and up, people with money. How does a private city take care of its underprivileged? Its homeless? Its addicts that need help? The people with no money that you don’t want to subsidize, how do you help them in your vision?

I will reference Thomas Jefferson and the founders of the USA who declared that governments must rule with the consent of the people. Democracy is just a decision-making process that works not quite well. It is not for the people by the people. It is the majority's decision imposed upon the minority. That is why the founders made consent important in their declaration. If the majority imposes upon the minority something they do not consent to, the minority's liberty must be respected.

City politics are not even about the majority, since most people do not get involved. There is only rule by specific pluralities. The people have no voice.

People only don’t have a voice in democracy when they chose to be silent.

This is what you don't understand: in a private city, just as in any private business, someone else makes decisions for your interests. They do so because they want your business. They have to serve your needs and wants. They have to listen to your input. They need a vision of the future that outcompetes their rivals. If I go to a private hotel, they will treat me like a king.

Because you can pay for it. What about the people that cant pay for it? Its seems you are missing that element. Is your utopia not for everyone? Is it some sort of elitist segregation plan?

What exactly is a just and fair city?

One where everyone has equal voice (even those that may be poor)

I don't want to give up my voice. I have no voice. I want my voice to be heard, and today's system does not accomplish this.

You do have a voice. I have a voice.

Maybe you are chosing not to use your voice? Have you tried? Have you been to the public meetings? Have you spoken with the public official? Have you spoken with the media? Rallied the citizens? Put up or shut about this, because I am not buying what you are selling. You and everyone else has a voice in democracy. Even if the guy you voted for did not get elected.

But people sell their vote because they know that their vote is useless, so your claim that one man, one vote is fair is erroneous. All votes do not have the same value to every person. Some people find their vote worthless, some find it very useful. It is unequal and unfair. If we allow people to exchange their votes, then the value of every vote will become equalized.

If someone views there vote as useless, that is a misconception, not a problem with the voting system. Every vote counts the same in the ballot box. No vote is useless.

I believe that people who make the right decisions should not be forced to support people who make mistakes. If they want to do so voluntarily, that is perfectly fine.

That is the fallacy of social-democracy, that people can be forced to help each other. It doesn't work. It supports only bureaucracies, generates waste, and creates even more misery.

So what about the people that need help in your private city? You kick them out if they no longer pay their bills and no on wants to help? Where will they go?

In a civilized society, we must try and leave no one behind… even those that made the ‘wrong’ choices. If you don’t like that then get out of civilized society and go live on an island of in a cave somewhere by yourself and then you don’t have to help anyone ever again.

[jaws]

Really? Then why don’t all cities just jack up the taxes to the point where there are nor more budget problems? Maybe because it drive business and people away?

Taxes are already pretty high, and still the city can't keep itself afloat. The city of Montreal found the solution, it asked the government for the right to tax the suburbs. Suburban taxes went into the stratosphere, causing many retired couples to have to sell their homes and move away. This is exactly what you complain the free market does, and this was done by the democratically-elected government. Where was their voice?

You put a lot of faith in the private sector that I have just not see them earn… any business is good business, money more profit is better business. Companies only care about you until you don’t have any more money to be there customer. Most people that go into politics and PLANNING are there to make a difference…. To make the world a better place. Just ask the folks here why we are planners.

The private sector makes a difference everyday. Every dollar of profit it makes is difference it has made in people's lives. They can't make profits unless their clients want to reward them with their money. That is a real, tangible difference. It is real value created.

I don't know why you capitalize planning. Planning is making plans. Private business makes plans all the time. The difference between free market planning and government planning is that free market planning has a clear purpose: satisfy the consumer. Government planning is aimless, spending resources on things that have no clear value, which is why it is always a failure. That is, it can fail only when the plan is actually carried out. A plan is worthless if no one plans to execute the plan, and this is what government city planning is today. Lots of plans, no results.

Not with an attitude like that. The offer is on the table for people to participate. If their leisure and intellectual costs are too high, then they have made their choice not to participate. At least the choice is there to make.

So we see what you think of your fellow citizens after all. If they don't care about urbanism and simply want something nice delivered to them without effort, they are scum.

What would you think if this same process was applied to the car industry. If you don't go to car planning meetings, you don't deserve the nice car that you want. Or the health care industry. If you don't go to hospital board meetings, you don't deserve good health care.

This system is inneficient, wasteful, and worst of all, morally bankrupt. You have no right to demand people sacrifice themselves to get goods they deserve. Other people have no right to ask you to sacrifice yourself to get goods you deserve. Why do you think urbanism is the exception? It isn't.

You have a very negative and false view of politicians. There are one’s like who you describe and then there are others that are running cities. (See New York’s mayor Bloomberg). In fact, most of the city mayors I run across are good people with the city’s best interest in mind (even if their opinion is different than mine).

As I already said it doesn't matter how good they are, being a politician gives you completely different goals than being a private entrepreneur. A private entrepreneur doesn't even need to be a good person. He just needs to deliver the goods to his consumers. Evil people cannot do harm on the free market, but they can and often do with democracy (see George W Bush).

Regarding force, I assume you are implying the use of Eminent Domain? Because other than that they are able to stay and activate to change something they dislike (as opposed to in the private city you describe). Let me ask you: How would your utopia private city deal with Eminent Domain? How are public projects in the name of health, safety and the public welfare implemented when private property is involved?

See a thread on Eminent Domain.

While I am asking, how does your envisioned private city deal with subsidized issues like public transportation, affordable housing and community outreach programs for the lower social-economic class? Because the city I see you describe so far has only been for the middle class and up, people with money. How does a private city take care of its underprivileged? Its homeless? Its addicts that need help? The people with no money that you don’t want to subsidize, how do you help them in your vision?

Because you can pay for it. What about the people that cant pay for it? Its seems you are missing that element. Is your utopia not for everyone? Is it some sort of elitist segregation plan?

People don't need to be subsidized. There are whole industries created to efficiently serve the poorest segments of society. What do you think Wal-Mart is? Wal-Mart made large quantities of cheap goods available to people who could never even think having that kind of access beforehand. Wal-Mart found a way to make it work and makes huge profits from it. It made a real difference in people's lives, and they love Wal-Mart for it.

There is money to be made serving the poor as well as the rich. There is no problem of subsidization in the private city. Mass transit will be provided if it is profitable and people want to ride it. Car transportation will be provided if it is profitable. Bicycle transportation will be provided. Housing will always be abundant, as the only reason we need subsidized housing is because regulation has prevented the market from providing affordable housing. The government used the outcome of its own failed interventions to justify the creation of another failed intervention. That's the whole reason we have subsidized mass transit. If we were to remove the subsidized mass transit, people would all turn to the subsidized roads. The roads would be overwhelmed with traffic congestion. Instead of making each form of transportation equally profitable as the free market does, the government subsidizes each form of transportation. This results in extreme oversupply of transportation: suburban sprawl.

People only don’t have a voice in democracy when they chose to be silent.

Maybe you are chosing not to use your voice? Have you tried? Have you been to the public meetings? Have you spoken with the public official? Have you spoken with the media? Rallied the citizens? Put up or shut about this, because I am not buying what you are selling. You and everyone else has a voice in democracy. Even if the guy you voted for did not get elected.

What is this nonsense? People are complaining, loudly, to everyone who will listen! That's why it's always in the local news. Stop blaming the victims of democracy. The system itself is wrong, not the voters.

Even hear the expression "you can't fight city hall?" It's not meant to be ironic.

So what about the people that need help in your private city? You kick them out if they no longer pay their bills and no on wants to help? Where will they go?

In a civilized society, we must try and leave no one behind… even those that made the ‘wrong’ choices. If you don’t like that then get out of civilized society and go live on an island of in a cave somewhere by yourself and then you don’t have to help anyone ever again.

You would help them wouldn't you? So would almost anyone else. Even if the government isn't forcing people to help each other, people will still help each other. The difference is they will do so on their own terms, not by the threat of force. They will not waste resources. They will only help the neediest people.

The thing you don't know about force is that it hurts the needy. When you want to force people to help each other, you need an apparatus for the application and distribution of force. This is the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy ends up consuming all the resources that are meant to go the needy. And it doesn't even provide help correctly anyway. Here's another local news story in Montreal this week: a man suffering from Hepatitis is living in an unsanitary dump of an apartment. First of all he must live in these conditions because rent controls prevent his landlord from raising rents unless he gets a new tenant, therefore the landlord makes living conditions as unhealthy as possible to encourage him to move away. This is the first way in which forced welfare has hurt him. He goes to seek housing assistance to get a government low-rent apartment (known here as Habitation Loyer Modique, HLM). The bureaucrats tell him that since he is sick he gets a special treatment, he will only be placed on a waiting list for two years instead of four! The bureaucrats are being paid full salaries by the government. These salaries could be used to help this man instead of funding an apparatus of force, but they aren't! This is the second way in which forced welfare has hurt him. The TV news crew then went to inspect the HLM where they want to move him. It is in a condition just as bad as the apartment he wants to leave! The government cannot even improve his living conditions after two years on a waiting list, despite an army of well paid, well fed bureaucrats. This is the third strike. There is no such thing as forced welfare. It is a myth.

You harm the less fortunate. You leave them behind. You take their voice away. You cause them to lose their social capital. Take responsibility for these acts!

[H]

You harm the less fortunate. You leave them behind. You take their voice away. You cause them to lose their social capital. Take responsibility for these acts!

I do all this, do I?

...well not tonight, I am leaving for the weekend in the morning and maybe will find some more time to argue with your rants when I return. But I doubt it, because frankly I have said my piece, all of which I stand firm, and there really is little that has not been said about this topic at this point. Besides, the fact that you keep making things up and putting words in my mouth is getting old... if you want to argue your point, you shold, but argue against something that I actually say or something that is true even, not what you pretend I said or you pretend is true...

[jaws]

I do all this, do I?

You actively support and promote it. You are responsible.

...well not tonight, I am leaving for the weekend in the morning and maybe will find some more time to argue with your rants when I return. But I doubt it, because frankly I have said my piece, all of which I stand firm, and there really is little that has not been said about this topic at this point. Besides, the fact that you keep making things up and putting words in my mouth is getting old... if you want to argue your point, you shold, but argue against something that I actually say or something that is true even, not what you pretend I said or you pretend is true...

I have not invented anything. All the cases I have pointed out are factual events. I do not put words in your mouth, I simply explain how what you say is supposed to happen is the opposite of what happens in reality. The least you can do is admit that you don't have all the answers, or stay silent. Accusing me of inventing facts is not helping your argument.

[luckless pedestrian]

random thoughts on this thread

I think Jaws needs a job in New England for a few years, right Lee? NH Planner? Massachusetts' Planners? - I love the chaos of Town Meeting - anyone can get elected to any postion, any motion can show up on the floor to be voted upon, anythign can get funded or unfunded, any road can be paved if enough people show up - it really does work

yes, the minority gets screwed but it's st up that way - why should the minority rule?

one of my favorite liens form a town meeting here on a vote that people said wasn't being voted on by enough people that were against it was: hey, the people that run this world are the people that show up

whether it's right or wrong, the best way, the worst way - that's all irrevelant - it's the way the people wanted it and the town really doesn't go to hell in that handbasket because a "bad" decision was made

but in sharp contrast, and I know this is anectdotal, is the microcosm of the private city, the wonders of the homeowner's association - every one I have ever seen in a town I worked in fails miserably - the fights make Town Meetings seem meek and mild - and fairness is not even a concept - that's why when I recommend approval of a condo project, I make sure it's one vote, one unit so it mirrors the chaos of town meeting in the town

and on privatization of cities - this thread is all over the place so I get to be too -

government services do not transfer well to the private sector because government, believe it or not, is not set up to make money - we are here to provide services and fund them just enough to cover those costs - that is the complete opposite of a capitalist society, its mission is to make money, nothing wrong with that, I'd like to make more money myself - but the services the government supplies are not set up to make money - a subway token would have to be 10 bucks for it to make money as an example - and social services? please.. education? forget it

[jaws]

random thoughts on this thread

I think Jaws needs a job in New England for a few years, right Lee? NH Planner? Massachusetts' Planners? - I love the chaos of Town Meeting - anyone can get elected to any postion, any motion can show up on the floor to be voted upon, anythign can get funded or unfunded, any road can be paved if enough people show up - it really does work

yes, the minority gets screwed but it's st up that way - why should the minority rule?

No one should rule. Rule is wrong. Imposing your will on someone is wrong. This is why the private city is the solution. The private city is not ruled by a plurality of politically well organized people. It is run by a single owner for purpose of serving the needs of everyone. Everyone, not just the majority, gets what they want.

but in sharp contrast, and I know this is anectdotal, is the microcosm of the private city, the wonders of the homeowner's association - every one I have ever seen in a town I worked in fails miserably - the fights make Town Meetings seem meek and mild - and fairness is not even a concept - that's why when I recommend approval of a condo project, I make sure it's one vote, one unit so it mirrors the chaos of town meeting in the town

I've already said a thousand times that HOAs aren't private, they're collective organizations existing outside the official government corporate system. You can't compare the behavior of a HOA to that of a for-profit provider.

government services do not transfer well to the private sector because government, believe it or not, is not set up to make money - we are here to provide services and fund them just enough to cover those costs - that is the complete opposite of a capitalist society, its mission is to make money, nothing wrong with that, I'd like to make more money myself - but the services the government supplies are not set up to make money - a subway token would have to be 10 bucks for it to make money as an example - and social services? please.. education? forget it

You're right that the government is not set up to make money, and that's why it can't do anything right. Profit in the economy is not just an incentive, it is a guide. It is direction and information. It tells entrepreneurs what people need the most, and what they need the least or don't need at all. When you eliminate profit, you only produce things whose value can't be determined. That is the economic calculation problem, and is why famous socialist Oskar Lange conceded to Ludwig von Mises that socialism without markets couldn't work. It turns out it couldn't work at all.

This is why the city is a wreck. We have produced roads whose value can't be determined. We have produced parking lots whose value can't be determined. We have produced mass transit whose value can't be determined. We have parks whose value is obviously zero. For all we know it would be much more profitable to shrink all the roads down and provide more subways. Your claim that a subway token would cost 10 bucks to make a profit is false. We don't know what a subway token ought to cost. For all we know if we made it 1 buck everyone would start using the subway, and it would be hugely profitable.

But the most destructive effect of government production is that it isn't aware of quality. Any government service based on distribution force, as opposed to the earning of profit, is run by a bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is controlled by regulation. This regulation can only apply to quantitative problems. Maybe the subway would be hugely profitable if it was clean, safe, ran on time, and most critically, was comfortable. You wouldn't even have to change the fares and more people would start using the subway, but the incompetent government administration cannot think of trying to fix these problems. It simply cannot conceive of quality.

Everything the government produces is bad because of that. Education doesn't teach children. Social services employs bureaucrats to tell the needy there's no help available. The reason for that is that there is no profit to guide production. There is no profit to tell entrepreneur what, where and how to produce. There is no profit to inform us of the scarcity of goods. It cannot work without profit.

[H]

The least you can do is admit that you don't have all the answers.

Nobody has all the answers.

[luckless pedestrian]

No one should rule. Rule is wrong. Imposing your will on someone is wrong. This is why the private city is the solution. The private city is not ruled by a plurality of politically well organized people. It is run by a single owner for purpose of serving the needs of everyone. Everyone, not just the majority, gets what they want.
I've already said a thousand times that HOAs aren't private, they're collective organizations existing outside the official government corporate system. You can't compare the behavior of a HOA to that of a for-profit provider.


You're right that the government is not set up to make money, and that's why it can't do anything right. Profit in the economy is not just an incentive, it is a guide. It is direction and information. It tells entrepreneurs what people need the most, and what they need the least or don't need at all. When you eliminate profit, you only produce things whose value can't be determined. That is the economic calculation problem, and is why famous socialist Oskar Lange conceded to Ludwig von Mises that socialism without markets couldn't work. It turns out it couldn't work at all.

This is why the city is a wreck. We have produced roads whose value can't be determined. We have produced parking lots whose value can't be determined. We have produced mass transit whose value can't be determined. We have parks whose value is obviously zero. For all we know it would be much more profitable to shrink all the roads down and provide more subways. Your claim that a subway token would cost 10 bucks to make a profit is false. We don't know what a subway token ought to cost. For all we know if we made it 1 buck everyone would start using the subway, and it would be hugely profitable.

But the most destructive effect of government production is that it isn't aware of quality. Any government service based on distribution force, as opposed to the earning of profit, is run by a bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is controlled by regulation. This regulation can only apply to quantitative problems. Maybe the subway would be hugely profitable if it was clean, safe, ran on time, and most critically, was comfortable. You wouldn't even have to change the fares and more people would start using the subway, but the incompetent government administration cannot think of trying to fix these problems. It simply cannot conceive of quality.

Everything the government produces is bad because of that. Education doesn't teach children. Social services employs bureaucrats to tell the needy there's no help available. The reason for that is that there is no profit to guide production. There is no profit to tell entrepreneur what, where and how to produce. There is no profit to inform us of the scarcity of goods. It cannot work without profit.

your system sounds very close to anarchy and little bit like the movie Brazil - it sounds like people are not making deicsions but profit margins do and that's scary stuff in a society - maybe we'll have Hal run the city then

everyone can never get what they want, that's unrealistic - hence my anarchy statement

why do we need to determine value of a road, or a subway, or a park? isn't it enough of an indicator that people use these items, that their property values rise (which means "profits" for government) if they are adjacent to a park, are in a neighbrohood where the roadways and sidewalks are well maintained, that they are within walking distance form a subway - isn't that economic success by itself within the governmental structure? the property value system is our profit as government so by investing in these things, we are feeding our system

and your somments on education and social services are a baby with the bathwater argument - yes, they aren't working well, but is it accurate to throw them to the private sector to make it better? why not try fix what's wrong first? i'm not ready as a citizen to give up on these government services just yet

i'm not disregarding what you are saying, i am trying to understand what you are trying to solve

[jaws]

your system sounds very close to anarchy and little bit like the movie Brazil - it sounds like people are not making deicsions but profit margins do and that's scary stuff in a society - maybe we'll have Hal run the city then

I remember the movie Brazil being about a suffocatingly bureaucratic society where the protagonist's main task at work is holding the turf of his office against his neighbor, and where Robert DeNiro makes a living as a black market handyman. It's a clear condemnation of the socialist society. Maybe you're thinking of a different movie?

There's nothing scary about profit margins. It is the single most important foundation of our civilization. Without profit none of our advanced industries could exist. It is profit that determines what should be produced, and what means should be employed to produce it. Without profit we are blind. We cannot know the value of anything we do. That is why socialism doesn't work. Politicians make completely arbitrary decisions based on the current day's opinion polls, and there is conflict about everything, conflict that never ends.

Profit is what makes possible a decentralized, individualistic, dynamic economy. Without it we must have a command, dictatorial economy where the dictator makes ad hoc profit calculation and imposes them on everyone else. There is no middle way.

everyone can never get what they want, that's unrealistic - hence my anarchy statement

Wants are infinite, of course, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't get what they want within their means to procure it. Democracy does not allow this. Democracy imposes one solution on everyone, whatever their means or wants may be. The free market on the other hand competes for everyone's money and therefore provides specialized goods as close to what people want as can be realistically produced. It is therefore infinitely superior.

If that is anarchy, then perhaps anarchy is a better way to run things.

why do we need to determine value of a road, or a subway, or a park? isn't it enough of an indicator that people use these items, that their property values rise (which means "profits" for government) if they are adjacent to a park, are in a neighbrohood where the roadways and sidewalks are well maintained, that they are within walking distance form a subway - isn't that economic success by itself within the governmental structure? the property value system is our profit as government so by investing in these things, we are feeding our system

You clearly understand the need to calculate value as you do exactly so in this paragraph. The problem is that without a free market, the optimal value of these roads, subways and parks cannot be determined. The value of a good is what it can be sold for on the market. For example a company that builds a building for its headquarters will have its accountants evaluate what the capital value of this building is, and calculate the use of the building for its activities as an expense. That way if it turns out that the building is not really needed at all, or the cost is too high, the building will be sold and the company will re-arrange its activities. In that way a scarce resource, the building, will find itself in the hands of the most productive owner.

You clearly agree that profit-seeking is the appropriate method of organizing production, as you say that "the property value system is our profit as government." But the problem is that government does not seek profit! It is controlled by shifting political special interests. Since the politicians do not own the value of the property, they only temporarily control it, they will not seek to increase its value. They will seek to exploit it to their own ends. For example a leftist mayor will use the city's funds to provide school meals, shelters for the homeless or rent-subsidized apartments, and while this is happening critical infrastructure will decay and the value of the city will fall. That is why the roadways and sidewalks are not well maintained, that the crushing majority of cities do not have subways. The fortunes of the mayor will be improved at the expense of the city's total value, as privileged voters will re-elect him again and again despite his obvious incompetence at running the city. On the other side of the political spectrum a group of wealthy property owners can use the city to block the construction of "workforce housing" or "affordable housing" or any housing whatsoever, thus creating an artificial scarcity of housing and raising the value of their own homes at the expense of everyone else, especially the city. Democracy and politics gives them this power. The free market does not, thus the free market is the only just and fair system.

and your somments on education and social services are a baby with the bathwater argument - yes, they aren't working well, but is it accurate to throw them to the private sector to make it better? why not try fix what's wrong first? i'm not ready as a citizen to give up on these government services just yet

I am trying to fix what's wrong. What's wrong is the government itself. You can't fix it within the political process, because that's what causes the problem. Most people see the incompetence and corruption of the government and think that solving it is just a matter of reform and getting the right people elected to the right office. It isn't. The very fact that the system always needs reform so badly testifies that it cannot work. It is behaving exactly as the theory predicts it will. There's no need to get mad or donate money to any political party, or organize a petition, or a citizens' action committee, a weblog, a newsletter, a fundraising dinner. That is all pointless. You do not control the government. It is a machine that, once it gets going, follows its nature until it arrives at the disaster we have today.

We shouldn't have to be political activists. The extreme politicization of society demands more from citizens than they can realistically deliver. On the other hand the free market never needs reform, it is always and ever reforming itself to adapt to changing needs and situation. The free market never needs citizen pressure, it is always and ever seeking out the true preferences of people without their having to commit any effort. The free market is the only efficient, responsive and morally justifiable system.

[Lee Nellis]

jaws - I am curious. Have you ever actually owned a business (and I will specify a business on which your well-being depended - no hobbies for money allowed) and, thus, been the person responsible for making a "profit?"

[jaws]

jaws - I am curious. Have you ever actually owned a business (and I will specify a business on which your well-being depended - no hobbies for money allowed) and, thus, been the person responsible for making a "profit?"

I was shortly, not quite successfully. But suppose I wasn't. What difference does it make?

[Luca]

Yo, Jaws. What happens to a homeless person in a city where all property is private?

What happens if I own a house but not all the streets around it and the owner decides to raiuse the street access fee to 50 USD per day?

Private property of land makes sense only when embeded in a matrix of poublic ownership.

No national parks?

If the private owner of Federal Hall wants to tear it doiwn and repalce it with a huge slum tower for the thosuands that got kicked out of your private city, that's ok, is it?

[jaws]

Yo, Jaws. What happens to a homeless person in a city where all property is private?

Same thing that happens now, they would be homeless. The difference is that the private owner would want to hand them over to a shelter as quickly as possible so they wouldn't drive away the regular citizens, a problem that public cities tend to be unaware of and generally indirectly encourage.

What happens if I own a house but not all the streets around it and the owner decides to raiuse the street access fee to 50 USD per day?

Same thing that happens now, you suck it up and pay more. People get slapped with property tax increases all the time! Whole cities have been depopulated because people thought taxes were too high and fled to the suburbs. It took a long time for the idiots in charge to realize what had happened, and still they don't make tax rates competitive.

The private city offers a clear advantage to the homeowner in that it will actively try to lower its prices. The less it costs to live in the city with great amenities, the more people will be attracted to move there. The same thing will happen to a city that raises prices to 50 dollars a day for a house as would happen to a McDonalds that sold 50 dollar hamburgers. It will lose its clients and go bankrupt.

Private property of land makes sense only when embeded in a matrix of poublic ownership.

You could not prove that no matter how hard you tried. It doesn't even make sense as a proposition. What exactly is a matrix of public ownership? Do condominiums not make sense because they are not connected to the matrix of public ownership?

No national parks?

There exists plenty of private recreational parks of all types.

If the private owner of Federal Hall wants to tear it doiwn and repalce it with a huge slum tower for the thosuands that got kicked out of your private city, that's ok, is it?

Why would people get kicked out of the city? It's clearly the opposite of what the city needs. To increase its value the city needs to attract people. That huge slum tower could never compete with the better environment provided by the city, and would never be built.


You seem to be assuming in all of your propositions that the city is run by a raving lunatic out to harass everyone and ruin everything he has. That's the kind of behaviour I expect from a politician, but not from someone who has a substantial capital investment at stake.

[Gedunker]

I think the residents of a private city are customers, not citizens per se. Big difference in my opinion.

[Lee Nellis]

Just trying to determine how thoroughly out of touch with reality you really are.

[Luca]

Same thing that happens now, they would be homeless. The difference is that the private owner would want to hand them over to a shelter..

What shelter? All the cities are private. They're not goign tow astew money on shelters. they can't move the homeless 'on' beucase the other private alndowners sure don't want them. If this scenario actually exiosted i woudl expect soem sort of indentured servitude or icnarceratio to emerge. Only without appeal, trial, redress.

Same thing that happens now, you suck it up and pay more. People get slapped with property tax increases all the time! Whole cities have been depopulated because people thought taxes were too high and fled to the suburbs. It took a long time for the idiots in charge to realize what had happened, and still they don't make tax rates competitive.

Property tax increases tend to be gradual and you have electoral and judicial redress. A spivvy landlord could price you out of your house. What if the road's owner said that you are trespassing on his alnd unless you hand over half the equity in your house, how do you get to the grocery store? The idea of my house being mebdded in someone else's property where I can't come and go as I please is repugnant. No one but the most desperate would accede to it.

The same thing will happen to a city that raises prices to 50 dollars a day for a house as would happen to a McDonalds that sold 50 dollar hamburgers. It will lose its clients and go bankrupt.

I change places I eat every day. I cna't move every time the aldnlord gets greedier.

Do condominiums not make sense because they are not connected to the matrix of public ownership?

Not getting across. Just outside a condoi, it's public rpoperty (roads, etc.) Teh condo is private but you cna go from oen condo to the next without having to 'trespass' on private land.

There exists plenty of private recreational parks of all types.

Do you live in a parallel universe? There exist tawdry, mega-expensive purveyors of children's rides and fizzy drinks/choccky. Can you name soemthing likr yellostone or the mall in Washington taht is privtely operated? Thjere could be small green squares in VERY expensive neighborhoods. That's it.

You seem to be assuming in all of your propositions that the city is run by a raving lunatic out to harass everyone and ruin everything he has. That's the kind of behaviour I expect from a politician, but not from someone who has a substantial capital investment at stake.

No. I assume that a whole city owne by a poerson or coproration would be inclined to make the msot with the eleast, price gouge and exploit informationala symmetries and home-renter transaction costs to the hilt. Do slumlords not exost? Do you ahve any idea what life was like, int erms of property rights, when aristocrats owned all teh aldn in whcih a village was located? Can you iamgien extendign that to a whoel emtropolitan area?

* * * * * *
That said, private neighborhoods do and can exoist. Moreover, private buildings/houses are the norm and should be. I think the issue is one of sscale / granularity of alternatives/competition. Also, even within wholly owned development freedom of access/movement currently applies and you cna't be kept out of your house. But in your libertarian utopia/ Or would there still be courts? The landlord would have every interest in 'kicking' the courts out...can the cpourts FORCE the price of being present in this city "reasonable"? IS the olice force private or public?

[jaws]

I think the residents of a private city are customers, not citizens per se. Big difference in my opinion.

They live in the city, they are citizens. Just because they don't control how the roads are surfaced doesn't mean they don't have social organizations or institutions.

The government is not the same thing as society.

Just trying to determine how thoroughly out of touch with reality you really are.

Even if I were, you would still have to attempt a refutation of my ideas to prove that you aren't the one who is out of touch with reality. Attacking me makes no difference at all. The ideas stand unchallenged.

What shelter? All the cities are private. They're not goign tow astew money on shelters. they can't move the homeless 'on' beucase the other private alndowners sure don't want them. If this scenario actually exiosted i woudl expect soem sort of indentured servitude or icnarceratio to emerge. Only without appeal, trial, redress.

Are you sure you have studied economics? Providing shelters is clearly not the scope of a city's activities. It is charity, nothing more, just like providing soup kitchens, free clinics, youth sports, etc. The city does not have the skills to provide these goods, it must be left to other organizations. The division of labor is the reason we can achieve specialization and high productivity in a modern economy. It's shocking that you do not understand this.

Property tax increases tend to be gradual and you have electoral and judicial redress. A spivvy landlord could price you out of your house. What if the road's owner said that you are trespassing on his alnd unless you hand over half the equity in your house, how do you get to the grocery store? The idea of my house being mebdded in someone else's property where I can't come and go as I please is repugnant. No one but the most desperate would accede to it.

Firstly slow tax increases are no comfort to people who are priced out of their homes, which even if it happens slowly is a bad that democratic cities inflict on their citizens. The goal should be for lower prices, and only the private city can actively provide this.

Secondly, you are still assuming that the city will seek to harass its citizens in your scenario. Now just because this has been common practice for public cities does not mean that it is normal behavior for any city. Who will invest in a city that threatens and gouges its citizens? Absolutely nobody. It is against the city's direct interests to behave like this.

But suppose they did anyway, mistakenly. The consequence would be immediate public outrage. The city would get a clear signal that it has acted erroneously, and to preserve its interests it would not only have to stop this action but make restitutions to the people that were harmed. Only in this way would confidence be restored in its practices and future investment could be guaranteed.

Thirdly, you cannot come and go as you please from your house. You do not own the public roads. The government does. You have an infinitesimal say in the activities of this government, but if you do something on their roads that they deem innapropriate they will arrest you and jail you. How is this better than the situation in a private city? It's not, and in fact it's worse. The private owner cannot jail you, he can only expel you.

Do you live in a parallel universe? There exist tawdry, mega-expensive purveyors of children's rides and fizzy drinks/choccky. Can you name soemthing likr yellostone or the mall in Washington taht is privtely operated? Thjere could be small green squares in VERY expensive neighborhoods. That's it.

It's currently impossible for the private sector to capture the value from a site like the mall in Washington because of government interference, therefore the comparison is moot. I have personally been to many regional retreats that weren't Disney rides. They owned large land masses where activities such as skiing or even dog-sledding could take place over long distances. There is nothing stopping the free market from offering such large outdoor recreational parks. There is nothing proving that we need recreational parks the size of the national parks. For all we know most of them are completely wasted.

This has nothing to do with urbanism as such and I will not continue this discussion in this thread. If you are still curious, make another thread.

No. I assume that a whole city owne by a poerson or coproration would be inclined to make the msot with the eleast, price gouge and exploit informationala symmetries and home-renter transaction costs to the hilt. Do slumlords not exost? Do you ahve any idea what life was like, int erms of property rights, when aristocrats owned all teh aldn in whcih a village was located? Can you iamgien extendign that to a whoel emtropolitan area?

Please define exploiting information asymmetries and home-renter transaction costs. Please explain what is wrong with slumlords. Please explain how property rights under aristocratic regimes is a relevant issue to this topic.

I am seriously beggining to doubt how much economics you did learn if you are so confused about the nature of competition and information.

[michaelskis]

Every time I read this thread I am blown away at some of the agreements that are being made and others that are not being made.

Politics is everywhere... even within privately run corporations! It is all about doing something to influence how someone views a topic or individual, and the results that it will have on that particular topic. It is all around us. Started with the person who had the most influence in resource allocation when we were in a sandbox and goes all the way up to national policies.

Jaws... Can private cities work, not be in the way that you would like. They would be for limited extremely wealthy population who can afford to privatize everything. But even with that, you don’t fully have a true privatized system. Someone is always going to be the head of decision making and others are always going to influence those individuals to get what they want. It’s the way it works and as long as people have these freedoms including the freedom to come and go, it is the way that it will always be.

Here is a link listing many of the Private Communities in the United States. One thing that many of these have in common is that they are operated around a basic theme, are very expensive, and still have several political aspects about them... more so, they still have to answer to another larger municipal authority and are not sovereign from the county or city.