It's an idea that is suppressed by the government. The free market isn't stronger than the men with the guns. Do you think someone can just compete against the government in the age of regional planning and land use zoning?Originally posted by Wulf9
Leave my straw man alone!Ok, well, the first democracy was the short-lived Athenian democracy whose highlights include the killing of the greatest thinker of their age in the heat of mob anger, and getting defeated in war by the Spartans. So it's really not a good idea to be the first at something.
Yes, I think someone could put together the City you envision. There are many states that have minimal statewide land use controls, so cities don't have to start with zoning or a land use plan. Even here in California, where there are lots of controls, I think a clever person could do a private city as long as the sources of infrastructure are guaranteed.
You still have to compete with a system that funds itself through taxation, which only the ultra-wealthy can really afford to do.
Athenian democracy was also nothing like today's democracy. Athenian democracy was just common decisions made by vote. Today's democracy is rule by a permanent political elite rotated in and out of office by vote, and is descended from the monarchical state.
Last edited by jaws; 01 May 2006 at 10:36 PM.
Strictly speaking, we have never had "democracy." Democracy, by definition, is really only what you describe for Athens. We have a Republic, which is (pedantically speaking) different-and like your gloomy take on thbings.
If those in the public sector who are employed to serve the public will always act like servants, rather than masters, then the public i.e., private citizens will at least feel like they own the city (that might take an attitude adjustment in some cases - on both sides, to be sure). That is the intent of the law in American Democracy, isn't it? Would that make cities seem more like private cities? Then, all that is required to have private cities is that we go by the law. It is a matter of mutual -respect along with an understanding and a profound respect for the law especially the U.S. Constitution since it is the supreme law of the land - http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...stitution.html .
The power to tax and to regulate commerce was delegated to Congress. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If this were followed in practice, cities might be completely financed by the National government.
Although, by power of eminent domain States might raise revenue from the value of land, i.e., economic rent, which is not a tax in fact; but if you want to say it is a "land tax" then that would be another good and beneficial source of revenue for the National government that could be returned to State and Local government. The idea of the Constitution is to reduce the size of the bureaucracy engaged in tax collection; a national sales tax would eliminate the income tax and a vast bureaucracy, the IRS, instantly. That is the greatest burden on the minds of the people after all. How much simpler it would be if we only had to deal with our Congressional delegation in the matter; and a great deal of our privacy would be restored.
bud...
Last edited by bud; 02 May 2006 at 12:28 PM.
I don't disagree that enforcing the law on politicians is a good thing, but when it comes to urban planning I'm afraid the law is the problem, not the solution. As I've explained before only quantitative factors can be expressed through the law, and urbanism is a mostly qualitative discipline. The law is only going to make the environment worse, not better.
What law do you have in mind and why is it a problem? I find there are some laws or regulations or regulators (lawyers, et al) that tend to go contrary to higher laws; that is a problem - State and Local government should not tax or regulate commerce but they have the right to regulate land use by power of eminent domain and to collect revenue from it. Laws are intended to preserve and protect our liberty and enjoyment of life - that is guaranteed if we keep the law, even if we don't get everything we may desire.
In a true laissez-faire economy as it was understood by Jefferson and the Founders there would be no taxation of private property. The only legitimate source of revenue would be on consumption (the sales tax) and the value of land (“land tax” – economic rent). The effect of the land tax would be to make land more available or free for the taking for whoever could make it productive; the speculative practice of holding land merely to force up the price would be cost prohibitive. Isn’t that what you are looking for - free land or at least more available for development than it is now?
However, helter-skelter haphazard development is the problem concerning quality of life in cities. The law requires orderly, systematic and streamlined development; that has never been achieved. Can you imagine why? That has been the great unsolved problem of the profession; but as I have found, YHWH provides - http://www.geocities.com/douglas36601/pics.html . Let me draw you a picture.
bud...
Last edited by bud; 03 May 2006 at 12:25 PM.
The long list of regulations and codes that all municipalities and counties have. These codes attempt to create an environment quantitatively when it can only be done qualitatively. Qualitative regulation requires a lot of subjectivity on the part of the owner and therefore can't be made into law. Attempting to enforce qualitative legal terms would just result in a never-ending string of lawsuits.
A system based on law is called a bureaucracy, and it has a behavior very different from a system based on markets and exchange. This is economist Murray Rothbard on bureaucracy:
For it is in the nature of any governmental bureaucracy to live by a set of rules, and to impose those rules in a uniform and heavy-handed manner. If it did not do so, and the bureaucrat were to decide individual cases ad hoc, he would then be accused, and properly so, of not treating each taxpayer and citizen in an equal and uniform manner. He would be accused of discrimination and of fostering special privilege. Further*more, it is administratively more convenient for the bureaucrat to estab*lish uniform rules throughout his jurisdiction. In contrast to the private, profit-making business, the government bureaucrat is neither interested in efficiency nor in serving his customers to the best of his ability. Having no need to make profits and sheltered from the possibility of suffering losses, the bureaucrat can and does disregard the desires and demands of his consumer-customers. His major interest is in "not making waves," and this he accomplishes by even-handedly applying a uniform set of rules, regardless of how inapplicable they may be in any given case. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty
There's actually a vast number of examples of private cities in existence, when you think about it. They've even been in existence for a long long time. But they may not be human (at least not in the western world). Here's a fine example of one of the most impressive private cities in the world, the australian termite tower city:
http://savanna.ntu.edu.au/publicatio...e%20mounds.jpg
Moderator note:
Leeched image replaced with a URL.
User suspended 24 hours for image leeching.
Last edited by NHPlanner; 04 May 2006 at 3:00 PM.
Medical marijuana - staff permitting objection
Quote
